Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 3

Apparent problem with authorlink= parameter
Specifying authorlink= apparenly cayses problems with handling of author=, first= and last=.

The problem currently shows up in reference #3 on Dog

I tried working around this by using |author= insted of |first= and |last=, but that does not work as expected either. It produces differing unexpected results with | author = Robert K. Wayne and with | author = Wayne, Robert K. -- Boracay Bill 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with this template. On ref #3 on dog an URL is given for authorlink, which is not allowed. As the documentation says, authorlink is for internal links only. So you can only provide the name of an article, without any markup (no [..] or .. ). --Ligulem 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On the 3rd line having opened the square brackets, given the autholink there then needs be inserted a pipe for the displayed text as given by first/last/author. However surely direct use of a pipe character is interpeted instead as marking the end of the #if: exists section. Hence I would have thought the pipe needs be translucated via the template | rather than directly appear?

Hence: {{#if:{{{author|}}}{{{last|}}} |{{#if: |[[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if: becomes: {{#if:{{{author|}}}{{{last|}}} |{{#if:{{{authorlink|}}}    |[[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if:

That said, can not the coding be simplified to a single block of last/first/author with an {{{authorlink|}}} test before & after to add the surrounding code for authorlinkage. {{#if:{{{author|}}}{{{last|}}} |{{#if:{{{authorlink|}}} |{{#if:     {{{last|}}}      |{{{last}}}{{#if:        {{{first|}}}        |, {{{first}}}      }}      |{{{author}}}    }} |{{#if:{{{last|}}} |{{{last}}}{{#if: {{{first|}}} |, {{{first}}} }}     |{{{author}}} }} }} }}

could be done (I think) as : {{#if:{{{author|}}}{{{last|}}} |{{#if:{{{authorlink|}}} |}}}   |{{{last}}}{{#if:      {{{first|}}}      |, {{{first}}}    }}    |{{{author}}}  }}|{{#if:{{{authorlink|}}}|}} }}

Unfortunately time for my bed so I have NOT tested this out yet... so comments appreciated before I come back to this tomorrow :-) David Ruben {{sup| Talk }} 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would propose not to change anything on the template, as the problem reported was simply a use error (see my response above). So I haven't looked into your template code snippets. --Ligulem 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK fine - PS when I eventually had time to check, the above final code did not work - those 2 opening square brackets cause all sorts of funny things to occur (with bits of code not interpreted but directly displayed) So ignore it :-) David Ruben {{sup| Talk }} 01:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Using a semi-colon to streamline last, first format with multiple authors
At the moment, the first author is seperated from the coauthors with a comma. This creates problems since something like this would appear: Last1, First1, Last2, First2, Last3, First3 or Last1, First1, First2 Last2, etc. and the like. In brief, the only way to have both author and coauthors use the same format is to use the author parameter instead (which seems to be creating trouble?) and have the first name before the last name.

Anyway, my proposal is to use a semi-colon between author and coauthors. Like this, we can use the following format: Last1, First1; Last2, First2; Last 3, First3.

└ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 15:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Could you take a look at Template_talk:Cite_book? We changed that on cite book from semicolon to colon explicitly . Could we leave it on cite journal the same way as it is on cite book? --Ligulem 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the talk section, but I did not understand why exactly the change was made to a comma, so I cannot quite comment on it. I did notice, though, that after the edit a couple of people brought up the same point as above. Maybe you can clarify the reason for that edit? Thanks. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole thing was rooted at Template_talk:Cite_book, a concern brought up by Nikola, resolved with the proposal by Daduzi to change the semicolon to a colon. I agree with you that there are now a couple of negative voices over at cite book (Karl Dickman, Cain Mosni, not sure about the opinions of flamurai and Circeus). I tend to agree with changing cite book and cite journal (back) to the semi-colon. At least I would say it makes sense to have it on both templates the same. Sometimes it's a bit difficult to know what the actual consensus is. --Ligulem 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left a note at Template_talk:Cite_book. --Ligulem 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (Editprotected template removed): gain some more consensus before re-adding editprotected again. Once you have gained some consensus, re-add the template, and an administrator will come around and update the template. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I *am* an admin :-). As a regular here, I will enact it (I mean the consensus). I don't think this discussion is yet finished. --Ligulem 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Ligulem 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

