Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 2

Example with two authors
Given that few papers are written by a single author anymore, can we please see an example for two authors? (Smith, Josef and Moroni, Angel, 1830) would be fine. I took a guess at Otter theorem prover, but I'm not to happy with the result.--Stephan Schulz 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at cite book but only if you're happy about looking at extremely complicated code :-) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Scratching my head: the code for the author part is the same here as in cite book. So what's more complicated there than here? --Ligulem 15:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Gracefool! WTF! I've seen it. --Ligulem 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Cry.png|16px]] See my ramblings about "sub-templates" below. —Phil | Talk 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

JournalURL
Should we add an optional parameter JournalURL? I'm coming across quite a few places where the Journal parameter contains a URL, and I wonder whether we should add an extra parameter for this. We could also add an optional parameter JournalLink where we have an article (along the lines of the new cite book, the …Link parameter would over-ride the …URL parameter).

I'm actually wondering whether we could make an argument that an actual meta-template would be useful here. We have many instances where we have X together with optional X…URL and X…Link, and we want to treat them basically in the same way; like this, in decreasing order of desirability: It would be nice if we could come up with something which would do this consistently, and the problem is that my ingrained programmer's habits say "sub-routine" which in this case rather implies "sub-template". Thoughts? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * X…Link &rArr;
 * X…URL &rArr;


 * I'm unsure what to do with your proposal right now. Maybe I haven't understood it. This needs some further rumination from my side. It's not an easy question. Generally I'm reluctant to add additional parameters. A quick first sight problem I see is there are more and more occasions where such requests for additional url param's do pop up on the citation templates. I fear a bit piling up of paramaters. Adding parameters is easy, but once we have them in the template it's nearly impossible to remove them even if they are only used on a few calls among thousands of other calls. But generally, if there is a good reason to add a parameter, then it should be done. --Ligulem 09:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've (sort of) included the journal URL by linking to the wikipedia journal entry, which itself has the journal links. For example use: journal=J. Org. Chem.   This will link via redirect to the Journal of Organic Chemistry, where all the relevant journal links are listed. (This has the added benefit of being able to use annoying journal title abbreviations without having to fully spell them out or explain them.) ~K 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

linking coauthors
I note that the authorlink field applies only to the first author. To be honest I'm a little ambivalent about wikilinking author names at all (I think it looks kind of ugly) but surely if we're going to do it, it should be possible for all authors. In many fields it's traditional to list authors alphabetically, so it's not even clear that the first author is the one with the most important contribution to the cite. Maybe the remaining authors should be included as first2, last2, authorlink2, and so on? In that case we could also make sure that the Oxford comma is always used. --Trovatore 19:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

authorlink is broken
When I add the authorlink option, the last name disappears. See Dog_society. Elf | Talk 01:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being late. I have finally looked at that. You did:


 * which gives:


 * The problem here is that you put an external link into the authorlink. This is not as intended. authorlink should receive the name of a wikipedia article. For example:


 * which gives:
 * Sorry again for answering that late. --Ligulem 16:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry again for answering that late. --Ligulem 16:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Better late than never. :-) Elf | Talk 00:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Article title in quotation marks
Why does this not follow the example at Cite sources/example style, with quotation marks surrounding the article title?


 * Brandybuck, Meriadoc (1955). "Herb lore of the Shire". Journal of the Royal Institute of Chemistry 10 (2), 234–351.

This format is much more commonly-used and would be easier to understand for most readers. —Michael Z. 2006-03-04 15:38 Z 


 * Good question. I changed that in the template. cite book encloses the chapter in quotation marks too. So this sounds reasonable to me. --Ligulem 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you: that looks better. —Michael Z. 2006-03-04 15:54 Z 

