Template talk:Cite Hansard

Creating
I think it might be good to have a Cite hansard for citing, well, Hansard. Would take house, url, date, column - possibly generalise to legislatures whose reports aren't called Hansard. Hansard doesn't fit any of the existing templates well because it doesn't have page numbers, but column numbers. Morwen - Talk 10:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I could help tinkering that template (in case you need a ParserFunctions nerd :). But I need more info. Could you give at least an initial sketch of what the straight case should look like? I propose to give a call example and give the corresponding expected output in POW (plain old wikitext). Are there optional params? --Ligulem 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. has a sketch. How about as a start

turning into

Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, April 1 1996, column 1234

the url parameter would be optional and make the bit in italics a link? Also it might be good to support column ranges, i suppose optional column_start and column_end parameters instead? Morwen - Talk 12:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done so far. What should the column_start and column_end produce? Just "column 23-34"? --Ligulem 13:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Columns 23-34 for preference. Morwen - Talk 13:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. If we are finished we can remove the testing remark. --Ligulem 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Morwen - Talk 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh well. If it's that easy to make you happy :) --Ligulem 14:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

UK template
If it's ok, I'm going to have a go at creating a template, ukhansard, for citing the House of Commons and House of Lords Hansards in the correct form. David Mestel(Talk) 16:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ukhansard does not appear to have caught on, and it may be better this way; it seems to rely on abbreviations too much for the purposes of a general encyclopaedia, and it also lacks essential features (like links). If there are any people watching this page, perhaps they might comment on the possibility of nominating the aforementioned template for deletion? (Also, there is a space after the date in this template, and it ought to be removed; I don't want to break anything, so...) Waltham, The Duke of 08:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Having said the above, I believe there is something that Ukhansard got right: it allows for the inclusion of volume number. Guidance for citing Hansard such as here and here seems to consider it necessary, and it makes sense because the columns are numbered per volume, not daily (thus making the date more of an explanatory parenthesis). I believe that adjusting this template to include volume (and perhaps series) information would be a step in the right direction.
 * Now that I remember it, there is also the issue of punctuation. I prefer the "Cite X" system of citation templates (Cite book, Cite web, etc.), where full-stops are generally used rather than commas, and the combined usage of those templates and this one creates a certain lack of stylistic harmony. Might it be possible to introduce a "separator" parameter here which would allow one to specify full-stops rather than commas as separators? Waltham, The Duke of 11:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Full stop
Other citation templates seem to include a full stop at the end of the reference. Can this be added to the Hansard template? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or is this intentional so that it can be used mid-sentence? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Kanguole, this now seems to be fixed. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was done by MitchellDuce; I only finished it off. Kanguole 18:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for pointing that out. Thanks to both of you then! Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to have disappeared again, at least in the case of the UK examples. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed: Turns out that it only worked when you used the speaker and/or position parameters. I've moved the period out of all of the  and it seems to have solved the problem. MitchellDuce (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Harv
Would it be possible to make this template compatible with harv usage? I'd like to use the NSW Hansard in the Netball article. The article has a bibliography and reference list. It uses and  and the author linkage doesn't appear to work. --LauraHale (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Parliament of the United Kingdom
This template really should not be used for the Hansard for the UK Parliament until it is complete. The complete information is:


 * Hansard, or alternatively Official Report after 1909 (to identify source)
 * House of Commons or House of Lords, after 1909
 * Series
 * Volume number
 * Column, including suffix for Written Statements and Westminster Hall Debates, and allowing for italics for Written Answers.