issue field
can somebody please alias issue field to also be available as number, similar to the bibtex @article? this would make a bibtex article entry import even more brainless than it is today :) --BACbKA 00:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would really appreciate if we could refrain from adding aliases for parameters. Because: (1) it makes maintenance of calls harder. For example if we ever should migrate again the calls to another template (as we did from template:journal reference to this here), we would have to look for two names for the same parameter. (2) it increases the complexity of the template code, which makes it harder to maintain or extend. --Ligulem 01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Maybe all one needs is a tool (maybe a browser-side one?) that would accept a bibtex entry and emit a corresponding code? --BACbKA 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Language
Could someone please add a language parameter? Most citation templates have one, this doesn't. - Jmabel | Talk 07:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the time, a language icon is used instead. Circeus 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you specify which citation template uses a language icon - I searched through several and failled to find such coding. David Ruben Talk 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No template specifically call it. The users do. It is certainly visually far more efficient in pointing out a different language in the source. Circeus 17:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a new parameter "language" . We already have such a language parameter in cite book and cite web. We can sort out the details how to display it later. --Ligulem 16:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some consistency in handling the language. There are two styles:
 * cite journal has (in German).
 * cite web has (German) . This gives the same appearance as the De icon language icon.
 * cite book has (in German).
 * cite news has (in German).
 * cite press release has (in German).

I quite like the language icon format, which is used elsewhere to indicate the language of external links. SandyGeorgia also expressed a preference at Peer review/Timeline of tuberous sclerosis/archive1. Cheers, Colin°Talk 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

bibtex compatibility
I'm quite impressed: I just downloaded a citation to an article in bibtex format, and all I had to do was to change the format, and it "just worked":  All the normal parameter names are the same as Bibtex's. --Slashme 08:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Template expansion needed
This template (basically, all citation templates, not only the journal article one) needs urgent expansion / update to allow the addition of a second URL (URLcached = ...) to include the inclusion of a link to a snapshot / archived copy of a cited URL (e.g. IA, WebCite etc.), to avoid 404s. Alternatively or in addition, one could add something like WebCiteID = .... to the template, which is rendered as a link to the handle at www.webcitation.org (e.g. to the address www.webcitation.org/ID, where ID is the WebCiteID). Caching date is probably not needed as a variable, as WebCite tells you the cached date.--74.98.91.29 16:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue does not seem to have been addressed yet. I have copied the parameters "archiveurl" and "archivedate" from cite web into my use of cite journal for Iwo Jima, like so:
 * If no one volunteers quickly to implement these parameters, I will be bold, maybe even reckless, and use my rudimentary template skills to do so. Template wizards, please help us avoid potential disaster by doing a professional job instead. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one volunteers quickly to implement these parameters, I will be bold, maybe even reckless, and use my rudimentary template skills to do so. Template wizards, please help us avoid potential disaster by doing a professional job instead. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one volunteers quickly to implement these parameters, I will be bold, maybe even reckless, and use my rudimentary template skills to do so. Template wizards, please help us avoid potential disaster by doing a professional job instead. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this really needed for journals? Note that a user is running a bot to tell WebCite to archive all of our external links. See User:Gwern/Archive-bot.hs. — Omegatron 02:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two reasons why WebCite and the bot don't completely solve this problem.


 * First, this bot certainly is not getting all the external links that have broken. For example, the last broken link I had to remove, an ABC News story supporting a statement in Binary prefix, is not cached by WebCite.


 * Second, even if the bot were total and instant, it can't collect citations that aren't provided. Editors routinely added unsourced statements to articles, often quoting material without attribution. I've often found the sources and quotes to be from a webpage from a journal, but like many magazines with both a print and web presence, only the most recent issues still have live links. (Witness my attempt to source a quote from Iwo Jima that, with 15 minutes' research through a number of sources, I found in an expired webpage copy of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The Wayback Machine has it; WebCite does not.) Bots cannot do this kind of source research, and it's unreasonable to think that the relative handful of editors who diligently attempt to source statements can actually beat all the expirations of these uncited source links.


 * These two examples are exactly the last two broken links I tried to track down, so WebCite is 0 for 2 in my sourcing work. As with any other human endeavor, one size never fits all — we need multiple ways to make it possible to provide archived information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But the ABC news article is not a journal. I don't understand why the journal template needs an archive url, since the journal itself is an archive. Do you mean that you want a parameter to link to a copy of the article that's not behind a sign-in page? — Omegatron 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not mention the ABC News link as an example of a journal citation, but as an example of why WebCite is not sufficient for archiving external links. Broken cite web links don't have the problem that broken cite journal links have precisely because the former includes archive parameters. And journals are not archives; they are published periodicals which may or may not have webpages for their articles. If they have them, they can break, and I've demonstrated that they do. My concern is also not about journals with sign-on requirements, but only those whose freely accessible webpages at some point disappear, especially when they remain available through sites like Internet Archive. (Cite news has exactly the same problem of expiring links, and has exactly the same archive parameters as cite web to cover this situation. It is logical for an editor to expect exactly the same capability in exactly the same form for exactly the same problem in citing journal webpages.)


 * Ultimately, the goal of sourcing, for which these templates are designed, is to provide the ability to verify source information. If a journal article has a web copy, it's far quicker and easier to use that to verify the information than to be forced to go to a local university or purchase an expensive professional subscription just to check a few lines in an article. The easier we make proper verification, the more likely it will get done.