Sorry, no, it shouldn't be, at least not for science journals. Quotation marks are not used round titles. Take a look at the references list in any science journal. If they are felt necessary in humanities journals, then we need separate templates for the different styles. - MPF 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example (pdf file), from American Journal of Botany (which is a typical example of the great majority of both US and European science journal styles). Obs: no quotes round article titles in the references, and also journal volumes not in bold. - MPF 10:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have already reverted you. Please post messages like these before editing the template. I wouldn't have reverted you on the template, if you had done so, so this issue could have been discussed first before changing that high use template. Furthermore your edit summary ("copyedit") wasn't that helpful either. As there is some disagreement now, I will not rerevert. We must discuss this here first and then act when there is consensus what to do. Mzajac wants to have quotion marks, you don't want them. Splash wants to have the volume bold, you disagree. Please do sort this out on the talk page here. Thanks. --Ligulem 10:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; yes, guess I should have looked in here first (it's too easy to forget!). To amplify a bit on what gets used, I've got copies of articles from over 100 different science journals; while a few journals do use bold volume citation most don't, but I can't recall ever having seen quotes round titles - MPF 11:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with MPF. I have never seen a scientific journal use quote marks around a title. As regards boldface for volume numbers, in the papers I've got on my desk, it's about 50:50, but I personally prefer to use boldface (for what it's worth). If other fields use other formats, then we might have to have separate templates for each, but I hope that won't be necessary. --Stemonitis 12:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope too that it will not be necessary to to have separate templates. But in case someone truly starts thinking about adding parameters like "volumebold=true" then it would be probably better to do separate templates. But don't ask me what the name of such a template would be ("cite journal bold volume" would be a bit ugly). At the moment we have "cite journal MPF-Stemonitis", "cite journal Splash-Stemonitis" and "cite journal Mzajac" :-). --Ligulem 12:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But this is neither a science journal nor a humanities journal, this is Wikipedia, and our manual of style specifies a general citation format with quotation marks around article titles. This template should simply conform to that.  (personally, I don't like the bolding, but the place to discuss these issues is the MOS, and not by revert-warring this template)  —Michael Z. 2006-03-05 18:12 Z 


 * You may have noticed that I had reverted MPF's edit to the quotation marks as you requested it. Which was again reverted by MPF. I also told him on his talk page that I do not accept this revert warring, for which he apologized on my talk page. So you are probably responding to the wrong person here. BTW I do not care what the template looks. Please sort it out on the talk or MoS before acting on the template. I have always respected the consensus here. Thanks. --Ligulem 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just adding my response to an earlier comment, at the end of the thread. Sorry to be unclear.  —Michael Z. 2006-03-05 18:55 Z 


 * I've put in a proposal at the MOS to get rid of those awful quotes. - MPF 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The largest electical engineering academic publisher in the world, the IEEE, uses quotations around titles. The largest in the UK, the IEE, bolds the volume title and uses quotes around the title. You can look in any of their publications, but here is an IEEE example and here is an IEE example. Thus it is not correct that no scientific publisher uses such conventions. However, as Michael Z says, we should simply folloe the MoS and changes of this nature should be established there, not by repeated insertion/removals here. -Splash talk 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See also Template:Cite journal2. --Ligulem 09:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"the template emits quotes around the title" is not clear - could this say "the template puts quotes around the title"? --apers0n 13:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Just edit the doc. --Ligulem 13:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper
I hope I am not at the wronf place to ask. Should this or other templates be used to cite a newspaper, a daily (like NYT) or a weekly (like The Village Voice). Thanks. --Irpen 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at Cite news as well. --Stemonitis 09:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/AIDS/archive1
The article on AIDS has been nominated for FA status, yet the first comment in place is about the wikitext. It is called a perfect example of what best practice isn't. AIDS extensively uses this template along with the cite book and cite web templates within the text. This makes for better reading and better referencing. Just thought people should know. --Bob 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not the templates' fault. It is the fault of the system (see Cite/Cite.php) which requires that references be inline in the text rather than collected together at the end of the article. -Splash talk 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Using the style, you could theoretically have them all at the top, or maybe at the bottom, and just reference them like that. They do not strictly have to be inline is what I am saying. Ans  e  ll  23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be nice to have in or in addition to cite.php
I was thinking about this all along. I thought the most natural system would be something like this:
 *  in the text flow
 *  }    in the end after the
 * Issue is actually included as a parameter. If I recall, it renders as (volume(issue)) 142 (4). Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (I've echoed this to your talk page. :-))
 * Doh! I wonder if that's been added since I last looked or if I never saw it in the first place... Anyway, thanks for the quick reply ;) —porges(talk) 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! I wonder if that's been added since I last looked or if I never saw it in the first place... Anyway, thanks for the quick reply ;) —porges(talk) 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

curly quotes
Splash once wrote on my talk:


 * Well, it turns out that the WP:MOS section has changed since I last read it (I think). It appears to allow both, but is clear enough that most articles on Wikipedia use straight quotes rather than curly quotes. Indeed, any time I see an article with curly quotes, I immediately suspect it of being a copyright violation since the default typing-into-the-edit box without any cleverness does not yield curly quotes. I think that templating the curly quotes will cause stylistic inconsistency in a very large number of articles. To that end, I have reverted Cite news. -Splash talk 23:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)'

