Archives

March 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – August 2007 September 2007 – July 2008 August 2008 – September 2009 September 2009 – current

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Minor thing I've noticed with some references I've used, the "page=" parameter is only showing the number, not "p. #". To illustrate:

• {{cite web |publisher=[[IGN]] |author=Shea, Cam |url=http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/954/954036p2.html |title=Street Fighter IV AU Review | page=2 |date=2009-02-12 |accessdate=2009-08-09}}

• Shea, Cam (2009-02-12). "Street Fighter IV AU Review". IGN. p. 2. Retrieved 2009-08-09.

Happens with "pages=" as well. Sorry if this is an already known about issue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as a result of the above fix there are now thousands of Wikipedia articles that have a double pp. i.e. "pp. pp." in the citation e.g. Impossible differential cryptanalysis which has as 'Further reading' entry "Eli Biham, ... pp. pp.186–194. ..." Is there a way the template could ignore any "pp"s in the pages= field (and "p"s in the page= field)? Diverman (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the database dump and found 924 pages with this problem. I plan to fix them using AWB, so that no change to the template would be necessary. Svick (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same problem? It doesn't look so resolved to me. I've been automatically "fixing" pages=pp. when I find it, but maybe that's what we need to make the template work. At least in this example from Henry Wells (general), "pages=pp." is necessary to get "pp." to show:

{{cite journal|first=General Sir James|last=Marshall-Cornwall|authorlink=James Marshall-Cornwall|title=Staff Officer 1914–1918|journal=War Monthly|issue=No. 42|pages=pp. 9–15|publisher=[[Marshall Cavendish]]|location=London|year=1977}}

Marshall-Cornwall, General Sir James (1977). "Staff Officer 1914–1918". War Monthly (No. 42). London: Marshall Cavendish: pp. 9–15. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help) Art LaPella (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean Art, the "cite journal" appears to work differently to the "cite web". I couldn't get the {{cite journal}} to auto-display the "pp." on the Henry Wells article, but {{cite web}} did work. I also got {{cite journal}} to auto-add the "pp." using an example based on the one at the start of this thread. In the three examples below I have used "|pages=9–15" in the template.

  cite web   -    Marshall-Cornwall, General Sir James (1977). "Staff Officer 1914–1918". War Monthly. London: Marshall Cavendish. pp. 9–15.

  cite journal - Marshall-Cornwall, General Sir James (1977). "Staff Officer 1914–1918". War Monthly. London: Marshall Cavendish: 9–15.