Without all this information the template is incomplete. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Mr Blacketer's statement, and I have been thinking about this matter myself lately. I had already made some observations above, but I have since done more research and approached the subject more methodically. In revising the citation style for the UK Hansard, there are three issues to consider:


 * How closely do we need to follow the official method of citing Hansard? This is a general encyclopaedia, not a legal text, and the official citation style's many abbreviations may confuse readers. Indeed, most of them will probably find "HC Deb" too obscure to even infer that it refers to Hansard.
 * To what extent do we want our Hansard citations to resemble the style of the other citations in Wikipedia? We have some established formats for citing books, journals, news articles etc., exemplified by templates like Cite and the "Cite x" family; to what extent should our Hansard citations conform with these stylistic conventions?
 * How much consistency do we need between the UK Parliament's Hansard and those of other legislatures? It is clear there are some differences in usage; I do not know whether other countries use volume numbers or have numbered series, but such information is conspicuously absent from Cite Hansard, where dates alone appear to suffice for most uses. This template is obviously meant as a general, catch-all solution, but this doesn't mean there cannot be a separate one for the UK Parliament Hansard—as indeed there is, even though it is unused and incomplete in its current state. We could apply any ideas we develop here to that template and use it instead of this one.


 * To begin with the basics, we need the name of the House, the date, the volume number, the series number (if necessary), and the column number(s), with the appropriate sequence suffix (if applicable). There is no need to mention the jurisdiction (the context should be obvious), and I also see no need to identify the speaker and their position, but I do see a use for a "quote" parameter in the end. (For the sake of completeness, I'll also mention the need for a url parameter.)


 * I am not entirely sure about whether the name "Parliamentary Debates" applies with equal validity to all series of Hansard. Even if it does, however, I feel that it would be both more succinct and closer to the spirit of the official style to simply expand "HC/HL Deb" to "House of Commons/Lords Debates" (or is it "Debate"?). Regarding the other abbreviations, I'd be equally happy with "vol(s)." and "volume(s)", as well as with "col(s)." and "column(s)", although "c(c)." is probably too confusing to retain. That said, it would ensure better compatibility with Cite Hansard to use the fully expanded "volume(s)" and "column(s)". Finally, a little additional punctuation would answer question #2 and make the whole thing a bit more readable. My idea for a full citation (and here is where all the above come together) is this:


 * House of Commons Debates (3rd series). 18 May 1876. Volume 229, columns 917–918. "Random quote here."
 * House of Lords Debates (5th series). 17 March 1981. Volume 418, columns 653–655. "Random quote here."


 * I didn't expect to be able to do it, but I've actually managed to create this template in my sandbox. It works pretty much as shown above, and includes the following features:


 * It has two ways to enter date, namely a "date" parameter and "day", "month" and "year" parameters (the former supersedes the latter).
 * The volume can be omitted, in which case the word column(s) is capitalised.
 * There is a "column" parameter and, for ranges, "column_start" and "column_end" parameters.
 * There are "prefix" and "suffix" parameters, so that these can be entered separately of the column numbers. (Prefixes/suffixes are not repeated: the correct citation is "cc. 50–51W", not "cc. 50W–51W". This means that, as long as we use two separate parameters for column ranges, the prefix/suffix cannot simply be added to these fields, but will need a parameter of its own.) Prefixes are used for the House of Lords and suffixes for the Commons; in case both parameters are filled, the former supersedes the latter.


 * By the way, I'm not sure we need italics for written answers. I haven't seen it done or required anywhere.


 * Anyway, thoughts? This is my first complex template, so any help would be appreciated. Waltham, The Duke of 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing has changed in the last two years, so I am making another attempt to draw attention to this subject. The above continues to express my views on the matter. Waltham, The Duke of 11:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it needs to allow for speakers' names - such as speaker1 through speaker10. I would be happy if it just cited Hansard as the name of the work so to speak, followed by the "official" Hansard citation, such as "HC Deb 05 December 1963 vol 685 cc1340-1 ". No need to invent a new way of doing it. I don't think we ought to cater for readers who don't understand the citation, and in any case an online link will take them where they want to go, e.g. []. That's if they even get as far as reading the references.

WP:BOLD mon brave. John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 20:34, wikitime=  12:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * These are some good points, though I'm not sure I understand why we need so many parameters for speakers. I'd expect that naming the speaker(s) would be useful in a brief exchange that takes up only part of a column, and that a longer debate would be best described simply by giving the column numbers. In any case, my idea above is a compromise between the "official" citation style for Hansard and the current Wikipedia style (i.e. the present template), which is obviously quite different. I see that "Hansard" followed by "HC Deb" or "HL Deb" is suggested by some guides——and therefore I could use that and end up with something resembling the "official" style. That said, I don't see the harm in expanding "vol" and "col", or in changing punctuation slightly (for consistency with our existing citation system and to show that volumes are not connected to dates). For example:


 * Hansard HC Deb (3rd series) 18 May 1876. Volume 229, columns 917–918. "Random quote here."
 * Hansard HL Deb 17 March 1981. Volume 418, columns 653–655. "Random quote here."