I apologize for having mentionend in my last revert "has been discussed". I was wrong. It was only that message of Splash on my talk page. I remembered that wrong. --Ligulem 10:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I prefer to use curly quotes in articles I am doing a lot of work on (I think it just Looks Better), so how about an optional parameter, defaulting to off, for whether or not to use curly quotes? (As suggested by User:Bookofjude.) —porg es (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added  to the template. Examples:
 * (without curly) (code:  )
 * (with curly) (code:  )
 * What do you think? I can convert the other reference templates in the series to also use this. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, see your talk page ;) —porg es (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If possible, please not. I plead for using curly quotes then, if we can avoid that nasty "curly" param. --Ligulem 11:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if it is a temporary thing. Or my browser is dodgy or what, but those two templates render identically for me.
 * But still, I like Liguelm, strongly object to having this parameter. It is ok to implement the template so that an individual user controls how they see the citation by using their own CSS. It is not ok, having created and deployed these templates to give a uniform look for the casual user to then go and break that. Pcb21 Pete 12:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you aren't happy with my changes, you may feel free to revert them. I also made the changes to Template:Cite news and Template:Cite paper, if you wish to revert those. I felt that an optional parameter was a valid compromise, but you both obviously feel different. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else like the "CSS controls citation style" idea? Pcb21 Pete 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you want to control with CSS and how exactly would you do it? Could you give some CSS code examples? In general, I have some doubts whether this is achievable. But I'm not a CSS expert. To Bookofjude: I'm not going to revert you. If you feel this is the right way to go, then please do so. Just keep in mind that every additional parameter gives more work to maintain on the calls. But if all are happy with that curly param, then ok. --Ligulem 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine; perhaps we should add some comments to the source code via noinclude and <! comments... Anyway, re: CSS, it's possible that you could do something like...
 * And then, in your monobook.css:
 * .straight {
 * visibilty: hidden;
 * }
 * .curly {
 * visbility: block;
 * }
 * But I think that's even more cumbersome than using two optional calls. It relies on the user having one or the other of them set to hide via Monobook.css, otherwise both would display at once... It does, however, give the option of which one should be viewed to the person who is reading the article, rather than the person writing the article. I imagine there's other ways to do it, though. This is the only one I can think of at the minute. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 14:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I suggested exactly the same in my reply posted at the same time so it is probably the natural way. Like I say, you would always change common.css so that you never print both. And yes having the reader choose rather than the writer is very important. That way we can maintain consistency across the whole encyclopedia. Pcb21 Pete 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I suggested exactly the same in my reply posted at the same time so it is probably the natural way. Like I say, you would always change common.css so that you never print both. And yes having the reader choose rather than the writer is very important. That way we can maintain consistency across the whole encyclopedia. Pcb21 Pete 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I've already said I am NOT happy with the curly param. It defeats the purpose of templatizing the data. I thought you objected to it too?
 * What do I want to control with CSS? Let's say I want APA style citations but the default is MPA style. I can see that it could work by the template printing each style (each within its own span tag). Common.css then sets all but the MPA style to display:none. I override that with my monobook.css which sets MPA style back to none and APA style to display:normal. Pcb21 Pete 14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the CSS explanations. I see what you want to do. My answer to the CSS thing is a strong no. That's exactly what we have been fighting against at hiddenStructure. See there why hiding stuff on the client side is a very bad idea. Brion Vibber has also advised against that. See also Don't use hiddenStructure. --Ligulem 14:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, seems like a show-stopper. Client-selection of the citation is not going to be possible for the forseeable future.
 * However I still don't want the template parameter. I don't care which sort of " we go for, but not a mixture, please. Pcb21 Pete 15:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The content is what's displayed without CSS—CSS is meant only to control presentation. Putting literal quotation marks into the page twice and then hiding one set is just plain wrong. This will display broken in many places: search engine summaries & excerpts, republished Wikipedia content, text-only web browsers, audio screen readers.