  cite journal - Shea, Cam (2009-02-12). "Street Fighter IV AU Review". IGN: 9–15. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Mabye a template guru can tell us why one {{cite journal}} auto-shows the "pp." and the other one doesn't. - Diverman (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked at source for {{cite journal}}. If any of |journal=, |periodical=, |magazine= or |work= is specified, the page number(s) are not preceded by "p." or "pp.". If all those four are absent, the "p." or "pp." is used. The way it's coded suggests a deliberate decision, rather than an accidental bug. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked at source for {{cite web}}. This, on the other hand, always uses the "p."/"pp." form regardless of the presence or absence of other parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am not sure why {{cite journal}} omits the "p." or "pp." prefix in some cases. I left a message on the talk page and proposed adding {{Page numbers}} to {{cite journal}}. {{Page numbers}} is designed for use in other templates. It attempts to detect whether the prefix has been supplied by the user. If not, it supplies the prefix. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Work" parameter seems to automatically italicize the entry, but not all applicable entries should be italicized, such as websites. This seems like a problem to me. Drewcifer (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no manual of style to indicate what output this template is to produce, how do you know websites should not be italicized? --Jc3s5h (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Use work when the publisher should be italicized (like citing the NY Times website or the like), otherwise use the publisher field which is not italicized. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The work is always the published medium, the publisher is the company doing the publishing. Work is italicised, publisher is not. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher and work are two different things, at least in the case of many websites. Allmusic, for example, is published by Macrovision. And you're right, there is no MOS about this template specifically, but there is an MOS about websites and that they shouldn't be italicized. Where it's at eludes me at the moment, but if you need proof I can try and dig it up. So, that said, any template that is meant to facilitate websites should have the ability to facilitate the website in the appropriate style, ie, not italicized. Drewcifer (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't disagree with regard to that, just pointing out to Collectonian that the two fields cannot and must not be used interchangeably. Since Cite web shouldn't be used to cite news stories that were printed in physical form (for example), I see no problem with removing the italics altogether from this template, speaking in broad terms. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the work parameter should be made devoid of the auto-italicising. Instead we can make the publisher as auto-bracketed like the way it is done for Cite news templates. Just a thought. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template does italicize the work entry automatically, but if you italicize the entry like this: work=Allmusic, it would appear in normal font in the reference section. For example reference #10 in the article "Live to Tell". Frcm1988 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Websites are not a "published medium" but generally a publisher of content. Makes sense to me. And not saying use them interchangeably, there are some web sources where you can and should use both. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 11:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Websites are most certainly published media..."published" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "printed". The website is never a publisher of content, merely the work that contains the content...there will always be an individual, company, or other entity behind that website. Two totally different things. If you can include both sets of data, then do so, but "work" is the only thing that really needed. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of what a website is, and a publisher is, is not made clear in the documentation (perhaps because there is no agreement on the meaning). In my mind, a website is a work; the medium is the World Wide Web. The publisher is a corporation, partnership, or individual. Unless you think Tron or The Matrix are non-fiction, publishers cannot exist in electronic form. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only worry with re-doing the template is that it would fail to be backwards compatible. ie, all of the instances where the "work" parameter should be italicized. I can't necessarily think of any examples, but I'm sure they exist. So instead, what if we just added an extra parameter: "website". It's more straightforwardly language-wise (calling the website the "work" always was a bit of a stretch, IMO), it would be un-italicized, and it wouldn't mess up all of the millions of times the template's already been used. Drewcifer (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed editor who posted at 17:01, 12 August 2009 UT, what is a website? --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. One too many tildes, though I've fixed it now. I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Go to website to find out more I guess. Or is this question leading somewhere? I'm very confused. Drewcifer (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website article indicates, and I agree, that a website is a collection of digital content that is addressed with a single domain name or IP address. It could be a work if it is under the creative control of a single entity. On the other hand, if the only thing the different components share is the address, then it does not qualify as a work. For example, home.comcast.com wouldn't qualify as a work because the component pages are independently created by the many subscribers to that ISP. On the other hand, Wikipedia (English version) is a single work. If there is to be a website parameter, there should be clear instructions about when to use it. In some cases, it would be redundant to give both a work parameter and a website parameter. Also, since a cite web citation will usually include a link, the website is indicated by the address, so isn't usually necessary. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're somewhat in agreement here. Adding a website parameter is not meant to replace the work parameter. And alternatively, they could of course be mis-used, like any parameter in any template. So of course clear instructions would be necessary to avoid misuse and redundancy. That said, the clear difference between what one would call a "work" and what one would call a "website" means we need to add or adjust something in the template. Drewcifer (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind pointing me to where it says that website names shouldn't be italicized? I can't find it. Goodraise 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) doesn't specifically address website titles, however websites do not fall under the list of italicizing and in most citation styles, website names are not italicized nor put in quotes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then it would seem that either (italicizing website names or not italicizing them) is acceptable under current guidelines. Personally, I don't care, but what I find disturbing is the upcoming practice of stuffing the website name into the publisher parameter of this template to avoid italicization. Is the only thing keeping us from adding a website parameter that we haven't decided on how the documentation should be updated? If so, how about this? Goodraise 04:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}} An edition parameter is needed, for online works that change over time but hold static materials that are being cited, and probably for some other cases. The field should only appear if the work parameter is used, and it should be formatted like, and have the same syntax as, the same field in Template:Cite book. Example:

<ref>{{Cite web
|title=What is Occam's Razor?
|first=Phil
|last=Gibbs
|year=1997 article in May, 2009 compilation
|work=Usenet Physics FAQ
|editor=Don Koks
|url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
|accessdate=August 17, 2009
}}</ref>

^{[a 1]}

would be much more elegant as:

<ref>{{Cite web
|title=What is Occam's Razor?
|first=Phil
|last=Gibbs
|year=1997
|work=Usenet Physics FAQ
|edition=May, 2009
|url=http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
|accessdate=August 17, 2009
}}</ref>

^{[a 2]}

Please note the differences:

• accessdate: When the editor saw the cited page.
• date, year, month: Relate to when the cited page or series of pages was/were published (i.e., usually proximal to the authorship date)
• archivedate: relates only to Archive.org, etc.
• edition: An open parameter in which any value may be inserted, e.g. "2009", "3rd", "revised", that relate to the larger work containing the cited page or series of pages. When used to provide a work-publication date, may be many years different from the date (or year / month) values.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it might be a good idea. But would you mind leaving it a few days to garner comments and obtain a consensus before placing the {{editprotected}} request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An edition parameter is definitely needed. Do you have the code for the change so we can slap the editprotected banner back on it? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}} There's been no objection, over 2 months later. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to place the required code on the sandbox version? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled for now, as no response and it seems the code is not yet written. If you can't do this yourself, you'll need to find someone familiar with these templates who can code it for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are cite-web-generated References list items being output with COinS spans? This makes no sense unless the resource might exist as a book or article in a periodical, something which cannot be specified in the template. Worse, everything is being designated as a book. This is limiting the value of COinS because a large percentage of the spans in the citation lists are now nonsense (corresponding to web-only content, designated as books). Hence this is also harming applications that use coins by making them look like buggy time-wasting junk.134.181.233.102 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.181.233.102 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009[reply]

Please sign your posts, by typing four tildes thus: ~~~~ --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season, this error message is displayed about 50 times: "Error: If you specify |archivedate=, you must also specify |archiveurl=." The thing is, they all already have that parameter. What should I do to fix this? Coemgenus 15:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a temporary error caused by a recent change that has since been reverted; try purging your cache and see if it works.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that worked. Coemgenus 15:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In History of Louisville, Kentucky, in reference #12, I'm seeing the error "Error: If you specify |archivedate=, you must also specify |archiveurl=", even though archiveurl is indeed specified. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone obviously changed something because I'm getting this error on archived stuff I know was fine yesterday. I suspect it may be {{Citation/core}} but I'm looking into it and hopefully it will be fixed soon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem. I posted it to the village pump, as well, to see if anyone there knows what's up. Coemgenus 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Amalthea#cite web etc.. Rettetast (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed, see for yourself. Nothing broke, just that it took a while to change to all the new templates. In the mean time, we had these messages. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit by Debresser (talk · contribs) changed all instances of (lower case) {{cite web}} to (upper case) {{Cite web}} in the documentation, with the cryptic comment "m using AWB". When I reverted, Debresser reinstalled the edit (along with a typo) with the summary "Restore Cite web with capital. That is the name of the template, and what it should be. Common or not is another matter. We are giving the official documenttation here. Not how to do it wrong." This edit summary is incorrect. First, there's nothing "wrong" with {{cite web}}; it is perfectly well supported, and it's easier for many editors to read when editing. Second, that part of the documentation is giving common formats in widespread use, not the official name of the template. The official name of the template is in big letters at the start of Template:Cite web, and this official name is unaffected by what goes into the documentation.

The documentation has been using (lower case) {{cite web}} ever since it was created in 2006. This should not be changed to the upper case form simply because of a personal preference that the upper case is what it "should be".

Debresser went on to install the same edit in many other instances of the documentation for {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] These edits, like this one, go against common usage of these macros. For now I am reverting these changes. I suggest that further discussion and consensus be done here before recommending such a change in common practice. Eubulides (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to my previous comment: another editor reverted one of the abovementioned changes before I got to it. Eubulides (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's discuss it. This is not a "big deal", since anyway the software recognises both.

The name of a template or article or any page for that matter is spelled with a capital in Wikipedia. I have seen many editors being carefull to keep this convention. I could mention User:SmackBot as one of the most well-known. I think it is only proper that we should strive to conformity in this. So while not being zealous about it, I think we should give the right example when drawing up documentation. Many documentation pages, and other pages including instructions concerning the use of templates indeed do so. I do not think it was proper for User:Eubulides to revert this minor improvement to Wikipedia on the grounds he mentioned. I'd therefore suggest that unless consensus here would indicate otherwise, we go back to the capitalised versions. Debresser (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this question involves quite a few documentation pages, of several citation templates, I put up a link to this discussion on each of them. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Eubulides was right to revert in the first instance - if we're changing this it should be discussed first. As far as I'm concerned both the uppercase and lowercase versions of the template name work exactly the same. I don't know why it matters which is used. Rjwilmsi 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Longstanding consensus on this page, and in related macros such as {{cite journal}}, is to use the template names without capitalization.
• The convention for capitalization differs among macros; for some macros, capitalization is more common. But that's OK: there's no need to insist on capitalization for all macros, or on lowercase for all macros.. User:SmackBot may capitalize some other macros, but it rightly does not capitalize {{cite web}}.
• I now see that Debresser made a similar change recently to the {{reflist}} documentation (here, which I just now reverted), but this (again) appears to be a personal preference rather than any consensus. Let's leave this documentation alone, please. There are some advantages to lowercase macro names here: for example, they make it easier for editors to focus on the text of the article (the more-important part) and to ignore the macro names (the less-important part). There is no need to insist on capitalizing the names when common practice is otherwise.
• It is worrisome that the capitalization edits were installed with uninformative edit summaries like "minor", as these edits were not minor, and they deserved better summaries.

