Wikipedia talk:Citation templates/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Citation templates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I'd like to see a template to promote greater consistency in citations of Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey documentation.

HABS/HAER/HALS documentation:

• is notable in that tens of thousands of structures in the United States have been recorded since HABS was established during the Great Depression
• is unique in that it is produced by the U.S. National Park Service, an agency of the U.S. executive branch, but archived by the legislative branch, i.e., the Library of Congress
• is readily available online, e.g., HAER PA-500, "Big Conestoga Creek Bridge No. 12"
• is cited in many existing articles, e.g., Bridge in West Earl Township
• has a unique citation format, e.g., Historic American Engineering Record (2010). "Guidelines for Historical Reports" (PDF). p. 24.

I'm not suggesting that we follow the HAER guidelines cited above, but the following information seems critical for a template:

• The historian's name
• The name of the structure (as given by HABS/HAER/HALS, possibly different from the Wikipedia article title)
• The HABS/HAER/HALS record number, typically the 2-digit state abbreviation followed by a dash and a number
• The Library of Congress permalink (under Bookmark This Record: in the LoC catalog record)
• The year in which the documentation was compiled
• An optional page reference within the documentation

This template is needed because existing citations to HABS/HAER/HALS documentation are all over the place in terms of information included. For lack of a template, I'm at least partially responsible for some of the following inconsistencies:

• Some include a wikilink to Historic American Buildings Survey, the current master article
• Some apply Template:Cite web, e.g., Bluff Dale Suspension Bridge, but this doesn't provide a complete citation
• Some mention the Library of Congress, e.g., Pecos River High Bridge
• Some mention the LoC reproduction number, e.g., Manchester Bridge (Pittsburgh)
• Coraopolis_Bridge#External_links is an example of extreme inconsistency (not mine!)

What do you think? Should this be added to Template:Cite or have its own template, like Template:Structurae? Martindelaware (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC: Use "Vol.", "pp.", etc. consistently between citation templates, instead of ambiguous formatting like "9 (4): 7". The talk page at Help talk:Citation style 1 is where the discussion about most of our citation templates is centralized. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Journal of Ornithology will soon publish a study that claims to have discovered why Stresemann's Bushcrow has such an odd distribution. They have published this paper online first and will later physically publish it. How should I cite this paper? I am assuming I should use the normal journal template and fill in the hard copy information such as page numbers when it becomes available, but wanted to make certain. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, though I am not an expert in these matters. -- Alarics (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What does everyone think of including {{subscription required}} as an optional parameter on all of the templates? I just got a Highbeam account as part of Wikipedia:HighBeam and will be including links to the website, but it seems like it'd be a generally useful thing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely support this. It's much cleaner than using {subscription required} or manually inserting a (subscription required) note. As someone who's brought new attention to paywalled sources, I want to make sure that they are appropriately and easily tagged as such. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We have kept the citation templates fairly clean of extraneous HTML. There is also a proposal to add {{open access}} which gives at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Open access. {{subscription required}} will inject extra CSS styling into the HTML output. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the added value of having {{subscription required}} or {{registration required}} templates versus a parameter that puts in simple text (i.e. instead of (subscription required), | subscription = yes produces (subscription required)). I'm not sure if that would address the html issue or not, templates with syntax confuse me! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The added value of separate templates is their trackability (What links here). E.g. a new parameter |subscription= wouldn't allow to locate those articles which require subscription the way Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Subscription required does. If this is useful data, such a parameter should not be added. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Both {{registration required}} and {{subscription required}} have tracking categories.

This sort of info is not central to the citation. I suggest we create an addon template {{citation/addon}} that would place this sort of info after the core citation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

When I cite a press release, is the Publisher the organization issuing the release, or the website which publishes the release online?--Chimino (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The organization issuing it is how I do it. Any website hosting it is just a courtesy link. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely the organisation that is the subject of the release, even if it was published on behalf of that organisation by some other body, typically a public relations agency. -- Alarics (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the "chapter" field displays only the bare number in quotations. Here is an example:-

^[1]

Can this be changed to say "Chapter 89"? Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am against that. That field is usually for a chapter with a title, and is most often for a short work in a collection or anthology. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The chapter field is used to indicate separately authored chapters in edited collections of works. (Does nobody read Chicago Manual of Style anymore?) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also had to use it for documents that are published online with each chapter in a separate file (environmental impact studies from state departments of transportation are notorious for this practice), and in those cases, I've specified the full chapter name, not just the number, "III. Alternatives" or "Chapter 8: Transportation, for instance. Perhaps you should spell out more of the chapter name if you're going to include that? Imzadi 1979 → 11:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of to include a chapter number is if there are no page numbers— such as some technical manuals or eBooks. Regardless, automatically adding "chapter" to the field is not a good idea. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite so: for example: a "chapter" might actually be headed Preface, Foreword, Introduction, Appendix A, etc.; even the "real" chapters might be called something else, like Section 1 or Topic 1. It's a good idea to use chapter names where the pagination changes substantially, the copyright page is scanty and there is no ISBN available to pin down the specific edition. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've thought of another reason. If the book is available online in its entirety, not as a single web page but broken down by chapters, and you draw information from two different chapters in that book, you need two {{cite book}} - one for each URL. It then makes sense to use |chapterurl= instead of |url= for the web page; and to do this, it's necessary to supply a |chapter= to hold the link. See for example ref 1 and ref 5 in The Web of Fear. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Upon reflection, if you are using it as an alternative to a page number, then is should go in the |at= field so it is not placed in quotes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What is Wikimedia policy about providing links to URLs only, as described in Template:URL and Template:PDFlink? I thought I had seen notices that such practices were deprecated, presumably because it can be practically impossible to do anything with a broken link if that's all that is provided. I wonder if these other pages should recommend providing more information, as provided with this Wikipedia:Citation templates page. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much covered by Wikipedia:Embedded citations, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Bare URLs. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How could we structure citations for music performance, music scores or music recordings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Dupriez (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Performances are not reliable sources, because they're ephemeral. You could cite a video of a performance using {{cite video}} (or doing the same sort of thing by hand), though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with poor or mangled citations is a perennial problem on Wikipedia and anything that can be done to provide help to users to quickly find and select relevant help on how to reference and cite outside Wikipedia can only help improve the quality of referencing and citing generally.

I suggest it would be helpful to have a launch page as an index of the available resources, something like what is shown here in the quote box...

I am sure an index such as this that is easily found would help many users to locate the appropriate level and type of resource they need.

Comments or feedback?
Enquire (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

See the {{Wikipedia referencing}} navbox. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd skip the refbegin/refend stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The current list of default options for video resources should be enhanced. There should be far more options due to the vast array of types of videos out there for use as a source. For example, when citing a segment of a television news program, there should be options similar to those for a news article, including: title of the segment (in addition to the show or series title); lead reporter (if different from the main host of the show); URL and access date for archive of the news clip; etc. Girona7 (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For a news program, what is missing from {{cite news}} or {{cite video}}? Do you have an example citation? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to these citation templates, is there a switch you can put in so that only author1 is alphabetized? Based off some other academic citation styles, in my manual (non-template) citations I alphabetize only the first author. For instance: Smith, Amy and Carol Jones....

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to vary the order of lastname/firstname, you will need to use the |authorn= parameters instead of |lastn=|firstn= for all those where you don't want lastname to be shown first, as in |last1=Smith |first1=Amy |author2=Carol Jones

Bear in mind that if ref styles such as Harvard referencing or Shortened footnotes are in use, this will break the linking between short note and full citation. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I usually just do bare code instead of citation templates but it's good to know in case there's a demand for citation templates in a particular article. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE don't use "Smith, Amy and Carol Jones..." It is absolutely illogical and looks awful and silly. What is wrong with "Smith, Amy; Jones, Carol ...."? That's what I always change it to anyway, whenever I come across that particular abomination. I know different people prefer different styles, but honestly, there are limits. -- Alarics (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alarics: The "Smith, Amy and Carol Jones" is used in MLA-style citations. This guide uses, as an example: "Russell, Tony, Allen Brizee, and Elizabeth Angeli." - The MLA format is used in certain academic papers in the United States. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like by 'alphabetize' you mean change the order of the names from last, first to first last. The Citation Style 1 templates form a style, and that style uses last, first. You can certainly propose a new style, but please don't try to kludge CS1 templates into something out of the defined style. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I've read the "style" of citation to use depends on what style is already in use in a certain article. As pointed above the "Smith, Amy and Carol Jones" format is used in MLA citations. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is perfectly fine, but I am not aware that there are any MLA templates. --  Gadget850 ^talk 23:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think about just doing manual references (is sooo much faster than the typing into the equals parameters or the toobar, once you just know a format and rock it a lot).

