Template talk:Citation error

Request
Please change this template in the following way:

The changes are:
 * 1) Add  tags to avoid the error message in the template page itself
 * 2) Add Template, Help page and Category namespace to the detection

The first part is a trivial imporvement. The second part does not change the way the template works, just adds a few more namespaces to where this templates sorts into (Category:Articles with broken citations). Since I am the only one doing regular work there, that should be uncontroversial. Please note that these same namespaces are also used in other error categories, like Category:Pages with missing references list and et. al.

Debresser (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Second proposal
To sort templates, help pages and categories together in a special way, I'd like to make the following proposal, analogous to other error categories, see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia.

The only thing is that I am not sure this will work. If you are, please feel free to implement it. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the simplest way for the namespace categorization is:


 * Do you want to do File namespace as well? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just remembered about files also, so I added them here. And I agree with you that your way is probably the most elegant. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume that that template replaces the {#switch:} function in the current template? If you are happy with the current proposal I can plug that in the template and you can let me know if it works (-8 Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes on both questions. This will work for sure. My doubts were in connection with my proposal. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Namespace detect showall is a neat template that keeps you from going crazy on conditionals by namespace. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And it's working fine. Debresser (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tweak wording
If this template is uses in a cite xxx template, and the template is specified, then the wording is fine:

If the error checking is in a meta-template used by the cite xxx template, such as Citation/core, then it makes little sense to specify either. But, if you don't specify the template, you get:

Which is awkward. If the template is not specified, then we should not show anything. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose omitting both "when using Cite web" and "when using citation template". This information is evident anyway to the editor making or fixing the error. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case we agree about removing "when using citation template". Also, please add a dot for a full stop at the end of the sentence. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like.
 * See User:Debresser/Testcases. Note: you must copy from the edit page, because the text includes special characters. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, more or less: I've removed the default "when using citation template" message as requested, but wanted to point out first that the full stop at the end will currently clash with most usages of this template: the citation templates normally insert the seperator character itself following this template, so we'd end up with several ".." or ".," in the error messages. Not that it's a particularly big deal, if we're displaying error messages that are supposed to be fixed quickly I can live with a punctuation oddity. But from what I can tell, this wouldn't be an improvement in most cases without going through its usages and fixing the way this is used. Amalthea  10:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I agree with leaving out the period for the reason you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles with broken citations shouldn't contain templates
Category:Articles with broken citations currently contains 11 template pages. Ten of them are either citation template testcases or are subpages of this template (the one remaining is unused and proposed for deletion). They transclude this template, but these "errors" are intentional and shouldn't be fixed. So, I propose that if this template is transcluded to a template page, that page woudn't be added to the category. It only clutters it and serves no purpose. If some template really contained citation error that should be fixed, it almost certainly wouldn't be a problem unless that template was transcluded to another page, but that would add that page to the category. Svick (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We have been living with those 11 pages for along time, without any problem. The reason we can't do what you propose (and believe me it has been suggested before), is because that would disable detection of broken citations for all templates. The most realistic alternative I see is to blank the testcases. But as I said, it doesn't really bother anybody. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this isn't an serious issue, but I can't think of a situation, when we would want to have a template in that category and that template (along with citation error) wouldn't be transcluded somewhere outside template namespace. If there is a citation error in a template that isn't transcluded anywhere, it doesn't matter. If the template is used for example in some article, then that article would be in this category, so we would find that error. Yes, it would make finding out where the error really is little harder, but for me, that would be worth it. Svick (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And what about templates that are not in use on pages? There are many such templates. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean templates that aren't used at all? I think those don't have to be fixed, since they are not visible anywhere. Or do you mean things like  subpages with example references? I'm not sure that we have to check those for errors, but maybe we should. I guess you're right, this change wouldn't be worth it. Svick (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant those that are not in use at all. After all, they might be used any moment. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the best option is to just modify the doc pages. The other option could be to add a "nocat" parameter, and pass it through in the examples. Comments? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If somebody would be able to take care of those templates that are supposed to render an error message, but in a way that would not effect their transclusions, that would be a good idea. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added a nocat true option, and then added this feature to the documentation and testpages for most of the templates in the category. There are still a few lingering, but at least it is now not dwarfing the articles the category. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)