Eubulides (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there is anything "major" about changing from lower to upper case! So stop making it look as though the "m" came to hide anything. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And they have been that way on reflist a whole month without anybody making a problem out of it. So I really object to you reverting these edits unless there would be a good reason. Which comes to exclude the claim of "consensus". This has never been discussed, so there is no consensus. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have seen you yourself all over these documentation pages for the last few months, and making edits without much of a consensus also. With edit summaries like "reordering", "improving"... Whom did you ask before you made all those tens of edits? So now you absolutely have to revert my capitals? Debresser (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is useful and is quite common, and that's what I was doing. It's less common to see the pattern that we've seen in {{cite web/doc}} and {{reflist/doc}}, where A does a bold edit to a longstanding version, B reverts, A reinstalls the edit, and then A complains that the edit is minor and that anyway there is no consensus so A's version should stay installed. Eubulides (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and agree. If there is a reason. But there is also something like not undoing a good faith edit without a good reason. That is what bothers me most here. You have made many edits that made me frown. And without much discussion, if at all. But I don't undo a fellow editor's edits without good reason. And this is what you do? To a perfectly acceptable minor edit? Debresser (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try not taking this personally. Your change, though it's only a single letter, potentially affects the actions of thousands of editors. So it's definitely worth of discussion and your edits worthy of reversion until we hash out a good solution here. Kellen^T 09:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I gave multiple good reasons (or, at least, reasons that I thought good :-) in the discussion above. First, the longstanding and stable tradition is lower case. Second, lower case allows editors to concentrate better on article text (the more-important stuff), and be less distracted by the template name (the less-important stuff). Eubulides (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template's name in the database begins with a capital letter, and therefore the "official name" begins with a capital letter. But this is due to a technical limitation in MediaWiki, so it's pretty clear that this was not a real choice by any editor, just a result of the environment in which we are working. It's also not wrong, as Debresser suggested in an edit summary, to use a lowercased template name for the same technical reason. There has been an implicit consensus regarding the names since the template documentation's creation; thousands of editors have used the templates and never felt it important/correct to change the names to uppercase. My personal preference is definitely for lowercased citation template names in their general usage, because I find this less distracting typographically. Kellen^T 09:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I used the word "wrong", that was wrong. :) Any user is free to use whatever style he pleases. I have great respect for that. I did not it appreciate when User:Eubulides started being possessive about these pages to the extent of following me around to revert minor changes. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment omits relevant chronology. Debresser installed the change here; I reverted with an edit summary saying why; in response, Debresser reinstalled the change and then went to ten other templates and installed similar changes there, marking them all minor.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how are you so sure I noticed your revert? Please don't be childish. "You were first!" "No, you were first!"... Debresser (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thought on this is that it is not worth the amount of discussion already expended on it, much less the degree of passion displayed. The templates work exactly the same either way, regardless of what the examples show in the documentation. This is beyond "minor", it's trivial. It isn't worth the effort to systematically change it in either direction. That includes following Debresser around just to revert his (unnecessary but not harmful) changes. If you are making some other real improvement to the documentation, and while you've got the edit window open you want to waste time converting the capitalization, then that's your call. It affects nothing except possibly pleasing or offending your own subjective aesthetic preferences. --RL0919 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trout slap to everyone for wasting so much time on a meaningless change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but the problem is that Debresser has now taken RL0919's comment as a strategy to change things back the way Debresser prefers it, and has recently installed unrelated changes to many pages of documentation, including in these edits changes uppercase all the template names,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] despite the obvious consensus here against the capitalized form and against this kind of change. This is continued imposition of a personal preference that differs from common usage, and it's quite counterproductive to make changes like this. Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may differ from the more prevalent usage, but it is common as well. And conformity is also important. Better have them all capitalsied then part lower part upper case.