What style approximates the cite templates closest? I had heard AP?

TCO (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean APA style? I'd agree, the templates seem closer to that style than any other. The most obvious differences I've noticed:

• APA always uses parenthetical referencing; cite templates can, but are more often used as footnotes by means of <ref> tags.
• When citing an article in a journal, or a chapter in a book, cite templates put double quotes around the article or chapter title, and is mum about how to capitalize the title. APA doesn't put double quotes; the chapter or article title is in ordinary roman type. Also, the title is capitalized with sentence case, similar to headings in Wikipedia articles.
• Author names use initials for first and middle names; citation templates are mum about whether to initialize first and middle names.
• An RFC has received consensus to change Citation Style 1 templates to treat the case of no authors listed in a similar manner to APA, but this RFC has not been implemented by developers.

If you are starting a new article, and you want to use the printed style guide closest to citation templates, I would follow the printed style guide faithfully, rather than trying to create your own that is a mixture of both. That way, when someone adds a different kind of source from what you have added, they will have a place to look to see how to do it. I would also suggest writing what style guide you are following as an HTML comment tag at the top of the citation section. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems some parameters have stopped working in the citation at James Herbert#cite note-10. I added some content to the article in March and this citation was present then, so I was wondering if something had happened to these template parameters in the Lua transfer? I imagine being able to cite supplements is important for newspapers; lots of papers have them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Cite news}} has never supported parameters like |startpage=10 |supp=yes |notarchive=yes. The difference is that the new version gives an error when unsupported parameters are included.

Cite news comparison

Wikitext	{{cite news|accessdate=11 June 2011|date=12 June 2010|issue=59446|notarchive=yes|startpage=10|supp=yes|title=Birthday Honours—United Kingdom|url=http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59446/supplements/10|work=[[London Gazette]]}}
Live	"Birthday Honours—United Kingdom". London Gazette. No. 59446. 12 June 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |notarchive= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |startpage= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |supp= ignored (help)
Sandbox	"Birthday Honours—United Kingdom". London Gazette. No. 59446. 12 June 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |notarchive= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |startpage= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |supp= ignored (help)

What are you trying to do here? --  Gadget850 ^talk 05:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to do anything personally, I just noticed the cite errors. However, the editor who added that is clearly trying to cite a supplement to the main paper, so how do we cite a supplement? Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha. Looking at the URL, this is for the London Gazette. {{London Gazette}} does support those parameters, which isw what the original editor probably meant to use. --  Gadget850 ^talk 07:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That explains it! I've switched the templates so all is well. Thanks for your help. Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I made a further tweak, because {{London Gazette}} takes very few parameters (compared to {{cite news}}), and some of them - such as |notarchive=yes - will put the page into Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

For the case of publications that don't have a special template devoted to them, I would use the at instead of page, for example "...| at = Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac 1984, p. 88 |..." Jc3s5h (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The point about {{London Gazette}} is that given just three or four short parameters - such as |issue=59446 |date=12 June 2010 |startpage=10 |supp=yes - it can construct a URL which takes you to the exact page. Where it lacks is that there is no provision for an article title - which in this case is superfluous, because the supplement to issue 59446 contains just one article (spanning 27 pages). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest |at= before I remembered {{London Gazette}}, which was the obvious intent. --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)--  Gadget850 ^talk 14:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit, partly because it makes the page far too wide, but mainly because:

• these are not templates with the same general purpose as {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, etc. but have much more in common with Shortened footnotes and the templates in the {{harvnb}} family (when not used for parenthetical referencing)
• the templates {{rtr}} and {{srs}} seem to be rewrites of some of the techniques that have been obsolete for years
• {{srs}} is redundant to {{wikicite}}

Please discuss before re-adding. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITEHOW, "Books", states "Citations for individually authored chapters in books typically include... name of author... name of the book's editor." However Wikipedia:Citet#Examples, "book" does not include a field for "editor". Trying the "editor" field creates "In <editorname>".

Example:-

^[1]

Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost all of the WP:CS1 templates recognise |editor= and similar parameters, {{cite book}} is no exception. The syntax is virtually identical, as is the output.

• {{cite book}} → Horn, L (2012). "Chapter 89". In Fauci (ed.). Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-174889-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• {{cite journal}} → Horn, L (2012). Fauci (ed.). "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine" (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-174889-X. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• {{cite web}} → Horn, L (2012). Fauci (ed.). "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine" (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-174889-X. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Documentation is at Template:Cite book#Editors. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. However it does not explain why the "editor" field is not listed in the "cite book" examples. Nor does it explain why the display is "In <editorname>". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as there is |last=|first= there is |editor-last=|editor-first= and the numbered equivalents in {{cite book}}. As for the "In <editorname>" question, CS1 is heavily influenced by the APA style, which per the Online Writing Lab at Purdue for a chapter an in edited book would use: Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year of publication). Title of chapter. In A. A. Editor & B. B. Editor (Eds.), Title of book (pages of chapter). Location: Publisher.

Imzadi 1979 →

Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The display does not show "(Eds.)":-

Horn, L (2012). "Chapter 89". In Longo, DL; Kasper, DL (eds.). Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-174889-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, the reference isn't displaying properly now, perhaps because there are two reflists. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, CS1 doesn't use (ed.) or (eds.) for chapters in edited works. It is influenced by APA but does not follow APA. APA doesn't call for the ISBN or other ID numbers to be used, nor does it say to link the titles like we do. CS1 is customized for our usages but influenced by APA and other style guides as a starting point. Imzadi 1979 → 20:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Something else I should note, but |coauthors= is being deprecated. |last2=|first2= etc should be used for the additional authors. Horn, L; Pao, W; Johnson, DH (2012). "Chapter 89". In Longo, DL; Kasper, DL (eds.). Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-174889-X. Imzadi 1979 → 20:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. For what it's worth, I think that it would be helpful if Wikipedia's format showed "(Eds.)" after the list of editors, rather than just "In...". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In the "Examples" section, would someone please include "trans_title", which allows one to include a translation of the title of a work in a foreign language? Cwkmail (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What parameter should be used to insert the name of the translators, if the source is a translated one?Mhhossein (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Use |others=. See Template:Cite_book#Authors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have three queries:

• Is there any rationale for the order of listing of examples of templates on the citation templates page? The first column has a rough alphabetical listing to begin with (book, journal, website), then starts the alphabetical list again (comic, comic strip, conference paper, court case etc...) which is all very well except for the fact that in my own experience the most commonly used templates are books, news sites/newspapers and websites. To reach the news templates, I need to scroll down, down, down (and even more down down) past comics, freaking comic strips and mailing lists and maps to reach the news template. Since someone has arbitrarily decided that "journal" and "website" templates can sit higher on the ladder, is it possible to elevate "news" on the list as well, before the damned comics?
• The "news" template seems baised towards newspapers and rather restrictive in its fields/parameters. I needed to cite a report on the Australian (government-owned and auuthoritative) ABC News website a while ago and was a bit baffled at how I should note that it was ABC News, really an online collection of radio and TV reports, and not a newspaper.
• Under the "news article" template examples, both {{cite news}} and {{citation}} template examples (column 4) have "location" after the "newspaper" field (i.e., to cite "The Age, Melbourne" but only the {{citation}} template has a "location" field. Has that been deleted at some stage, and if so, can it be reinstated?

Other than that, top work on these templates. BlackCab (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

For news sources that are not printed, you can use |work= instead of |newspaper=. Pretty much all of the various cite templates respect the |location= parameter; we don't list all available parameters (there are 100+ for each template) for space reasons. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The examples in citation template documentation are not consistent. If you visit them expecting consistency from template to template, you'll be disappointed. I've been kicking around ideas to make them more consistent, but every idea I have had involves lots of manual editing and manual maintenance instead of a clever system that would keep everything in sync as changes are made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I briefly looked around for an answer, but could not find a good one. I realize that everyone's contribution is important, but when a source has multiple authors (6+), the References section can get a bit messy. When do we use |display-authors=n? Personally, I feel that showing the first three authors is enough for reference (as long as the other authors are not cut out). On the display-authors description, it states:

• display-authors: Controls the number of author names that are displayed when a citation is published. To control the displayed number of author names, set display-authors to the desired number. For example, |display-authors=2 will display only the first two authors in a citation. By default, the only the first eight cited authors are displayed; subsequent authors beyond eight are represented in the published citation by "et al." If a citation contains nine author names and one wishes all nine author names to display, "et al." may be suppressed by setting |display-authors=9. Aliases: displayauthors.