 * In short, I don't understand why it should be so hard to see the need for these parameters. There's a webpage with a journal article that anyone can access. Sometimes it breaks, like any other webpage. When it does, it often has an archive copy available. We want to cite the archive. Why shouldn't we have the same archive parameters that cite web provides? I'm open to alternatives, but I see no reason for inventive changes when we have a de facto standard way of handling the problem. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Current means can effectively archive some articles I have prepared an example below (See Here) I know there are not a lot of journals that are currently published in this fashion. But even few in numbers adding the function of |archiveurl= and |archivedate= provide the ability to verify source information if the journal is taken down. Ctempleton3 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive Example of Journal Article to Archive
Let me add to this discussion, here is a good example of a journal article that is perfect for archiving.

Ctempleton3 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gap in Archive-3 talk
Almost all previous topics from 2007 have been archived into Archive 3, but an early topic from 17Jan2007 ("Template expansion needed") was left here, creating a wiki-spastic gap of about one year. I don't have time to sort the issues to see if that topic should be moved into Archive 3 or if the topic should remain active here long-term. Just note the 1 year gap, indicated by "Topics from 2008". -Wikid77 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to archive3 29 June 2008

COinS openURL tags and explicit id fields
I made some changes to cite book and I would like to make equivalent changes to cite journal:
 * 1) Added explicit   and   fields, so you type   instead of , for instance.
 * 2) * I'd like to do the same for this template, with explicit,  , and whatever other applicable codes are in common use or could be in common use (SICI is the fundamental identifier used on JSTOR, for instance, and bibcode is used for astrophysics stuff.)
 * 3) Added a COinS OpenURL tag at the end of the citation, to allow automatic importing into referencing tools, linking to library information, etc.
 * 4) * This actually makes much more sense for journals than books, since you can go directly to an online copy of an article through your library with an openURL resolver (browser extension). For books you generally can just see if your library has a physical copy.  The links are more powerful for journals.

Is there any opposition to these changes? Other comments? They've been in cite book since the 9th, and I haven't seen any complaints (or praise) about them anywhere. — Omegatron 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see this has now been added to the coding, but can you offer an explanation as to how it should be used in practice, and also if any pitfalls in using wrongly ? David Ruben Talk 12:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I updated the doc page. Just use   instead of   and   instead of  .  I don't know how you could do this "wrongly".


 * The COinS tag is automatically generated from the fields; it's nothing that users need to worry about, and contains the same information as the reference, but in a machine-readable format. Your browser can then use this information to do nice things.  For instance, if you get and configure OpenURL referrer, it will put a link after each reference to take you directly to your library's copy of that document (as most journal articles can only be accessed through a university library).  If you get Zotero you can use this to automatically add references to your personal library and keep notes on them, etc.


 * It's currently sub-optimal, because extra wikitext from linked journals and so on gets included in the tag, but a lot of them are still useful even with the extra crud, and we should have an extension for stripping that markup pretty soon anyway. Definitely don't limit what you do with the references for the sake of the COinS tag by removing links or anything like that. — Omegatron 19:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please add an oclc parameter like cite book. Cleduc 06:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Accessdate
I'd like to edit the template to allow someone to enter a the access date in a format other than the ISO. The cite web template has the parameters accessmonthday and accessyear to allow this. I'd also propose here (as I did there) adding the parameter accessdaymonth to allow the date format 01 January 2006. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

DOI functionality not working great
Hi,

The DOI functionality is not the best in this template, since (sadly) DOIs may contain &lt; and &gt; symbols in their reference, which results in a link that displays correctly, but does not link correctly. This issue has been considered in the doi template, which is why there are two usages. To fix this problem, I propose to add another optional field, say, right below the   field, which will behave just like doi. I'm not familiar enough to suggest how to implement this. In the mean-time, to fix this, for example, given:

(or this) modify this in the template to:

(or ), which works, but displays an incorrect DOI. Once a  field is available, then the proper DOI text label can be added to the citation. +mwtoews 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I URLencoded it. Does it work now? — Omegatron 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, didn't work (and it might have broken some DOIs with ' ' characters). The URLencode turned  into , instead of  . It seems like the system is picky. I suggest you rv the change until we can figure it out first... +mwtoews 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to be double encoding. For example, we are encoding ' ' into ' ', but then WikiMedia re-encodes the ' ' into ' ' and ' ' into ' ', so that the original ' ' becomes ' '! I'm lost on a simple solution, and it appears there is a bug in WikiMedia with ' '. +mwtoews 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my tests confirm that ' ' is a bit buggy at the moment, for example using ' ' results in ' . +mwtoews 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've submitted the bug report. +mwtoews 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's still possible to include such DOIs under .Circeus 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's done now. I just noticed the template does NOT, in fact, call doi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay, I think I understand your fix now (it didn't sink in until now). Don't use the  parameter, but, pass the doi template to the   parameter (aka, a template within a template):

id=
 * Good! That will do! +mwtoews 03:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually... it's |doi=10.1130/0091-7613(1990)018%3C1153:TAFSIA%3E2.3.CO;2
 * doilabel=10.1130/0091-7613(1990)018<1153:TAFSIA>2.3.CO;2