The edits I made to those pages were important updates to explanations regarding archive parameters, based on the formulation worked out (with my help) in {{Cite web/doc}} months ago, and very relevant in view of my rich experience in the error category of broken citations. I did not make edits to other docpages where my edits had been reverted previously. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been in lowercase since the dawn of time and they are nearly always used in lowercase in articles. Keep them lowercase, otherwise it's just going to be even uglier in the edit windows. There's no reason to change them, so keep them as they were. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the dawn of time there was no Wikipedia either, so that argument is a "non-argument". But your opposition to upper case is duely noted. It's a matter of taste, probably. To me, I expect upper case after "{{" brackets, and find it esthetically satisfying. Debresser (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I expect to see a lowercase, as I imagine, most people would. And could you be less patronizing? It's pretty annoying. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is my style. I am not even aware of it. So you'll just have to put up with that. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment, and there is consensus (with the notable exception of Debresser) that these should be left alone, so I changed them back to the longstanding state. WP:RETAIN seems appropriate here. Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for enforcing the consensus. You are precisely the type of non-involved editor who should be doing that. And what about the consensus that this is not worth an edit? It is very hypocrite, to pick from consensus just those parts that you like, and ignore those that you don't. Well, people are know by their deeds. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template documentation looks like it violates WP:MOSNUM, which says that YYYY-MM-DD date formats should not be used. Shouldn't it be updated to conform to the guideline? Timmeh 03:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates. Good luck with that. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should, and in practice instances generally are, but as noted, there is no consensus one way or the other, basically leaving it up to the individual editors of specific articles to decide, in the end. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM does not say that YYYY-MM-DD date formats should not be used in citations. It says only that the format shouldn't be used in prose. It's quite common for the format to be used in citations. Eubulides (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it is an ambiguous and unclear format which should not be used anywhere. Debresser (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we take this debate back to Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates and thus keep it in one place? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Why not make this template format the date given in the accessdate parameter according to the user preferences, as is done for {{date}}? That might satisfy more people than the current situation. I looked at the Mosnum proposal but quickly ran back here. -84user (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do would be to encourage the use of one format for consistency, either the mdy or dmy format, unless there is a good reason not to. Using the iso format introduces ambiguity as to the date and month that should really be discouraged. Timmeh 23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this back to Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates and avoid WP:CFORK --Redrose64 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the massive RfC to abandon date-linking and autoformatting, this function -which existed within the template and which converted ISO dates to dmy or mdy according to users' preferences - was switched off. Having it autoformat again is a retrograde step. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Oh. Or Redrose. Or Timmeh, so that the footnote format can be consistent w/the format in the body of the article. But definitely not with forcing an all-numerical format, as it increases ambiguity.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not violate MOSNUM, which states "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences". Clearly citation templates are not encompassed by that. As pointed out by others, a general proposal which would have included citations was recently discussed and dismissed. I see no value in having a repeat of that, and the discussions that preceded it, here. _wjemather^bigissue 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cite template double period bug is among the most frequent typos on Wikipedia. I collected some examples here. It affects about 45,000 articles (1 1/2% of a random sample of all 3 million), and about 23% of the most frequently read articles (presumably because they are longer and better referenced). Since I can't get anyone to fix the template or write a bot, I hope to use my WP:AWB edits to fight this problem at the same time I do Manual of Style edits. 45,000 is too many articles to fix one at a time, even with AWB, but perhaps I can fix the most frequently encountered examples of the problem that way. The problem affects Cite Web, Cite Book, Cite News, Cite Press Release, Cite Journal, and Cite Encyclopedia, so it probably affects all the cite templates.

Sometimes the template adds an extra period; sometimes it doesn't. So I can't tell AWB to remove any period from the end of any cite template field, because that would remove correct single periods along with removing one of a pair of duplicate periods. It's easy to say I should use AWB preview for every cite template change, but that removes most of the reason to use AWB. So I collected my list of examples, experimented with it, and looked for a pattern. The pattern is that when the displayed version of the template adds a parenthesis or other punctuation, it doesn't add an extra period to go with it. Unfortunately, AWB reads the coded parameters, not the displayed finished product. I think the pattern goes like this, at least for the most frequently encountered versions of this bug:

publisher= should almost never end with a period. However, for cite press release and cite journal, which lack the first= parameter, the final period should not be removed if there is a (non-blank) date= parameter.

first= The final period shouldn't be removed if there is a non-blank date= or a year= parameter.

Similarly, author= and coauthors= should keep their final period (if any) if there is a date= or year= parameter.

title=, accessdate=, isbn=, page=, pages=, editor=, editor2-first=, and encyclopedia= should have any final period removed.

location=, last=, edition=, and editor1-first= should be left alone.

year= is unlikely to end with a period, but if it does, it will be duplicated if there is a month= parameter, and not otherwise. month= should be left alone, assuming there is a year= to go with it.

journal= should be left alone unless volume= and issue= are both missing.