 * I haven't included speakers because I'm not entirely sure how they would fit in. Volume number would be desirable in all cases, though not demanded (in contrast to the House name, date and column numbers); series number would normally be needed only for series other than the present one and only in conjunction with a volume number. Waltham, The Duke of 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going by cite book etc which allow up to 9 authors or whatever. My main points are that the standard Hansard citation is very brief (commendably so):
 * HC or HL
 * deb or whatever NB other forms are recorded besides debates: questions, divisions, etc


 * John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 08:50, wikitime=  00:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I hadn't given much thought to brevity as an advantage, but I think you may be right about that; "vol" and "col" are easy to understand, in any case, and if pressed we might use Abbr. The inclusion of speakers, on the other hand, is more complex. Including one speaker, with or without quotation, is plain enough. Perhaps two or three speakers with as many quotations would work? For longer conversations I think the column numbers would suffice, or footnotes could be used if something needed to be explained; I think cluttering the citation with five names or more would be of little use on its own, especially without quotations. Waltham, The Duke of 05:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am increasingly convinced that the citation ought to be brief and resemble the recommended citation style for Hansard, but I find that these aims are not very compatible with the inclusion of speakers, especially multiple ones. I am also realising that we have not hitherto considered the matter of multiple column references: unlike a book citation, where one can write "pp. 77, 82–85", Hansard citations are generally made for continuous column ranges, which normally refer to either a specific point or a longer part of a debate; this makes it harder to make selections from a debate without making more explicit reference to them in the article text or in a note. It is true that a continuous column range may, and often does, include more than a single speaker, but in this case would it be appropriate to transcribe in a footnote what would inevitably look like a dialogue? The existing Cite Hansard template has fields for only one speaker, and I believe this is an element we ought to retain, though we'd also redress the absence of a "quotation" parameter. (Indeed, I have doubts for the utility of even the one speaker, but I'd leave the editors sort that out.)
 * The other point you raise is an interesting one, and I hadn't considered it before: what else is cited in Hansard other than debates? It is my understanding that questions and divisions, though they are numbered, are included in the regular columns scheme and are not cited in a manner different from that used for debates proper. On the other hand, there is the matter of Standing Committees and their replacements, Public Bill Committees, according to a House of Commons factsheet, which I have decided to incorporate.
 * I have come up with a workable parameters scheme for the template, and I have updated my sandbox to display it to you. (It took me quite a lot of study to find out how, but I am getting better at writing templates—just as Lua is starting to become widespread in Wikipedia!.) The basic mechanics of the template are as follows: there will be a "house" parameter, which will define whether "HC" or "HL" is displayed, and instead of "prefix" and "suffix" parameters (for written answers etc.) there will be a single "extension" parameter, which will display a prefix or suffix depending on which House has been selected. There will also be a "bill_name" parameter for Public Bill Committees (which will supersede "house" and substitute "x Bill Deb") and a "bill_no" parameter for the parenthetical bill number (which will supersede "house" and "bill_name" and substitute "PBC Deb"). Finally, there will be a "sc_letter" parameter, which will provide the letter of the Standing Committee and substitute "SC Deb" at the beginning. All the committee-related parameters will disable the "series", "volume" and "extension" ones. At the end there will a quote parameter; if that is used, a speaker can also be added ahead. Waltham, The Duke of 01:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation format
This template, currently based on cite journal, has some formatting issues, as discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6: Example:
 * 1) When a speaker is specified, the citation is preceded by a period
 * 2) The date is being processed as the title

The current formatting is also quite different from citation guides for various styles (eg, , , , from the University of Canberra), plus the last version of the template before it was migrated over to cite journal