By default its set to 8. Is that too high? Any thoughts? (Skoot13 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC))

The reason for the magic value of 8 is probably lost to the mists of time. In earlier versions of the CS1 templates, 9 was the maximum number of authors that could be listed. That restriction is still true for those few CS1 templates that still use {{citation/core}}. The majority of CS1 templates now use Module:Citation/CS1 and the number of authors in the list not artificially limited (there is a citation in Pancreatic cancer with 263 authors).

So, the decision is up to the editors who are working on a particular article. If there is a question about how many authors to display, raise the question at the article talk page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Which template should I use for technical reports and white papers? These are not necessarily published in journals or books, and are often released on their own. They are not web sites. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Try {{cite report}}. But some people want rid of that. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Or {{cite techreport}}. There is a difference in title styling between it and {{cite report}}; {{cite report}} does not style the title.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Put me in the "keep it" column! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm translating some material in the French wikipedia to an English wikipedia article. There are a fair number of footnote references, which should display fine and don't need translating, but the French language Citation template parameters aren't recognized in English. Is there some way to write the markup code to signal begin/end of French Citation reference parameters instead of having to translate each parameter? Thanks Dpendery (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the template names (e.g. {{Ouvrage}}), the parameter names (e.g. |titre=) or the parameter values (e.g. Discours de la méthode)? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Both template names and parameter names. I would like to invoke the template name in French, as it appears in the French article, and have the parameter names recognized. Dpendery (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If you copy and paste the Ouvrage template into an article without changing the parameters, the article will appear in Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters. I check that category nearly every day and have a script that translates foreign-language template parameters. I'll be happy to run that script on your article or articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

According to Google translate, |editore= is Italian for |publisher= not |editor=

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it is, similar to the Spanish editorial. Curatore is editor in Italian. Fixed in the script. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you're very kind, I'd like to try that. I've been saving the article with the French references within a {{^}} where they appear. Can you process from that? I'd be happy to try running your script myself if you explain how to do it (you could strip out the Portuguese and Swedish parts<g>).Dpendery (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Getting the script to work is tricky unless you have some basic programming skills. It uses a Wikipedia tool called AutoEd, which is not very well documented. I'll be happy to run the script for you; just post a note on my Talk page with a link to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. I do have some programming skills (maybe 100K lines of code in 45 years) mostly FORTRAN, Pascal and C; never did get the hang of LISP... So it may be less trouble for you to tell me how to run it myself than get repeated requests to run it for me. Thanks again for your help.Dpendery (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm citing the address that a Fraternity had at a given time based on a trademark application, which cite template should be used? It is reachable from the web, so cite web *could* be used, but there is probably something better.Naraht (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What template should be used for Memoranda?Naraht (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've used {{cite letter}} to cite all types of correspondence, be it open letters or memoranda that I've obtained for citations. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - not sure if this is the right place to put in this request, but as of the past week or so, all of the "| format =" fields I have populated are all now ALL CAPS. I understand that the usage of the "| format = " field is for PDF and XLS, etc. But I also think it is a great place to add other possible formats, like audio interview, podcast, etc. I know this is not its original intention (the format field), but I think a little flexibility for this field would be responsive to the completeness and current existence of various types of resources online that are really great citations. I would like to suggest the ALL CAPS forced format be removed and leave it at whatever no format default it was before the last few weeks. Especially for other formats like PowerPoint, Google Docs, etc., which don't need to be ALL CAPS; if they were ALL CAPS I think they would be harder to read and would be jarring and a bit "scream-y." Please advise if this suggestion and request should be placed somewhere else (not on this page). Thanks so much! BrillLyle (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: you should be using the |type= parameter for that usage. The |format= is only for the file format of an online file. Imzadi 1979 → 16:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: This was brilliant! Thank you. Is there any way that |type= could be added to the 4 templates on the Cite toolbar? Thanks again! BrillLyle (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: You'll want to ask over at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar. I don't deal with it, so I can't help you with your last question. Imzadi 1979 → 18:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Thank you! -- BrillLyle (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@BrillLyle: This is in the Citation Style 1 templates, not RefToolbar. -- Gadget850 ^talk 22:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there not a citation template for a paper that is in an edited volume, like a conference proceedings. (I see there is a template for conferences per se, but it doesn't seem suitable for a book chapter). Please reply on my talk page. --Tibetologist (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Tibetologist: {{cite book}} works well for a chapter in an edited volume. Use |title= for the book or volume title, |chapter= for the paper or chapter title, and optionally |series= if the book is one in a series. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there already, or can someone who understands the details of template markup make, a citation template for technical standards, such as ISO, ASTM, British Standards, AASHTO, etc.? Something like:

{{cite standard
  | agency = 
  | standard = 
  | title = 
  | version = 
  | date = 
  | section = 
  | figure = 
  | url = 
  | format = 
  | accessdate =  
}}

So that

{{cite standard
  | agency = British Standards Institution
  | standard = BS 1377-2:1990
  | title = Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Classification tests.
  | version = 
  | date = 1990
  | section = 4.3.2, Apparatus
  | figure = 
  | url = http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000000793481
  | format = 
  | accessdate = 2015-05-11
}}

would produce something like:

British Standards Institution: BS 1377-2:1990, Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Classification tests. §4.3.2, Apparatus, 1990. Accessed 2015-05-11

I found a request for this in Archive 1, from 2006, but the answer then was "go make it yourself", and nobody ever did. I could figure out how to make this, given enough time, but I'd want to know that people were interested, and that it would be included in this page. Argyriou (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You might use {{cite book}}:

{{cite book
  | author= British Standards Institution
  | id= BS 1377-2:1990
  | title = Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Classification tests.
  | version = 
  | date = 1990
  | section = §4.3.2, Apparatus
  | url = http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000000793481
  | format = 
  | accessdate = 2015-05-11
}}

which renders this way:

British Standards Institution (1990). "§4.3.2, Apparatus". Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Classification tests. BS 1377-2:1990. Retrieved 2015-05-11.

The only thing {{cite book}} doesn't handle from your example is |figure=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Use |at=figure 12 --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Trappist (and Redrose), I haven't looked up the specific standards for citing standards, but it seems to me that the "cite book" puts things in a less-than-helpful order. On the other hand, aside from the |section= being somewhat out of place, the sources I've looked up seem to generally put things in the same order as {{cite book}}, so I should just use that. Argyriou (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You can use |at= for the section:

British Standards Institution (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Classification tests. §4.3.2, Apparatus. BS 1377-2:1990. Retrieved 2015-05-11.

See documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an easy way to do this...

I'm trying to cite the CIM Magazine, which publishes bymonthly. The issue in question is "Dec '07/Jan '08". How do I cite this using the template? My attempts cause errors.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

|date=December 2007 – January 2008 should work.

"Title". December 2007 – January 2008. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there something special about the characters? I've tried this syntax in the past and always get errors. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be a spaced en-dash, typed as space, en-dash, space. Omitting the spaces or using a hyphen-minus will throw an error, as will using the {{spaced endash}} template or the – entity. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OMG. Well, ok, that explains that! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong with {{cite wikisource}}?

{{cite wikisource|author=Augustine of Hippo|editor1-last=Schaff|editor1-first=Philip|editor2-last=Wace|editor2-first=Henry|plaintitle=A select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church|series=Series 1|volume=4|chapter=The correction of the Donatists|wslink=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/The Correction of the Donatists/Chapter 10|at=Chapter 10}}

I want to link to

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/The Correction of the Donatists/Chapter 10

but the template links to

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/The Correction of the Donatists/Chapter 10/The correction of the Donatists

Each volume in this series contains multiple "book" titles bound together. I am using the |chapter= for one of those titles and the |at= for the location in that title so that it looks better. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at it for a while, and it's definitely the construction of the |IncludedWorkTitle= parameter fed into {{citation/core}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: I think that you need to modify |chapter=The correction of the Donatists and |wslink=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy/The Correction of the Donatists/Chapter 10 so that they become |chapter=The correction of the Donatists/Chapter 10 and |wslink=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Donatist Controversy

• Augustine of Hippo. "The correction of the Donatists/Chapter 10" . In Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (eds.). A select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church. Series 1. Vol. 4. Chapter 10 – via Wikisource.

Is that what you wanted? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for the reply. Well, the working citation looks odd in my opinion. I don't think I ever saw /s used citations. But, it is usable. I wish this template would include something like |chapter=|wschapterlink= similar to |chapter=|chapterurl= in {{cite book}} so that more complex older books display a more standard looking citation. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu: You could move the The correction of the Donatists part from one to the other:

• Augustine of Hippo. "Chapter 10" . In Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (eds.). A select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian Church. Series 1. Vol. 4. Chapter 10 – via Wikisource.

the resultant URL is the same, but less is displayed. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that confuses that in fact chapter 10 is of the sub work and not of the volume, i.e. this volume contains more than one work and each work is a compendium itself. I'm just going to use it the first way you suggested and experiment with bundling {{harvc}} as a possible alternative for such cases. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I brought up the issue of magazines that span dates, like "Mar/Apr 1983". It was suggested that I simply expand it out like |date=March 1983 - April 1983. This does not work with SFN, see Huemul Project.