So is that about right? Art LaPella (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been going on for some time at Template talk:Citation#Full stop at the end of the template 2 which might affect the above. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has been stuck for a while now. Because of a few whiners. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather long discussion below, but the dispute here seems to revolve around differing interpretations of the name for a couple of parameters. One possible solution is to either add a "Website" parameter, or to rename one of the existing "Work" or "Publisher" parameters to become "Website". Another solution is to (re)revert the documentation page back to it's original state, prior to the undiscussed and unadvertised change made to it in August. The other option is to do nothing, leaving the change made in August as "live".
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a change which was made to the documentation this last August. The main reason for the reversion is that such a change is actively causing confusion among editors. This prescriptive advice is not something that I see as being constructive to the encyclopedia either, especially considering the predominance of existing dissimilar usage patterns. We should have a conversation about such a change before implementing it, at the very least.

Personally, I find the existence of the two parameters in question to be confusing and constraining. If I had my way I would pick one term and add multiple instances of it in the same manner that author name parameters do (for ex: work, work1, work2, work3, etc..., although I would likely use "publisher"). There have been cases where I wished for at least one more similar field, and I think that somewhat permanently diffusing this potential confusion/conflict would certainly be a good thing.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about cite web is that just about anything can be put on the web, including journals, books, TV shows, and movies. Thus, the cite web template needs the flexibility of cite journal, cite book, cite video, and almost all the rest. The title parameter is the title of the smallest information unit that

• has a title
• contains all the information needed to support the claim.

That might be a journal article, a TV episode, a book in a series of books, etc. In order to locate the source or understand its context, it might be useful to give the title of the next-higher information unit. That is what the work parameter is for.

Examples:

• title=Transaction Security System| work=IBM Systems Journal
• title=The Two Towers| work=The Lord of the Rings
• title=Once More, with Feeling| work=Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Jc3s5h (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I'd like to see the two parameters be more deeply structured, actually. Having a variable number of publisher/work parameters, and making there usage seem less constrained, seems very useful when it comes to web references. The web largely just isn't as structured as books or journals, and there are many instances of for example: XYZ.com domain, hosting FOO publication, which is re-publishing BAR content on their cite. More directly relevant here though is that perscriptive instructions that either the work/publisher parameter are specifically for or specifically not to be used for certain things (such as "don't put website.com in the publisher= parameter) are way to constrictive.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources is the epitome of an encyclopedia.

The word source, as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press) (WP:V#Notes)

From that quote work is a cited work piece, a referent freelance author's work, or a publisher's referent employment work.

In WP:CITE and WP:V and WP:LAYOUT and WP:WORKS, work consistently means human effort, whether written, or sounded or formed out, in arts or sciences, whether completed or ongoing, or whether by an individual or their employer.

The key to my attempt at understanding publisher V.S. work fields here is who is employing who. In order to need the publisher field, a freelance author employs a publisher, and we use the publisher field. In the confusing case where the publisher employs the author the publisher is the work, and the publisher field remains blank. Confusion arises when the employer is a publisher or the employee is a self-publisher. A self-publisher is not really published in the traditional and more reliable sense, but hosted. Still we use the publisher field as we would for a professional freelance author.

The template doc should read something like:

• work: If this referent is part of a larger work, such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. If the publisher is an employer of the author, use this work field instead of the publisher field. Consider the lookup tool whois to find the work for the URL.
• publisher: If the publisher does not employ the author of the work, for example, if the website is hosted cite the host as a publisher. If the publisher is also the author's employer, use the work field instead and leave this blank. Consider the lookup tool whois to find the publisher for the URL.

— CpiralCpiral 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cprial is putting the cart before the horse. The title is the title of the material that is being cited (because it supports the claim in the Wikipedia article). The publisher is the publisher of that material. If the material is part of a larger work, the title of the larger work goes in the work parameter. If you don't like that meaning of work, the solution would be to rename the parameter to something better, not to cloud the meaning of publisher. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I'm reversing things in the hope that it might be the eventual way out of the confusion the other voices express concerning the two fields work and publisher. You seem content to shoo the thing off and just say "The publisher is the publisher of that material", but per the (two) reversions explanation, the publisher field is not used for publishers who employ the author. — CpiralCpiral 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "per the (two) reversions explanation" means, but the author is the person (or group) who actually creates the information, and the publisher is responsible for getting out to the public. Who employs who is irrelevant. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation actually highlights the main issue that I have with the proposed addition to the documentation. We can't even agree among the few of us here what exactly defines a "work" and what defines a "publisher". That distinction is quickly becoming less important in the world for the simple fact that either can be relevant when discussing a website. That's why I was actually suggesting a less structured approach, above.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors need to be directed at an example, consider the following:

• {{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty |title=Han Dynasty|work=Wikipedia|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation, Inc}}