The curly parameter isn't unacceptable, but in my opinion it is a completely unnecessary cluttering of the interface. Simpler is better. At the very least, the default display should be the correct typographic quotation marks and not the inferior typewriter ticks (since some pages will have a mix anyway). —Michael Z. 2006-07-02 16:44 Z 

Minor linebreak bug
Please check out the refs in inositol. The first ref breaks the line right after the caret. Is this from "cite journal" or from "cite.php"? --Slashme 13:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks
Why does this template have quotation marks at all? This is not consistent with most references on Wikipedia and I've never seen this used in any journal. Can we remove them? And get rid of the "curly" parameter in the process? JFW | T@lk  11:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you read the discussions above on this talk page? --Ligulem 12:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

New template proposed: distinguishing news vs. abstract vs. full text
We're discussing what a more integrated template could look like: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced GA. Please comment if you wish. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cite_journal&action=edit&section=new

authorlink for coauthors
Is this somehow possible? Intangible 04:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can use plain old wikilinks right at the template call. The authorlink is only needed if the first author is given with first, last and the wiki-editor wants to wikilink that first author to the author's article on Wikipedia. Subsequent authors (i.e. the "coauthors") can have the links right inside the data for the coauthors parameter at the call. I'll try do give a (ficticuous) example:






 * --Ligulem 09:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So I see. Thanks! Intangible 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentation back on talk page
I've copied the documentation back to the talk page. Please remove it from the template page. I don't want do ask an admin for every tweak to the docu. If you disagree, update the template page docu yourself accordingly whenever needed. Thanks. --Ligulem 11:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. older ≠ wiser 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Date - e-pub or pub
I'm trying to cite an article which has three seperate dates: date of acceptance, Epub (available online) date, and the date it will appear in print. Am I correct to use the Epub? --Oldak Quill 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd use the print paper references (e.g. volume, issue, pages, as the base template is aimed at paper references), and then just link to the epub. I don't think it's pertinent to give both dates, but adding the accessdate param is pertinent. even though mostpapers have an "acceptance date", they are almost never given in references (except for papers awaiting publication,but here we have a web copy). What's the wiki article? I can give an extra look into it. Circeus 15:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fix curly quotes
The closing curly quote is wrong. At the moment it is, but should be. The fix is a trivial replacement of the first character by the second character in exactly one place. —xyzzyn 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. —Ruud 00:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There's now an extraneous space between the opening quote and the title if it doesn't have a URL. Melchoir 01:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WL of access date
Why is the access date wikilinked? It looks ugly to have random red links lying around. I'm sure there must be a reason, but I can't imagine what it might be. --Slashme 13:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's the only way user preferences on date display can be made to work. Circeus 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way it is currently implemented in this template prevents date formatting preferences from working. August 31, 2006 will not format according to date formatting preferences; August 31, 2006, however, will. If this template did not automatically make a link out of the entire date, I could properly link it myself within the parameter so that it formatted correctly. Kaldari 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but shouldn't the accessdate be in the form 2006-08-31, which when run through the template code should become 2006-08-31 (i.e. with the addition of the square brackets), which then works with date formatting prefs fine. Of course, if you put "August 29, 2006" into that box, it won't work properly - but that's by design. Mike Peel 20:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As such, when you implemented your change, you broke the date preferences functionality in all instances of this template where the accessdate was used correctly (i.e. as per the instructions at the top of this page). Please revert your change. Mike Peel 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the template. However, I still believe the accessdate should not be automatically linked. No one actually writes the dates in ISO 8601 format, even though it says to in the instructions. Even if you are familiar with the format (probably less than 1% of the population), most people still prefer not to use it because it is too ambiguous. Given that the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia do not have their date preferences set, it seems to me that an unlinked "12 August, 2006" is more user friendly than a linked "2006-08-12" (regardless of where you're from). Kaldari 05:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Every instance I have seen, as well as every time I have used it, it's been in the ISO 8601 format. Other templates which use an accessdate tag, such as Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news, also use that format. I would also point to comments about this at Template_talk:Cite_news and Template_talk:Cite_news. Having said that, I agree with you that it shouldn't be wikilinked, so that people can use the date format of their preference (either the editor's preference, or the viewer's preference, depending on the latter).
 * The change isn't as simple as just removing the wikilink brackets from the template, though. First, we have to get consensus - either just here, and preferably also on the other cite templates where this is done the same way (such that we change all of the templates to the same formatting). Second, we need to arrange for a bot to go round every instance where 2006-09-01 is currently used in the cite templates around wikipedia, and get it wikilinked (Either by just adding the, or by changing it to 1 September 2006). Third, we make the change, and set the bot going. Mike Peel 06:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Use for magazine articles
Not finding a good citation template for magazines which aren't journals (but are, IMHO, sufficiently reliable sources, such as Wine Spectator on the subject of wine), I've been using cite journal for those. Comments, or is there any reason that this template should be reserved for peer reviewed scientific publications? --EngineerScotty 18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Often, I will use Template:Cite news for magazines that are not scientific journals. Whether that is a proper use is debatable, though.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink the journal name?
Should the journal name be wikilinked, or left as it is? I would argue that it does want to be linked, so that people who haven't heard of the journal in question can go to a page describing it (and hopefully linking to it). As it stands, this doesn't seem to be common practice, and isn't encouraged here, though. Mike Peel 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Encourage use of " " as well, since we can't rely on a journal having its own article. --KSmrqT 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is now . — Omegatron 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I took to wikilinking the journal name at one time. My argument to myself was that this would provide a ready way of pulling back all articles that contain citations from a particular journal.  I've since stopped because I think more elegant solutions to this surveillance problem should be crafted. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Publication volume number in bold / additional data / descriptive labels
(I'm splitting this out from the "Article title in quotation marks" section, they're two different issues.)