This needs to be simpler. I propose that since SFN generally uses only the year, that cites with both a date and year link on the year.

That way I could add |first=Bob |last=Smith |date=Mar/Apr 1983 |year=1983, and my SFNs would link on Smith|1983.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: You don't need to use |year= - consider this:

Statement.^[1]

• Smith, Bob (March–April 1983). "The article". Some magazine or other. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The main difficulty is getting that |date=March–April 1983 to a format which doesn't throw an error. Here, I used an unspaced en-dash. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At Huemul Project is it Philips or Phillips? Assuming double-'l' Phillips, this works: {{sfn|Phillips|1982–1983}}^[1]

Phillips, James (Winter 1982 – Spring 1983). "Magnetic Fusion" (PDF). Los Alamos Science. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But my point is this is too difficult to type. Where's the endash key? If the ref=harv triggered on the year, if present, all of this complexity would (optionally) disappear. Note in this case it's actually March 1983 to April 1983 (IIRC), so the "working" solution would be {{sfn|Phillips|1983–1983}}, which seems bizarre. 16:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Did you read my reply? I demonstrated how to do that without |year=, and without using a year range in {{sfn}}. The en-dash key is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

RR, you don't address the problem. SFN's IRL don't have ranges in them, at least I've never seen one in 40 years of academic reading. Forcing the user to put the ranges in the SFNs to address the handling of |date is not a solution, it's a hack. Our overriding goal should be to make all of this as easy as possible for the editor, IMHO, and I think the dual-use |date |year is a useful improvement in this regard. Don't you? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "forcing the user to put the ranges in the SFNs to address the handling of |date" - I'm offering a solution which avoids exactly that. Earlier on, I showed the use of {{sfn|Smith|1983|p=123}} - this has no range. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor Maury Markowitz's original post referred to two different ranges. I showed how the {{sfn}} requires a Year–Year range when |date= contains more than one year. Because Module:Citation/CS1 sees two years in |date= and cannot see the content of {{sfn}} it creates a CITEREF anchor that includes both years from |date=; the module cannot know what the editor intends. This is not the same issue as Month–Month Year range where the Module creates a CITEREF anchor from the single year in |date=. Editor Maury Markowitz has misdirected his anger.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In this thread, Maury Markowitz has made three posts; in two of them, the only year given is 1983 -

• at 15:47, 15 June 2015: Mar/Apr 1983; |date=March 1983 - April 1983; |date=Mar/Apr 1983; |year=1983; |1983.
• at 16:26, 15 June 2015: March 1983 to April 1983; |1983–1983

in the third (at 02:16, 16 June 2015), no years are given. Maury Markowitz's original post did not refer to two different ranges, but a single range - March to April 1983. Yet my advice on how to handle this specific case has twice been objected to; and now you are also objecting. I offered help (which as demonstrated in my post of 16:05, 15 June 2015, not only works but shows no error messages) - and it gets slapped back in my face. Is this why I have been watching this page since 16:38, 25 February 2010? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor Maury Markowitz wrote: This does not work with SFN, see Huemul Project. At the time, Huemul Project used {{sfn|Philips|1983|p=64}} with the not-so-matching (Phillips instead of Philips) {{cite journal}} template with |date=Winter 1982 – Spring 1983. This is the second range that editor Maury Markowitz referred to. I think you have misread what I wrote. I did not and do not object to anything that you have written in this discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yikes RR, my last post was disagreeing with Trappist, not you. That should have been somewhat clear from the context, in spite of my misid. I'm still confused. If the date has two years in it, can I make an SFN without two dates? I can no longer follow the thread. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: OK. If you're talking about the specific ref

• Phillips, James (Winter 1982 – Spring 1983). "Magnetic Fusion" (PDF). Los Alamos Science.

and you want {{sfn|Phillips|1982|p=64}} to link to that, then you can add |ref={{sfnref|Phillips|1982}} to the {{cite journal}}. Similarly if you want to use {{sfn|Phillips|1983|p=64}} then you can add |ref={{sfnref|Phillips|1983}} to the {{cite journal}}. Both avoid the range; both avoid a separate |year= parameter. The parameters to {{sfnref}} are the same as the surname and year parameters to {{sfn}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Requiring people to type the en-dash or em-dash is bollocks. I wasn't active when the decision was made to make things more complicated for everyone, but using dashes everywhere when they're not on people's keyboards is a significant usability issue for Wikipedia. Especially in templates, where rendering can be handled automatically, it's ridiculous to require people to type in a special character for something which the hyphen key is perfectly adequate, and perfectly understandable by both humans and MediaWiki parsers. Argyriou (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You'll want to take your objection to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. This page is the wrong venue for discussions about WP's Manual of Style and what it tells editors to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the correct venue. One may comply with the MOS by typing – but the citation templates will not recognize that as a dash so will incorrectly complain that the date format is incorrect. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that two of the "model" examples given on this page – under "conference report or paper", and using the {{Citation}} template – don't include a "title" field, and therefore generate a red "Missing or empty |title=" alert, which really doesn't look good. GrindtXX (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

ISMN = International Standard Music Number is an alternative to ISBN and has been the standard way to identify many newly published musical scores for a number of years. (The United States has been slow to adopt this standard because until recently, the Library of Congress did not want to be saddled with the responsibility--they are asking individual publishers to supply it.) On WP ISMN is not yet accepted as part of the citation template. Can someone make the necessary changes that will allow it? Their website is here: http://www.ismn-international.org/ . - kosboot (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've hacked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that it (and so all cs1|2 templates) can understand ISMN. If this is to be useful, is there some place to link the ismn to (like Special:BookSources) that can find more information about the publication? Right now the hack links to Special:BookSources but that clearly is the wrong place.

This ismn from the ISMN user manual:

• Title. ISMN 9790345246805.

These ismns from ISMN:

• Title. ISMN 979-0-060-11561-5.
• Fripp, Robert (2011). Pozzo, Horacio (ed.). Seven Guitar Craft themes: Definitive scores for guitar ensemble. Partitas Music. ISMN 979-0-9016791-7-7.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment all I can think of is http://Worldcat.org. - kosboot (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You can get to WorldCat through Special:BookSources. For example, the Special:BookSources link for Frip is:

https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A9790901679177

changing that to search for an ismn:

https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=ismn%3A9790901679177

just gets you a not-found page.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see that. On the "staff" interface to Worldcat one can get a result (using the "music number" index), but apparently not on the public interface. Let me talk to some OCLC staff and see if there's a work-around. Thanks! - kosboot (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, I have disabled linking of the ISMN value in cs1|2 templates. If and when someplace to link the number to is found, I'll restore the linking.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The templates say they can be used for theses and dissertations, but I don't see any parameters that distinguish those kinds of works from books. Am I missing something? - kosboot (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kosboot: Are you using {{cite thesis}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, User:Redrose64. I didn't see it at all - so this page must be fixed. Even though the {{cite thesis}} is used at the end of the section, the section itself says that that the book template should be used. I'm going to change it - others are welcome to improve on what I suggest. - kosboot (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to update some dead reference links in articles I watch, and saw the use of "deadurl" in other references. This article appears to be the documentation for citation templates (cite web, cite news, etc.) but there is no mention of that parameter. Someone who understands exactly what it does should update the page to document it. Thanks for listening.Xblkx (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Xblkx: See e.g. documentation of the |dead-url= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for. Incidentally, whether a URL in {{cite web}} is live or not seems to be rather important information in the case of a link so I am still wondering why it is not included on this project page in the common usage column.Xblkx (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's not common usage? The various cite templates each support well over a hundred different parameters, we can't list them all. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Entering citations using the templates < ref name="name">citation text</ref > and < ref name="name" / >, makes future editing difficult. If the original citation gets deleted, all the others are deleted. And when editing sections in which the < ref name="name" / > template occurs, finding the name of the reference requires a search. Entering citations by hand can be easily done by cut and paste from an original. I suggest that the by hand method be the Wikipedia preferred or only method. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vejlefjord: The constructs <ref name="name">...</ref> and <ref name="name" /> are not templates, they are tags used to create footnotes. We also do not prescribe particular citation methods, see WP:CITESTYLE; but if we were to discuss whether one method should be preferred, it would not be done here but at WP:VPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any guidance on which variation of cite to use in which circumstances? Particularly {{cite web}} vs {{cite news}}? TIA CalzGuy (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Use {{cite news}} for news sources, whether printed newspaper; TV/radio broadcast; or online news services like The Huffington Post but not press releases - use {{cite press release}} for those. For magazines, use {{cite magazine}}; for peer-reviewed academic journals, use {{cite journal}}. All of the Citation Style 1 templates accept a |url= parameter, and {{cite web}} is only for use when none of the others are appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And where is that detailed? CalzGuy (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

At the top of the documentation for each template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The two examples for "conference report or paper" using {{Citation}} are showing red errors "Missing or empty |title= (help)". I'm hesitating to fix the examples without understanding why these errors are showing up now; I don't even know if they're recent. NebY (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not correct to use |series= for the publication title.