There now. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

humm... I tend to agree that using both parameters is some form of an ideal, but the reality of usage is that the vast majority of users don't use the parameters in that manner. Pick any random article that uses {{cite web}} and you're more likely then not to see editors preferring one parameter over another (I happen to prefer the "publisher" param in most cases, since it's meaning is clear, but many others seem to prefer "work"). If the 173 or so people here want to attempt to create a Wikipedia wide cassus belli to edit war over how this template is used then I can't stop you, but I don't think that this is a particularly constructive issue to argue over.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great example. It really says it all concerning the use of the fields work and publisher when the work is named slightly differently from the publisher. The reality of trying to document, every situation is futile. One simply "gets it" when one arrives upon the scene of a situation and takes an intelligent action. Thank you for that example. — CpiralCpiral

This conversation started because two separate editors tried to make the same improvement to the text describing the fields work and publisher. These two fields are closely related. Ohm reverted them both citing a "don't use the publisher field" type of argument, but the weakness of that reasoning was brilliantly illuminated by the work/publisher = Wikipedia/WikiMedia example. The problem, as Ohm points out, is many editors misuse these two fields, and they make the wrong edits describing these two fields, saying "use whois to get information", (which is really, in my opinion a good idea&mdasl;info, you know), and "The publisher is not usually the name of the website (that is usually the work)." (which, in my opinion is not very lucid).

I propose we reach a consensus on some new wording for these two fields in an effort to solve field purpose issues. Certainly we should start by first considering the possibility that the existing field names make sense, albeit esoteric, when they are documented and explained well enough? There is no limit on the size of the words explaining either field. These fields are difficult to document. (See the deceptively simple field editor in Template:Cite_book/doc#Description.) The work and publish fields of template:cite web fields are poorly documented. Summarizing my earlier writing I think the word employ should be employed because since the word source can have three different meanings, all related to work, and work can also have different meanings, including a relationship to employ. — CpiralCpiral 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V states a source can mean the author, the work, or the publisher. These are captured in the Cite web template in the author, title, or publisher parameters respectively. In exceptional cases, there may be a work-within-a-work, in which case title is used to name the smaller work and work is used to name the containing work. While the word "work" can be used in the sense "As of 1996, T. R. Bednar worked for IBM", that would not affect how the article he coauthored would be cited:

• {{cite web| url = http://domino.research.ibm.com/tchjr/journalindex.nsf/4ac37cf0bdc4dd6a85256547004d47e1/905766d989ef415d85256bfa0067fc27?OpenDocument |author = Bednar, T.R. |coauthors = Piro, R.A.; Stout, D.W.; Wissel, L.; and Zuchowski, P.S. | title=Technology-migratable ASIC library design |work=IBM Journal of Research and Development |publisher=IBM |date = June 1996 |url=http://domino.research.ibm.com/tchjr/journalindex.nsf/4ac37cf0bdc4dd6a85256547004d47e1/905766d989ef415d85256bfa0067fc27?OpenDocument}}

which renders as

• Bednar, T.R. (June 1996). "Technology-migratable ASIC library design". IBM Journal of Research and Development. IBM. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

If I were to cite another article in the same issue, where none of the authors worked for IBM, the citation would follow the same pattern. There would be no change to the work or publisher fields. So I just don't see how the employment relationship between the publisher and the author would change anything.

By the way, the publisher is not usually stated when citing journals, so the publisher field could be omitted. Also, {{Cite journal}} would be a better template to use in this case.

Jc3s5h (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jc3s5h, thank you for talking about my proposal to include the concept "employ" when trying to remedy the misunderstanding of the two fields "publisher" and "work". There is a problem with those two fields, as attested by veterans Collectonian and Debresser, who spend most of there efforts wikignoming to improve Wikipedia. The WP:TPG wisely recommends keeping posts to 100 words or less. I will start another section "The employment concept in Publisher and Word fields". When I do, I hope to see you there. This discussion is approaching the 30[kB] limit. It's now at 27.5 [kB].— CpiralCpiral 21:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I'm restoring part of the text. It is very important that these citation templates all be as consistent as possible, or fewer and fewer editors will continue to use them (or ever learn to use them) as they continue to grow in complexity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-reverted it back to the original text until we've finished this discussion. Let's not edit war over the text, especially since there seems to be some interest in discussing this. Now I need to catch up on the rest of this discussion...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All in good time. Please allow our discussion to produce enough steam for a bold brew. :-P Ohm. — CpiralCpiral 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think SMcCandlish did the right thing. "Hail" to this discussion, but that is no reason to remove that important and relevant part of information. Debresser (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent again) Re: "Revert (again). How about we finish the discussion on the talk page before edit warring over this?" (edit summary from Ohms law (talk · contribs)):

A: Several months is more than enough time. Per WP:BOLD, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:CONSENSUS, etc., productive, good faith editing is not to be held up by a "lone ranger" objector. There is no active controversy about the specific wording I restored, there is simply User:Ohms law reverting without fully understanding. This appears to be a knee-jerk "don't edit this!!!" reaction, which is a bit too WP:OWNish for my tastes...