I personally don't like the way it looks to have the volume number bolded, especially since I put in the word "Vol." and then the number when I used this template. Perhaps a compromise would be to include a comma after the publication title and "Vol." before whatever number is entered? Also, assuming that not everyone who reads the references is familiar with their style, it might be helpful to add "p." before the page number (only citing the page number of the first page of the article, not the range), and add "issue" and "day" parameters as well. I'd also like to have spaces after the equal signs to offset the data entry from the parameter labels, and move the date information after the volume, issue, and page data. If no data were entered, obviously, the output would just omit that and continue with the next parameter that had data.

Additionally, clearer parameter names would go a long way toward encouraging the use of the template by those who are unfamiliar with how to cite references correctly; if you look at the way it is now, some of the parameter labels may be misconstrued; in particular, "pages" could mean the total number of pages in the publication or the page numbers for the article being referenced.

While these may be departures from citation styles used in professional or scientific papers, Wikipedia is neither, and should be more "user-friendly" to the average "reader off the street", so to speak. It also might encourage the use of the template by those who are unfamiliar with how to cite references correctly.

The way it is now:





What I propose:




 * → Smith, Joseph III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma". The Saints' Herald, Vol. 26, Issue No. 4, p. 289, October 6, 1879.

&mdash; Chidom   talk   17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This really should not need any great debate surely - there is an internationally accepted standard for reference/citation style. If left to ourselves we will argue over "Vol" vs "Volume", "Issue" vs "Issue No" - the point of a citation style is that individual authors or journals' own styles are converted into some standardised system:
 * The British Medical Journal's advice stylebook refernces points to Ref:Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Med Educ. 1999; 33(1):66-78.
 * If you follow that link you will find "The Uniform Requirements style is based largely on an ANSI standard style adapted by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for its databases. (7) For samples of reference citation formats, authors should consult National Library of Medicine web site."
 * The BMJ's style though includes italics for the journal name instead of a fullstop before the year of publication etc details.
 * Hence do we prefer: Smith, Joseph III. Last Testimony of Sister Emma. The Saints' Herald. 1879;26(4):289.
 * or instead BMJ's : Smith, Joseph III. Last Testimony of Sister Emma. The Saints' Herald 1879;26(4):289.
 * So in summary I would suggest there is no need any description to parameters within a citation, but neither any need for bold volume numbers. David Ruben Talk 12:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - I can see where you're getting the style that you want to use here; but bear in mind a few things: This is not a medical journal, and these pages are read by people who have never read a journal&mdash;medical or otherwise&mdash;in their lives. They are not going to understand what "1879;26(4):289" means; nor are editors going to understand what the current template is asking for. My proposal is to make the template and the information it provides more friendly to a wider range of editors. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it does get to "reinvent the wheel" when it finds a better wheel; without going through formal proposals to international standards organizations, e.g., ISO, etc. I see the need for those elsewhere; not here. I'd like to see Wikipedia provide information that's easily understood by the average reader, rather than following some other standard that has been set for an entirely different communication media. What it comes down to is which of the following is more understandable to a reader with no background in citations:


 * Smith, Joseph III, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma". The Saints' Herald, Vol. 26, Issue No. 4, p. 289, October 6, 1879.
 * or
 * Smith, Joseph III. Last Testimony of Sister Emma. The Saints' Herald 1879;26(4):289.

(I seem to recall the medical profession in particular being asked to use "plain language" for consumers rather than medical jargon; perhaps that should extend to references here.)