Based on the above guides and Help:CS1, it seems to me the CS1-style format should be something like
 * Jurisdiction. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House. Date. At (Speaker, Position).

where At would be either the page(s) or column(s) reference, preceded by part (if applicable). (The usual optional extras like url, format, and archiveurl would also be needed.) I don't think this is possible with any of the existing CS1 templates, at least not without misusing the parameters. What do other editors think? Are there any other elements that would be needed? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I have left discussion invitations at WP:AWNB, WP:CWNBD, WT:UK, and Talk:Hansard - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the intent is to exactly replicate these Hansard styles, then the CS1 template should not be used. If the intent is to incorporate all the elements into the CS1 system so it matches the other citation in the article, then we can include all the elements, but they will be in a different order. cite book seems to work more better:
 * The original example included a URL, but I have no idea what title it was supposed to be attached to.


 * --  Gadget850talk 07:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The intent is to have a CS1 style template - I thought CS1 was meant to be based on Chicago / APA? Anyway, they show the elements normally used outside of Wikipedia. The Cite book version looks alright – URL's currently provided can be mapped to a title parameter, which could probably be provided for most instances, eg


 * Until titles are provided, they'll look like this:


 * But they should get fixed eventually, as CS1 has error tracking categories. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 08:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you got this. Let me know if you need more help. --  Gadget850talk 13:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed the template to use which uses Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. How the module handles chapters is being revised; see Help_talk:Citation_Style_1.

It seems to me that if you want to use then in  this mapping is more appropriate:
 * chapter
 * title
 * chapter-url
 * trans-chapter

Do you really need all of the identifier parameters? type, arxiv, id, isbn, issn, oclc, pmid, pmc, bibcode, doi

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the mapping changes you suggested, and removed those identifier parameters that are quite unlikely to be used, but now setting archiveurl results in the  error - see my example above - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. Your example citation with no:
 * and with yes:
 * and for completeness, without the archive parameters:
 * The missing title error above is because the citation is missing its title. A legitimate error.
 * and for completeness, without the archive parameters:
 * The missing title error above is because the citation is missing its title. A legitimate error.
 * The missing title error above is because the citation is missing its title. A legitimate error.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct me here, but I believe yes has no effect. --  Gadget850talk 18:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, does nothing, but it is out there in the wild so I used it here.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

✅, thanks for your help Gadget850 and Trappist the monk - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just remember that the new is now using  and Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so is reliant on features and functionality not available in the live, stable module.  It is possible that changes I make to the module will break .  So, keep an eye on pages that use  for weirdness that lasts longer than an hour or so and keep an eye on Help talk:Citation Style 1.  At the next update to the module you can change  to use  and relax your vigilance. Or, revert to the previous version with its one known minor flaw and wait for the module update before updating  to use.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am actively preparing an article that uses for a WP:GA nomination, so I can keep an eye out for any long-lasting weirdness. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

On Steart Peninsula this template is used and is showing the error "chapter-url= missing title (help)." ( with the help taking you to Help:CS1 errors. I'm not familiar with this template - can anyone see what the error is?&mdash; Rod talk 11:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The same error appears on Tone Vale Hospital. Any help fixing them would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 11:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You just need to add a title to the code, eg these edits:, - Evad37 &#91;talk] 12:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I learn something new everyday.&mdash; Rod talk 12:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

URLs
The UK urls are creatable from the house, date and section title - EG:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/nov/26/over-30-months-scheme

Maybe this could be built in. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

chapter-url= missing title
gives



Why "chapter-url= missing title"? There is no chapter-url. jnestorius(talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This template is a meta-template for . As such, it maps its title and url to the underlying  parameters chapter-title and chapter-url.  Module:Citation/CS1, the engine that renders, is complaining because your example  template does not have title.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this used to work. The change has broken things and gives an unhelpful error message. jnestorius(talk) 01:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * google jnestorius(talk) 17:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, there they are. And all of those that are  templates are missing titles.  If you want a clickable-link in your Hansard cites, you should give the template a title.  That is something that must be done at each individual instance of the template and not something that can be done here.  For your example at the top of this topic, you can see that the title is embedded in http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1887/jul/15/civil-services#column_977.  If you remove   from the url, you get this link:
 * http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1887/jul/15/civil-services
 * Follow that, and there is your title so rewriting your example:
 * Unfortunately, not all Hansard urls are so obliging.
 * Unfortunately, not all Hansard urls are so obliging.
 * Unfortunately, not all Hansard urls are so obliging.