B: There is nothing at all even potentially controversial about the part I restored. (I really don't care about the part that I did not restore, nor do I see how anyone could find it objectionable enough to have reversion fit about it, but oh well, whatever.) The part I did restore is plain and 100% factual. Some boneheads simply do not understand how the citation templates work, nor grok that the application of these templates must be consistent and sane, nor clue in to the fact that one cannot willy-nilly re-purpose p[arameters that already have particular, defined meanings across this entire family of templates. My one-sentence parenthetical addition helps fix that, at least with regard to one very frequently misused parameter in this particular template.

I really don't care to argue about this any further, and won't bother watching this discussion very closely. I generally trust that reason will prevail. If it didn't WP would already have collapsed under the weight of its own bullshit, yet it is going strong. If someone demands my further attention here, you know where to find me. :-)

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to be really aggravating. I think that this is a great topic to have a discussion about, and it's something that I've wanted to bring up for quite a while. This simply does not seem like the best solution to what I think we both agree is a problem, is all. I'd love to come up with a solution that satisfies everyone.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing worth discussing. work (which is sometimes renamed, e.g. journal) and publisher (which isn't), have consistent definitions across this entire family of templates. To wit, work and its synomyms means a publication or presented work, in one medium or another, such as a book, magazine, TV show, blog, whatever. A publisher is the business entity that produced it, be that Hougton-Mifflin, New York Times Company, eBay Inc., self, or whatever. Very simple, very stable, very moot to argue about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good example. I would add that to the present text, without deleting any part of it. First comes the explanation in words, then the example. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, why disable the internal link? We don't usually do that in documentation pages. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at my previous version - something has acted to take part of the |title= field and make that part of the URL; the arrowed box went in between "Han" and "Dynasty". If you click it, it throws a "Bad title" error.

You'll also notice that I left |location= out... that is because I'm unsure whether to put "San Francisco, CA" or "Los Angeles, CA". See foundation:Contact us - which address is relevant? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that is less important and can be left out. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with {{Cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty%7Ctitle=Han Dynasty|work=Wikipedia|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation, Inc}}? Debresser (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange. I'll ask some people to have a look at this. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The MediaWiki parser happened. URL detection happens pretty late, after all templates are expanded, and it just includes everything it finds and accepts as URL characters. You'll have to trick it, by using e.g.
{{Tlx |Cite web |url{{=}}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty<i/> | title{{=}}Han Dynasty |work{{=}}Wikipedia |publisher{{=}}Wikimedia Foundation, Inc}}
→ {{Cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty|title=Han Dynasty|work=Wikipedia|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation, Inc}}.
Amalthea 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of sectioned this off from the conversation above because, frankly, I'm somewhat confused about what you guys are talking about. I don't think that there's anything wrong with the example, but... it's also somewhat contrived to fit the desired mold of an ideal reference. There are many websites that decidedly do not fit well with this. Websites where they may be re-publishing others materiel is one good example. Regardless of that though, this seems to be going off on a slight tangent, talking about links and the location parameter.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to demonstrate that a website could have both a |work= and a |publisher=, and that those could be different. My demonstration kind of fell over, so I amended it (diff here). To see the effect pre my amendment, try clicking the URL in Debresser's 12:26, 20 November 2009 edit.

The |location= is just another parameter which goes with the |publisher=: see {{cite book}} where it's more commonly found. All publishers must have an address; it's somewhere to serve libel writs, if nothing else. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the diff makes things much clearer. Thanks. I do understand the point with location, but I actually think that it highlights well the reason that there are different templates and that the instructions are different. It's not even nearly as clear cut, in the case of websites, who the publisher/work is (if their different at all) and what location is really relevent, as compared to book/magazine/physical publishing. "Real" publishing is much more structured then web publishing is, so I don't see how attempting to shoehorn the less structured web publishing paradigm into the physical publishing paradigm is really helpful.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, more eyeballs could only help.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite web |url=http://example.org}}

{{#if:{{{Periodical|}}}||"}}{{Citation/make link

}}{{#if:{{{Periodical|}}}||"}}