Regardless of which format is chosen, the template needs better labeling for the parameters that are being requested or better instructions on the template page. &mdash; Chidom   talk   07:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair points, although I would point out that the style is being based not on doctors wishes but "ANSI standard style adapted by the National Library of Medicine" i.e. it ultimately is following the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines. There are 3 important issues regarding the addition of descriptive terms to the parameters:
 * Any editor looking up journal articles/papers and following up on any of their given references, is likely to encounter citation details as currently formated.
 * Any reader then looking up a reference given in wikipedia may well find the article gives its formal citation details (either at the top or bottom of the paper) in this current style, and again will find that the paper gives its own references in this style.
 * Finally, having being adopted as an international standard (vs English-only), it will be comprehensible to wikieditors and wikireaders whose first language is not English, or who are using the Engkish Wikipedia as source to write their own-language wikipedia article - there is no need for them to try and understand "Issue No." or "Vol.". Hence I rather suspect that the first example below is more comprehensible to us English-speakers than the second:
 * Helanos A "[Autoregulation in the MCA] (Greek)" Νευρολογία 2001 όγκος 2, ζήτημα 5, σελίδες 57 David Ruben Talk 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Helanos A "[Autoregulation in the MCA] (Greek)" Νευρολογία 2001 όγκος 2, ζήτημα 5, σελίδες 57 David Ruben Talk 01:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the international standard has been created by the "American National Standards Institute"? &mdash; Chidom   talk   21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, to invert sequence given above: the "ANSI standard style adapted by the National Library of Medicine" from which the "the Uniform Requirements style is based" according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. I read & interpreted this as US Standards group came up with a style that US Library of Medicine adapted and from which International Uniform Requirements style is based. David Ruben Talk 02:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As Andy Tanenbaum once said, "The great thing about standards is that there so many to choose from." It seems that every major field -- and some individual journals -- has its own preferred style. I suspect that the international standard cited above has no influence outside medicine; indeed, I would guess that there are other international standards in this area (but I haven't looked)....  --Macrakis 15:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Publishing org
Any reason why the publishing house/school/organization etc. is not an option to list? Marskell 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request: template doc page pattern
I've prepared template:cite journal/doc to apply the template doc page pattern for cite journal. Please replace the content of template:cite journal with exactly this code (please copy it verbatim). Thanks. --Ligulem 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for doing this; I'm in the process of working on this too. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language journal titles - translation parameter?
I keep coming across journal entries in foreign languages (e.g. most of Einstein's work), and would like to see a way of having a translated title included in the template, for example in the form "Foreign title (trans. English title)", as well as the possibility of linking to both an english and foreign language version of the journal article. What do people here think? Mike Peel 10:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Boldface author
Why is the author boldfaced? This is not a style I am familiar with, and I find it visually jarring and unnecessary. --Macrakis 15:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't. --Ligulem 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwikie
please add the link to italian version it:Template:Cite journal --BMF81 10:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. But you could have done that yourself. Interwikis can be added on Template:Cite journal/doc, which is not protected (scroll to the bottom). --Ligulem 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Date for quarterly publication
Using "date=Summer 1982" which is the official date on the journal issue I'm referencing, I get this:

(Summer 1982)"Disney Releases 10 Titles on Laser Videodisc". VIDEODISC/VIDEOTEX 2 (3): 175.

I'm not sure if it's because this is not a conventional full date, but there needs to be a space after the ")" (and maybe a period plus a space). The live example is at Walt_Disney_Home_Entertainment. Can this be fixed? Canadiana 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On Walt_Disney_Home_Entertainment I found:

which gives: I'm having a look. --Ligulem 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It sure has nothing to do with the unconventional date. I would rather say the missing author is unconventional. But per the spec this is a valid call pattern ("title is the only required parameter"). So the missing space looks like a plain bug (damn spaces, grumble...) --Ligulem 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah funny, if I add an author (just for testing), then it looks fine:

gives: So definitely a bug. I will have a look. Maybe tomorrow. --Ligulem 00:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Think I got it: . I would say: Fixed. --Ligulem 00:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I've omitted the period after the date if there is no author . Which is now the same as in cite book. --Ligulem 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought about the lack of author being a problem before, but it didn't seem the most obvious possibility. It's a bit unusual for a journal article not to have an author, but this is from a section called "News and Notes" and there are no authors for these items.  Anyway, thanks very much for tracking down the bug so quickly. Canadiana 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

COinS tags for machine-readable metadata
I'd like to change this template and cite book. I want to add COinS tags for automated programs to retrieve reference data, and I want to separate ISSN, PMI, DOI into separate fields to make things like this easier.

Discuss on cite book. — Omegatron 06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)