{{Citation
 | last1 = Turk | first1 = M.
 | last2 = Pentland | first2 = A.
 | contribution = Face recognition using eigenfaces
 | series = Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
 | place = Maui, Hawaii
 | pages = 586–591
 | year = 1991 }}

Turk, M.; Pentland, A. (1991), "Face recognition using eigenfaces", Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Maui, Hawaii, pp. 586–591 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The error message is correct. Instead, use |title=:

{{Citation
 | last1 = Turk | first1 = M.
 | last2 = Pentland | first2 = A.
 | contribution = Face recognition using eigenfaces
 | title = Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
 | place = Maui, Hawaii
 | pages = 586–591
 | year = 1991 }}

Turk, M.; Pentland, A. (1991), "Face recognition using eigenfaces", Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Maui, Hawaii, pp. 586–591{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

The other example suffers from the same problem:

Evans, N. R.; Schaefer, G.; Bond, H.; Karovska, M.; Nelan, E.; Sasselov, D. (January 9, 2006), "Direct detection of the close companion of Polaris with the Hubble Space Telescope", American Astronomical Society 207th Meeting, AAS {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

changing |series= to |title=:

Evans, N. R.; Schaefer, G.; Bond, H.; Karovska, M.; Nelan, E.; Sasselov, D. (January 9, 2006), "Direct detection of the close companion of Polaris with the Hubble Space Telescope", American Astronomical Society 207th Meeting, AAS

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know what would be best for citing one of those. They usually come as a PDF like a journal article but website might work too. It would be nice to either create an proper template for these or mention them in the list under the correct one. Devon (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If {{cite web}} does not work for you, you might try {{cite techreport}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked around and could not find much information on how we handle citations for foreign sources. There is WP:NONENG and a brief mention in WP:CS at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation. In particular, it seems to me that a citation should include the correct non-English title -and- the translated title, and even better we should include a link to Google translate of the article. I would think this should be done by template, but I don't see any. Are there any? Are there any articles filled with non-English sources that have done an excellent job in their citations? I asked this same question here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Non-English sources --David Tornheim (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I did find this template which is what I am hoping to find for a citation template to a foreign source:

{{Expand German|Wikipedia|date=March 2017}} becomes:

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (March 2017) Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the German article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 2,312 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Wikipedia]]; see its history for attribution. You may also add the template {{Translated|de|Wikipedia}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

--David Tornheim (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Citing non-English sources is permitted and all of the cs1|2 templates allow that – including translated titles (|trans-title= and |trans-chapter=). There are those who would dispute your assertion that |url= should link to a machine translated version of any source because machine translations do not have the same quality as human translations and because machine translations may change over time. If you are expecting the template to translate a non-English title for you, no, that's not going to happen. In Category:CS1 properties there are lists of pages that use cs1|2 templates with |language= set to something other than English where you may find articles that use non-English sources.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Thanks, that was the answer I was looking for. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

After reading your second post in this thread, I am confused about what it is that you really mean to be asking. Perhaps you can spend some time thinking about how you might more clearly state the issue.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Mostly, I wanted to know how we have been handling citations to non-English sources, so any information on that is helpful--especially what you wrote above. After reading more at Wikipedia:Translation, I found Wikipedia:Translation#Avoid_machine_translations which as you said above shows a disfavor for machine translations. But for many of us, looking at the machine translation is better than nothing, so I think it is worth providing access if no translation is available. I do see that we can request that someone translate it, but I wonder what the turn-around time on that is.

Do you think I should remove my post at WP:RS/N. Your answers are sufficiently helpful to me. The only reason to leave my post there is so others who don't know about the issue might read up on it. I think dealing with non-English sources will become an increasingly more important issue and that many editors do not know much about it. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Aye, a machine translation may be better than nothing, but in the context of a citation, which is there specifically to support Wikipedia article text per WP:V, a dynamic machine translation may not give the results you want over time and, to me, calls into question the validity of the citation. No idea what translation request turn around time is, but Wikipedia is not in a hurry.

Your post is there now, I see no reason to remove it. Certainly there are editors who watchlist that page but do not watchlist this one so allow them to contribute to this conversation if they would like.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There are those who would dispute your assertion that |url= should link to a machine translated version of any source because machine translations do not have the same quality as human translations and because machine translations may change over time. No, I wasn't suggesting that. I was saying that we should provide an additional link to the Google translate. I have seen that done in an article I am familiar with, but unfortunately I am not permitted to tell you which article it is. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

not permitted to tell you which article it is What? Who here has the power to stifle your speech in that way?

The cs1|2 templates do not support additional URLs in the way that you describe. That does not mean that you cannot provide a clearly labeled courtesy link outside of the cs1|2 template but within the <ref>...</ref> tags.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Thanks for the suggestion, I think that answers my question How below.

Regarding why I can't tell you which article: I was blocked for a full month for this edit. I retired after that, but came back after about a 6 month break from the project. There is a reason I wrote this yesterday and this. I think we have a lot of work to do to make Wikipedia discipline fair and improve civility. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary or required by any sourcing policy, nor as far as I am aware is it prohibited. 'Should' is the wrong word. 'May be helpful on a case by case basis'. If you personally want to provide a google translate link *in addition to* the original citation, thats up to you. WP:MACHINETRANSLATION is about using machine translation to translate prose into articles, not about external links/references. If you are challenged on something controversial in a non-English source, you would be expected to either furnish a translation yourself or from a fluent speaker rather than a machine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you personally want to provide a google translate link *in addition to* the original citation, thats up to you.. Right. In a particular case, I would like to do just that. How should I do that? (In the example I found, they did not use a template. I would prefer to use the template correctly). Is there a way to do it similar to what is done above with the template above that gives a link to the Google translated article in German? I'm hoping there is an easy way to do that, that matches the style others have used when they provide a link to the Google-translate. I'm just not familiar with how people have been doing it, and there is sparse writing on the subject.

When I said "should" it was before I realized that there were some negative feelings about the machines translations (which, incidentally, I do share). Yes, I understood WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. When I said "should" it was more of a personal opinion about what I would prefer AS A READER of the WIki-article, that I thought at the time might be shared by others such as the person who wrote the above template.

The context of where this question comes up is here: Talk:Walter_Hauck#References. Hopefully, in that context it will be clear why having Google translate of the articles would help, since three of the four sources are non-English. As a reader, I tried to verify what was in the article, and then as an editor I wanted to add in-line citations, but it's was a pain to have to switch to Google Chrome to do the machine translate--a translation that is not really that bad. So I wanted to improve the refs, so it would be easier for me and and others who come to the article and can't speak Czech or German. There was also this RfC, where again non-English sources were discussed, and certain assertions about articles, and a simple click to a Google translate (in the absence of a proper translation) would have been helpful: Talk:Battle_of_Ap_Bau_Bang#RfC:_Language_of_sources --David Tornheim (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point at all of us including a Google translate, when anyone can do it from their own computer. Say if I'm reading an article about Korea and there's a point I'd like to know more about, but the reference is in Korean, which I don't speak a word of. Then I just make my own Google translate. It will come out just the same, in fact it might come out better if I do it months or years after the reference was added. If I'm really desperate to know, I can leave a message on the talk page for someone to help me with the reading, or to direct me towards a source in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

+1 Please no template for requiring the translation of non English sources. It is not required for references as such and everybody can use google translate or any other tool on his own (or request help from other WP editors). The purpose of a reference is merely to identify the source, so that people can look it up. Translation is optional and we should not pepper articles with templates for such optional stuff (that's maintenance nonsense so to speak).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I understand you don't want to make the Google translate availability mandatory, but I was hoping there would be a way to make it easy to add it if an editor would like to have that option made available in the reference. So much of my time on Wikipedia is spent cutting and pasting links, and such, because of the way Wiki-markup works (for example it is a huge pain to take a fairly well done reference and then put it into a citation template--a lot of work cutting and pasting into the parameter boxes--if there is an easier way, I'm all ears).