 * As for the error message, Module:Citation/CS1 does not and cannot know that has mapped title and url to chapter-title and chapter-url.  You might want to add text to Template:cite hansard/doc explaining this apparent peculiarity.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I know how the template works now. My point is that it used to work differently; somebody changed it and broke many existing uses of it. That edit (probably this one this one) was damaging. If you change the behaviour of a widely-used template, you should make it backwards compatible. jnestorius(talk) 13:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, it does work differently. The editors who elected to change this template surely recognized that.  I will neither defend nor support their choices.  I came to this page because of the post at Help talk:Citation Style 1 mentioned at the start of Template talk:Cite Hansard which chronicles the change from  to . Those edits, rather than the bot edit that removed an interwiki link, are likely the source of your complaint.  You may wish to ping those editors since they may no longer be watching this page (Editor Gadget850 has retired from Wikipedia).


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the link to the suspect edit (it's the one after the bot). jnestorius(talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a test for URL without a title to the template. If you note a parameter as required (or conditional) in the documentation, it is useful to track usages that violate the requirement. The test populates the existing tracking category, . – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

commas
Two recent changes to this template have focused on commas. The removed a comma, the  puts it back but doesn't put it back.

Before the changes, the values from speaker and position were concatenated with a comma and non-breaking space into the cs1 template's last1 parameter. That mechanism is flawed because a speaker's position isn't part of the speaker's name but, because the two are lumped together this way the template's metadata gets it all:

Properly, only the speaker's name should be in the author metadata:

The second change adds a call to Module:String that removes any commas in the position parameter value. The concatenation is kept and the result is corrupt metadata without commas. To have the template render commas as grammar would dictate, the second change adds author-mask which relies on that parameter's author-name replacement functionality. In this case, the values from speaker and position are concatenated to create the preferred display.

Perhaps the correct code for these two parameters should be: |author=
 * author-mask=

It is not clear to me that first1 has ever had a valid use in. Since it nolonger has its mate last1, perhaps it should be removed from this template. If it is to remain, then last1 should be restored, and consideration given to make sure that author, last1, speaker, position and the authormask code don't interfere.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was, with my edit, just trying to get comma(s) displayed without tripping the recently introduced "CS1 maint: Multiple names" messages/categorisation – presumably the reason removed them. I have no objection to your proposal. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted author and author-mask per above, and added tracking for first1 (in Category:Cite Hansard tracking category) to see if it is being used at all. - Evad37 &#91;talk]

sandbox
Because someone wrote this template which improperly includes an explicit 'and others' (et al) in speaker

and because simply adding etal did not fix the problem, I came here to see about a better solution.

One solution for a fix to this would have been to add this line to the template code:

Instead, I have rewritten the template sandbox to use Module:template wrapper which allows to use all of the normally available  parameters. Rewriting the above template to use the sandbox and etal:

It might be a bit more appropriate to create a display-speakers alias parameter:

Opinions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There having been no opinions expressed, I have implemented display-speakers and updated the live template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove extra punctuation when using part without page_start
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 is in Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation because of reference #31:



Could someone please tweak this template so the colon after the part is only displayed when page_start is also included? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think, after some monkeying around in the sandbox and on the testcases page. If you notice anything strange after this change, post here with an example citation, and I will take a look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I just need to insert a Hansard citation
I'm just an amateur author, trying to cite Hansard. I was directed to this template, but I feel I've fallen into a parallel universe of curly brackets and equal signs. How do I actually use the template - do I have to type all those symbols? CurlingWisps (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you use the Visual Editor, you should be able to click the button to insert a template, tell it to insert this template, and you should get a set of boxes to fill in. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)