Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 2009 April

Support for archiving
This template does no seem to support archiving for URLs (i.e. archiveurl and archivedate are not listed as parameters). Since it supports URLs, is there any reason why support for archiving should not be added? Skomorokh 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this suggestion. I have resorted to using  for magazine and journal references where an archive webpage exists, since I cannot include that information with  . Easchiff (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here, but then I run into the problem of cite web not supporting certain cite journal parameters such as [issue=] (although it can be duplicated with other parameters), so still neither templates are ideal. Maybe there should be a standard set of all-inclusive parameters for all citation templates. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PMCID
Are there any plans to add the (newer) "PMCID" numbers to this template? Or, should we just use the "pmid" tag for now? NCBI is heading towards using PMCIDs only, I believe, so we should take this into account. (see: ). --Thorwald (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Never mind. I see there already is a "pmc" tag. I was searching for "pmcid" and didn't notice the "pmc". --Thorwald (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Page/pages p. pp. etc - a question
Is there any particular reason why cite book generates "p." or "pp." automatically for page numbers, whilst this template doesn't? BencherliteTalk 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This was brought up on Template talk:Citation. Many citation styles do not denote page numbers this way in serialized content (where a page range is expected for most references), but do label the page range for book citations (where page numbers are often not required). --Karnesky (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll on date autoformatting and linking
People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra dot after quote
Well, not sure about this, but please take a look at the  section. It seems like an extra dot is added after the closing quotation mark.
 * "So your quote can end up looking like this!".

Doesn't look right to me anyway. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Use ps - just leave it blank after the equals. That should remove the final period. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  17:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but is there a reason to leave the template the way it is? What is ps for? It's not documented here or at the base template Citation/core. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now documented. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic detection of citation format
I have proposed that Citation bot amends pages using a mixture of 'Cite xxx' and 'Citation' templates so that only one family of templates is used. I would welcome comments on this suggestion here. Thanks, Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)