Regarding using Google translate: I use FireFox, so if I click on a foreign article, I have to copy the link then open Google Chrome and paste it, and then wait for Google Chrome to load the article again and then translate, and then switch back and forth between Google Chrome and the Firefox page where I opened it rather than do it all in Firefox. It's just a huge waste of my time, when a single click might have been able to pull up the translated article in Firefox. Also, I don't know what is meant by "future" translations. If the Google translate gets better then that's what you get when you hit the button right? Does that not make sense?

This kind of switching back and forth between Chrome is happening more and more for me, because I have started taking more seriously non-English RS, and at looking at our articles in foreign languages, mostly because Google translate does such a good job now. That template above is a godsend for me. I was just hoping there was a simple way to do that for the article references too, so that if I or anyone else goes back to that obscure article, we can click on the Google translate link and see the article in English, not have to go through all the copy, pasting, opening a new browser, etc.

I do understand people are available to translate articles, but I don't want to waste their time on unimportant stuff. Did you guys look at the article I was at Walter Hauck? He's a Nazi apparently responsible for some war crimes (killing ~100 civilians) who got out of prison after only 10 years (despite being convicted of the death penalty), like other Nazi war criminals, e.g. Joachim Peiper. I wanted to read more on him, and I did not want to burden our translators on this obscure Nazi who is just barely notable. The page gets a whopping 19 hits per day [1]. Google translate did a fine job for me. If our translators are truly bored and waiting for work, I would send it to them and then by the time they responded, I probably would have lost all interest in Walter_Hauck.

As another example, when an article comes up for WP:AfD a number of times the individual was from a foreign country and most or all the articles making that personal notable were not in English. I looked at the foreign Wiki-articles and at the RS that underpinned them, and of course there was no English translation. Would it really be fair that every time an article goes to AfD we force the translators to translate every article that might make the person or subject notable? They would be overwhelmed in no time, right? And could they really turn around the translate request within 7 days to meet the AfD deadline?

Does it make sense why an immediate translation option that is simple to use is helpful both to readers and to editors, especially on obscure articles? I know the machine translation is not perfect, but translating is a lot of work, right? Am I missing something?

I just re-reviewed the machine translation of the German version of the Walter Hauck article (I probably have an elementary level comprehension of written German), and I found only one sentence out of about 30 that was problematic "Hauck got into prison , but could escape." Other than that, everything matched up well with the English version or otherwise it was very clear what it meant. Maybe the assessment of the quality of the machine translations was made a while back when they were very poor? They seemed to have improved dramatically in the last few years. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary to open Chrome to get a google translation. Do this and you get a translated web page and a new url:

1. From your Walter Hauck example page copy this url: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/cesi-nasli-dalsi-tri-nacisticke-zlocince-fdy-/domaci.aspx?c=A051103_084805_krimi_mr ([2])
2. open google translate
3. paste the url into the left-most box
4. select: Detect language
5. select: target language
6. click the translate button
7. ????
8. PROFIT!!!

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I didn't know you could copy and paste a link to the left box to translate the article--a small help. But it still takes all the steps above, instead of a single click to the link you provided at the bottom. That's really what this is all about--making life easier for the WP:READER. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And I did steal your last link and put it in the ref: [3]. When I come back I'll try to put the full ref. in the citation template so that clicking the article pulls up the Czech version, etc. I also still need to look at the examples you named above in your earliest post here... Thanks again for the discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You're being a moving target. You started this conversation with the desire to include a link to Google [translation] of the article in a citation. Now, you appear to want that link to somehow magically appear. I know of no way to get a machine translation without asking google or some other machine to make the translation. There are a couple of templates that can do that presuming that the community accepts their use in citations and/or in article space: {{google translate}} and {{machine translate}}. But, also see this discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_130#Links_to_Google_Translate.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this {{machine translate}} will be helpful, yes. I wrote what follows before I looked at that. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Now, you appear to want that link to somehow magically appear. No. I didn't mean that, even though that is an interesting idea. :) I just wanted a parameter (or more like a flag or toggle) in the citation template that if enabled would take the URL data and use it to create a second link that would call up Google Translate (in addition to the link for the original foreign source), so that by enabling that option, the citation template would create the same result as this edit did. Does that make sense? It wouldn't make the additional Google translate link "automatic", it would have to be enabled in the citation template by an editor, but that enabling would be simple. I'm sure it could be done. That's what the template I first shows does ({{Expand German|article name|date=March 2017}})--you plop in the name of a wiki article, and the language it is in, and it gives you a link that translates the German wikipedia article to English with a single click--no playing games with having to cut and paste, once you use that template. I know that template will save me time! I don't know the template programming language well enough to create something that would do what I'm suggesting for references. Some day I might learn it... I'm afraid I might look at the code that's there already and dislike the way the code is organized and written and conclude it has a bunch of bugs...

Anyway, do you see how being able to enable the flag to provide the translate to English link would be so much easier than manually going through the various steps you provided above to get the link for the google translated article, then on top of that having to add the link to the ref and having to additionally type in "[link-pasted-here Google translate to English]" and not make any typos? Having the template have a single flag/option/parameter (or whatever it might be called) that enable it would like {{Expand German|Wikipedia|date=March 2017}} would be wonderful.

I will try out the templates you suggested. I probably should have done that before writing this. I thought this was going to be a two sentence response.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That discussion you pointed me to was interesting too. I didn't realize Bing had a translate thing. That was an interesting point that one user made that someone might have their own app. that they prefer to use and be annoyed we were promoting Google or Bing's machine translations. I have a greater concern with that than a person who can read the original article in the native language of the article--they would obviously just ignore the Google translate option--obviously not for them. Ah, I have an idea, allow the {{tlx|machine translate}} to give an option to the reader to install their own app. somehow. Another idea, when the user clicks on the main link of an article written non-English, it goes to another page with option, that asks you, "Do you want to read this in German? Do you want Google to translate it? Do you want Bing to translate it? Do you have some other app that translates it?" And on *that* page, the reader can configure it so that if they speak German, it won't ask them to translate it any more. And if a human translated it to English, that option would be available to. I think that might be a solution to the problem... I might post that at the Village pump and ping everyone who discussed it the first time, and everyone who chimed in here that has gotten to TL;DR --David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are citation templates "neither encouraged nor discouraged"? It seems their benefits would far outweigh their disadvantages, especially now that so many bots rely on them to maintain references. SharkD  Talk  12:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The answer is that, whatever their advantages (which I don't dispute), they can appear baffling to the newcomer, and we don't want to put newcomers off by setting up unnecessary barriers. The important thing is that a reliable source is cited, and in such a way that the reference makes sense and can be traced by the reader – the fine details of a template are a bit of a luxury. Many experienced editors do come along afterwards and reformat untemplated references, and that's a constructive exercise, but I don't think we need go any further than at present in trying to insist on templates. GrindtXX (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

First, we have a {{cite tweet}} template which should probably be included on this page. Second, do we have any support / advice on citing Tumblr? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that either of these should be used, see WP:SPS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Considering that there is this politician who makes numerous statements using Twitter, & allegedly has a lot of influence in international events -- or at least entertains people around the world with his boorishness -- we Wikipedians may need to rethink that position. (I'd rather kick him out of office, though.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been citing a source that suggests how to reference it, i.e. for the date "2001 onwards". This is reflected in the displayed text, but leads to a warning in red "Check date values in: |date= (help)". Is there some way to suppres this warning? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing the article is Chloranthaceae and the citation is:

• Stevens, P.F. (2001 onwards). "Chloranthaceae". Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Retrieved 2016-06-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

I'd interpret "2001 onwards" to mean the first content was placed on the website in 2001 and it has been revised from time to time since then. The citation templates do not have a way to express this concept, and I've never seen this idea addressed in external style guides. The nearest way I can think to express it "c. 2001" and give the access date (as you did). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Peter coxhead solved the issue by replacing the code with "|year= 2001|origyear=onwards|". Very nice, thanks Peter! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There are various Wikipedia bots that rely on citation templates, but many articles do not use these templates. Does Wikipedia have any tools that can automatically convert references into citation templates? Jarble (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If you find such a tool, make sure you've read WP:CITEVAR before you use it. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be easy to write a tool for this purpose using a citation parser. Jarble (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I see the templates don't support multiple ISBNs. Multiple ISBNs can exist (hardcover & paperback editions, or other editions). Might someone want to revise the templates to allow multiple ISBNs? - kosboot (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Cite the ISBN of the version that you are using as a source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. - kosboot (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi- Over the past 5 months, I've been doing some fascinating work on minor Chinese geography stubs (which are usually in an abysmal state and in desperate need of a lot of work). Over the course of these months, I've probably made a good deal of formatting errors, and now that I half-understand what I'm doing, I'd like to make a proposal that I hope will increase the quality of the edits I am making. This message is part of my attempt to help 'raise the bar' on these stubs and start making the secondary sources which document these topics more accessible to the readers of English Wikipedia. (I tried to go to the page where they help you check if your sources are reliable, but no one responded, which was probably in part because there was too much Chinese.)

One problem I'm encountering is that a lot of the secondary sources I've been working from contain information that has (seemingly) never been translated into English in a systematic manner. The end result is, if you want to give a footnote to a reliable secondary source, you have to rely on a Chinese language source.

Here are some relevant policy quotes about translations in footnotes:

Wikipedia:Citing sources

"In the case of non-English sources, it may be helpful to quote from the original text and then give an English translation."

Quoting non-English sources

"If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote."

My problem is, my footnotes are almost completely in Chinese, which is a little inappropriate for an English language encylopedia, and at present there seem to be no parameters that will clearly delineate what I'm objectively quoting from what I'm subjectively translating. I believe this division should be made clearly.

Here's an example of a stub that I upgraded recently: Xiaochang County. (To date, I've upgraded about 90 Chinese geography stubs by adding sources in this way.)

I recently discovered the footnote parameter trans-title which I used on the titles of the sources for Xiaochang County to seemingly good effect: I gave the real Chinese language title of the webpage I'm citing, and then in the brackets, you can see my (subjective) English translation of the Chinese language source's title.

I asked for feedback on my work at Xiaochang County, and another wikipedian said that "there seems to be a lot of Chinese in this English-Wikipedia article" which I have to admit is pretty true. The wikipedian suggested, "I would like to see Refs 1 & 2 giving an English name for the source and publisher." I totally agree. Here's our conversation: Help desk

What I've realized is that I want more footnote parameters that give me the space to add my (subjective) English translations of the objective Chinese language parameters so that English readers can know what the Chinese may be. I want the readers to be clear that the English language material is me the wikipedian making up a translation based on my reading of Chinese and that the Chinese language material in the footnote is the objective material that is actually being referenced. This will greatly increase the value of my edits, and I think it could have a big effect on the quality of citations to non-English language secondary sources on wikipedia.

Like we already have trans-title, I would like to request the adding of the following parameters to the {{cite web| and {{cite book| footnotes:

• 1 trans-website (for translating the non-English name of a website into English)
• 2 trans-publisher (for translating the non-English name of a publisher into English)
• 3 trans-location (for translating the non-English name of the location of the publisher into English)
• 4 trans-editor; trans-editors (for translating the non-English name/names of the editor/editors into English)
• 5 trans-author; trans-authors (for translating the non-English name/names of the author/authors into English)
• 6 trans-translator; trans-translators (for translating the non-English name/names of the translator/translators into English)
• 7 trans-quote (for translating the non-English quote of a secondary source into English)

I imagine that the format of these new parameters would be similar to trans-title format where the translation is enclosed in brackets [] and followed by a period.

Let me know if this makes any sense to you all. Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I added reference 6 (Cai, Chen, Leung) to the article "Games as a service". However the month parameter and en dash formatting aren't working. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Although you may use |year=2014, the |month= parameter is not recognised by any of the citation templates any more (it was removed some years ago), so you should use |date=May–June 2014 instead, see Template:Cite journal#csdoc_date. As for the en-dash, it's a subtle bug in the underlying modules that in some circumstances when a semicolon is found, it's converted to a comma - although – is perfectly valid in normal circs, this gets altered to &ndash, which is not valid. This is of course in contradiction of Template:Cite journal#csdoc_pages. It's a known bug: see Help talk:Citation Style 1#ndash entity in pages parameter. The thing to do is to use the actual en-dash character instead. This edit fixes both issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. "WP:CITET" still includes "month" as a legitimate parameter. (I have no idea why month should have been removed.) Thank you for fixing the article's reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed that page. It's not the documentation proper, more like a set of examples; it has a habit of lagging behind the latest developments in the templates that it describes. Anyway, I've traced the moment when |month= was invalidated - 16:13, 26 September 2015. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think these templates must be created, since we have { {cite tweet} }. 🤔 Harsh Rathod 07:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not, these are always self-published sources. For the few cases where use of one of these is legitimate, we have {{cite web}}. This goes for {{cite tweet}} too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Then why do we have { {cite tweet} }? Just { {cite web} } was enough. What was the logic or need behind making it? Having it created is like promoting it's use. I think, { {cite tweet} } is an overzealous creation. 🤔 Harsh Rathod 13:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We've got it because somebody created it and we couldn't get enough consensus to delete it. In any case, WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64 🌹 (talk): Vokay! Now I got it. It is just a matter of time. In an year or so, I will be coming up with another template like { {cite tweet} }. I will call it { {cite instagram} } 😏. Your previous reply motivates me. Harsh Rathod 05:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That was not my intention. I wished to deter you from creating such templates, since we do not want to encourage the use of self-published sources whose relibility is highly questionable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

i.e. don't stuff beans up your nose and don't delete the main page please. SKay (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that many official sources use Twitter to communicate, and these can be verified as being from those sources. Facebook and Instagram offer similar verification for certain sources such as police departments and other government entities. These sources may require more stringent verification on our authors' part, but I see no reason they should be omitted entirely. SKay (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a request for comment about the italicization of the names of websites in citations and references at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 72#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment. Please contribute. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I created and use citation template {{CIAAW2013}} containing a complete {{cite web}} template. As intended, the template is reused with ease of typing etc. Being a template, it nicely accepts parameter |accesdate=, to be used in the article, and passes it through to the core {{cite web}} template. Also it has a parameter |1= to format the citation: add <ref> tag, add ref name for reuse in article, and plain i.e. no ref just the {{cite web}}.

My question is: is there a best practice to set up this wrapper template? A module maybe?, that can cover those parameter options. -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Module:template wrapper

But, for that template, because there is no |url=, |access-date= produces an error:

{{CIAAW2013|accessdate=2019-06-26}}

^[1]

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thx, will explore that one. If there is a good dedicated citation-usage example (handling the ref tag, ref name more specific), I'd like to hear. DePiep (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

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) 14:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a template to cite a photography ? I am surprised I could not find one. If not, how would you advise I cite a photography ? I am currently writing up an article on pharaoh Pepi I Meryre and I need this photography, and would like to have a reference for it as will be required when I reach FAC. Since it was uploaded to wikicommons with a lot of details (author, date and place, original archive etc.) I would like to have this information in the citation material but do not see what template to use to do it properly. Any advise would therefore be highly appreciated.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Since you viewed it on a website, namely, Wikimedia Commons, you could use cite web. If it were in a book, you could use cite book. It were locked up in a vault belonging to a private collector, you couldn't cite it because it wouldn't be published. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what kind of assertion or claim can be supported by citing a photograph? Or is a citation needed in that article to support what the image depicts? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Michael BednarekJc3s5h I am typically asked to have a citation per picture at FAC. Here is why: in this case for example, the picture depicts the palace of Ebla during Italian excavations, which is what the caption in the article says. But this claim is unsupported without citation proving the photography is really what the caption says (yes I was asked to prove my captions and photos are both correct). Now the source material for the photography says that and is of high quality (from an archaeological organisation) but I don't know how to cite it properly as it is encapsulated in the photography info on commons.Iry-Hor (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm not sure where to suggest this, so I will put it here. Please ping me when you respond, because I forget about these posts. One thing missing is historical archival databases. These are usually for biographical type articles where users, such as myself, who have subscriptions to places like Ancestry, and the like and are able to find documents that prove or disprove facts or theories. Professional genealogical research is much more stern on citations. Most professionals use the citation guide Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills. Let's use an example that I am working on today. I have a marriage record for an actress born in the 1800's in Austria-Hungary. It's in German and lists her original birth name, her date of birth, her husband, the date they married, the location where they married and so on. It's at Ancestry, so Mills says that we need to cite Ancestry, the name of the database, the entry name, the format (e.g., image of the original, transcription, etc.), where it is held, etc.; then you have to add another citation (so a citation within the Ancestry citation) which is where Ancestry got the image and that is added to the citation as "Citing" because Ancestry is "citing" their own reference. This way it is a complete source. As you can see, it is a daunting task to work with and I'd like to see either additional fields within the original citation template or another template designed for historical archived records. I personally believe the latter is more appropriate than the former. I would be happy to share examples so a template such as this can be built. For that matter, maybe I can create a user page with a sample. I'll try to remember to come back here, if I have the time to do just that. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 21:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE. I've started an example. It is incomplete but it can be found on my example page. It is in an early stage though. Just a fair warning. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 22:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually this has been brought up previously. Regarding Ancestry (which I have used extensively for years), nothing on their site is original to Ancestry - they merely have digitized versions. So most people site the source and mention that it's available on Ancestry with a note like "access with subscription." So it comes down to citing the archival record in a way where someone can look up the citation and access it. You could add a lot of information, some of which may not be totally necessary to look it up. As you surmise, it should be in a format where it could easily be converted to structured data. Makes me want to check Wikidata for examples. - kosboot (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. For our purposes, a complete citation really only needs to cite the source being consulted with enough information to indicate that a digital version has been republished elsewhere. In the various CS1/CS2-type templates, there's the |via= parameter to indicate that the source is on Ancestry.com, |access-date= to indicate the date of online access, and |url-access=subscription to note that the site requires registration. IF there is a need for additional information, that's what |via= can hold. Anything more is overkill for our purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

But what should one do when the database is the source, and is not repeating a separate publi8shed source? This came up today at WP:TH#Citing a website that contains a searchable database and I had no good answer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think what you really want is to cite the information in the database, not the database as a whole. Most databases that I use identify specific records. Sometimes this is obvious, sometimes it isn't, but still present. For example, on Ancestry, a specific record may not have an identifier visible. But if you click on the "share" option and get a Twitter link, you'll see that in fact the Ancestry folks have invisibly created record-specific information. So in your case, DESiegel, what seems to be a science database, there is probably a way to identify the specific record. - kosboot (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That is what I thought, Kosboot. But there seems to be no standard way to provide the primary record key as part of a citation. (I write SQL as part of my job, so i do know about DB keys.) Given the text of a record identifier, whatever it might be, how would you suggest including that in a templated citation? Do we need to create {{Cite DB}}? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You can write on the template's talk page that the database key is needed as part of the template. But that will take time. I would just make it up as you would see fit. - kosboot (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

At the American Revolutionary War, I am trying to standardize the citations to wikipedia requirements with a view to promote the article to GOOD ARTICLE status. So, I know to use the HarvRef format, not citing a footnote reference in line: Footnotes go into CITATIONS, referenced sources go into the BIBLIOGRAPHY. I am now looking at the cite for information taken from a PRIMARY SOURCE, The Treaty of Greenville 1795. It is linked to a site at the Yale University Law School, the "Avalon Project" website. The Library of Congress also provides useful collections of related historical documents with context and how they relate to one another at its "American Memory". So, I think there would be a wide application for history-related articles.

I'd like to know the wp:template to use in a Bibliography for "historical documents" such as government treaty, King's proclamation, Act of (Congress, Parliament), presidential executive order, Supreme Court ruling. The usages among articles across wp:PROJECTS and wp:ARTICLE STATUS are very inconsistent, not to say idiosyncratic, and all over the map, too. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I've settled on using the CITE ARCHIVE template.

Text1, Franco-American Treaty of Alliance. Text narrative2.^[1] Text3, Anglo-American Preliminary Peace. Text-narrative4.^[2] Text5, USG-Tribal Treaty. Text-narrative6.^[3]

Citations

Bibliography

• Louis XVI, his most Christian King; Commissioners of the United States of America. "Treaty of Alliance" (6 February 1778). 18th Century. Yale Law School Avalon Project.
• George III, his Britannic Majesty; Commissioners of the United States of America. "Preliminary Articles of Peace" (30 November 1782). 18th Century; British-American Diplomacy. Yale Law School Avalon Project.
• U.S. Congress. "Treaty of Greenville 1795" (3 August 1795). Document Collection: 18th Century, 1700-1799. Yale Law School Avalon Project.

- Any comments on advantages, limits, cautions, are welcome. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have an idea for a new citation type that would mainly be used for sports but maybe it could be used in other situations. Editors should be able to cite a card (e.g. a baseball card or a football card) as a source. These often contain a lot of information about players and are generally very reliable. I’m not sure where to suggest this, but this seems to make sense. If this falls under another category then please let me know, or if I should suggest this somewhere else. Thanks! Twooeight (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, which is quite active. They have probably had a discussion about this in the past. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Should not Template:Cite Q be advertised in "Citation templates" article? Cite Q automatically fetches the journal article information from Wikidata. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No. One of many reasons: neither Wikidata nor the Wikipedia citation templates nail down all the details about how to represent a source. But at least with the Wikipedia templates, we can be consistent within an article. But if we cite several Wikidata items in a single article, which were created with different approaches to representing the bibliographic information, there is no way to make them consistent.

An additional objection is that it is time consuming and hit-or-miss to search to discover whether the source is already a Wikidata item before creating a new item. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If the source does not exist on Wikidata, I would create it first in Wikidata and then cite it in an article. About consistency - agreed, but the citation style should not preclude using a universal template which could in the future adapt to any style needed for the long article. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume this topic has come up before, but I don’t see it in the archive. The journal Nature offers digitally published scientific reports that are denoted by the equivalent of a volume and an "article number" (but not as an alias for issue). Is this an area of template improvement or does one simply use issue since it follows the same structure? Or perhaps leave it out as there is a doi? Is there another identifier used instead? For example this article 11:1695, A computational platform for the virtual unfolding of Herculaneum Papyri which is in web form and also here in digital document form: A computational platform for the virtual unfolding of Herculaneum Papyri. Ref: in citation or cite journal templates, issue offers an alias for number (ex: |issue=2 #143), but that is conceptually the same as issue. (Side note: the term Article number also refers to what is commonly called a UPC/barcode number and is also different from an Accession number (library science).) Zatsugaku (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zatsugaku: Have you considered |id=? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for taking the time to reply. |id= might be a plausible choice failing other options. However, it seems to me from the description that the intent was as provision for nonstandard/unique coding systems (ex: id=NCJ 122967). The growing use of article number is an outgrowth of online-only works where, within a given year (volume) there are typically no issues and all articles start at page 1. I just found that APA now has formal guidance although it is often omitted from concise summaries:

If you have an article number, include it in your reference instead of the page range. This part of your reference should look like this: Nature Human Behavior, 1, Article 0151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41 (A.Adams of APA to RobertD on its style blog of 10/19)

And in a university APA7 style guide: "For journal issues with article numbers (rather than consecutive pagination) replace with[sic] page numbers with the word 'Article' followed by the article number or eLocator." Victoria University, AU, APA 7 journal articles. Looking at those examples, they are also providing for article number when there is volume and issue but not pagination. So, as an emerging component, they have chosen explicit denotation. Digging back into the official APA6 style blog (circa 2015) it seems they had not yet formulated a coherent standard. Zatsugaku (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I came here looking for information on how to cite sources using a doi, pmid or isbn and getting the reference auto-completed. Shouldn't there at least be a pointer to this information here? 80.41.95.252 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You can search by DOI in Wikidata, obtain the Q-number and cite this Q-number with Wikidata citation template (Template:Cite Q). Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been told by 109.76.193.171 (talk · contribs) that the |language= parameter isn't to be used for English-language sorces. However, many of the citation templates include language otherwise, like this from {{cite book}}: Because cs1|2 templates are often copied from en.wiki to other wikis, the use of language codes is preferred so that language names render in the correct language and form. Should Template:Cite book/doc (and all others similarly) be updated to reflect the consensus refered to by 109.76.193.171? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That IP editor is incorrect. The documentation is correct. The archives of Help Talk:CS1 have discussions about this issue. That is where consensus is determined for Citation Style 1 citation templates, including {{cite book}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Many thanks for knowing more than I do! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I doubt you watched the above article after editing it, but with this reversion, 109.76.193.171 reverted you saying See what documentation exactly? Template:Cite_web says 'When the only source language is English, no language is displayed in the citation.' There's no point in tagging non-English languages. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in an edit war with someone who ignores WP:BRD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't either, but what is the appropriate next-step, if you don't mind my asking? Should it be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

My advice is (1) stop fretting about it, because it is a tiny thing, or barring that, (2) continue to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It would also help to dig through the Help Talk:CS1 archives to see if you can find the discussions about why at least some people favor putting language=en into articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

If memory serves, the decision to recommend retaining |language=en arose from discussion at or related WP:MED and the translation of medical articles to other-language wikis.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Important parts of WP:BRD are WP:DISCUSS and WP:STATUSQUO and I reject the above assertion that I was not following the process. I also object to editors asserting that things are required when they cannot explain or show discussions to support their claims. It is also strange when an editor insists on strict markup formatting in one place and in another includes apparently optional unnecessary bloated markup. If the rules were half as clear as some editors claim, then supporting their arguments would be easy.
For the record user Fourthords found an old discussion which explained that "It was requested by editors who copy citations from en.WP to WP in other languages" and that resolved the matter. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

There are some articles that cite Chinese books. However the template would Italicize the Chinese characters. I wonder if there can be some way to stop this italicizing feature when it comes to Chinese characters or language. 2001:B011:7000:1613:84F0:68A:70DC:75F4 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

for cs1|2 templates: |script-title=. See Template:Cite book § Title

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)