Why don't we just fix the bug? — Omegatron 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with that thought — the patch that introduces additional parameters probably isn't a wise move, since this bug (with the URLencode) might be fixed at some point in the future, and adding a  parameter won't be a compatible solution for that fix. For example, it would be best to have a single   field with the actual DOI, not a manually encoded DOI like you have above—this could present a maintainability problem for future citations. (Yes I realize that I had initially proposed the inclusion of a   field before, and now I've reversed my stance). DOIs that need to be manually encoded in the mean time can be passed through the   parameter, which is a compatible move, regardless if the URLencode bug is fixed or not. I realize that   was just added, but could we hold on adding this parameters until the URLencode bug is fixed? +mwtoews 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Add an excerpt (quote) parameter?
Would it be inappropriate for any reason to add an excerpt or quote parameter to this template, as in Template:Cite web, which could include an excerpt from the cited journal? Kellen T 08:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this as well so that it mirrors, , etc. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is especially important for journals since a lot of people can't access them. — Omegatron 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The code used in is:
 * we should probably just be able to use that here. Any objections? Kellen T 17:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's perfect. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting addition of "quote" code (above) to this template. Kellen T 08:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done → Aza Toth 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The parameter though displays smart quotes “ and ”, but I always understood that simple double-quotes was style policy, i.e. " ? David Ruben Talk 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Smart quotes are preferred. — Omegatron 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MOS, there is no consensus on the matter and both are acceptable. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Woot! Thanks! Kellen T 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks! One problem though: the quote should not be italicized per WP:MOS. (Compare, , etc.) I'll request that it be changed. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the MOS and cite book seem to discourage the italics. Edit made. CMummert · talk 01:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Grazie! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 01:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about "lay" fields
I have concerns about the recent additions of,  , and. These field are intended to link a reference about the journal citation in "layman's terms". I do support the inclusion of such references in any science related articles, however I do have concerns about embedding partial citations within another. I have two concerns (which I have also voiced out here) regarding this inclusion:
 * 1) Providing a "Lay summary" link is only a partial citation. It gives almost no credit to the author/publisher. I would expect any encyclopedia to give full credit and reference for any sourced material — not just a URL (and source, if  is provided). Furthermore, the "References" section of many articles is fairly substantial (> 100 in some). A single citation may contain several links, such as to the author, publisher, article PDF, and DOI. Presenting the link to the layman's news article as a separate citation (e.g., cite news) is the simplest answer, since it gives full credit and is easier to find in the reference list.
 * 2) A citation should be text-readable, so it can be printed. This is important for general printing (i.e., if someone want to print out an article, and look up the newspaper article in the library from that print-out), and if the print edition of WP:1.0 ever gets made. Simply providing the text "Lay summary– Some Newspaper" does not provide these users sufficient information to find what they need.

I'm used to citation software like BibTeX and EndNote, and reading peer reviewed article which all use one citation per reference. This inclusion is somewhat extending that rule by including 1½ citations per reference, which is awkward. I don't mean to fuel any fire for any template fork (see cite science), I'm just concerned for how articles should be referenced. +mwtoews 05:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The way you have shown that you would use this does not convince me. You had the  embedded in a separate set of brackets. That's very much not the point. The point is that the lay summary belongs with the original and is provided as supplementary material, not because it provides original material in its own right. And talking about Wikipedia 1.0 is hardly a strong point when we don't even have stable versions yet. I'm not sure what your example is supposed to illustrate, and I'm not convinced that you have ever actually printed a Wikipedia article and experienced the marvel of the URL magically appearing on the physical page. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A printed URL is still of limited use to someone trying to find the news article in a library (i.e., not with a computer) from a printed WP article. Finding the physical article might be required if the online source requires a subscription (e.g., New York Times). See related discussion here. I see nothing wrong with using  as a second reference. +mwtoews 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that there should not be fields that mix up two sources, and I better like multiple templates within one as I have given an example on in the article Voxel-based morphometry with a citation to Maguire. -&mdash; fnielsen 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks quite good! Plus it bypasses the assumption that there is at most one related news release. I was working on a similar idea (found here and used here), but your idea is slightly simpler and more flexible (I've also agreed that a single  is better than two for cases as these). Certainly citation templates will be used how users want to use them, but maybe we should encourage an acceptable style-guide in the documentation? +mwtoews 21:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a suggested format into this template documentation. I realize that the format doesn't directly impact this template, per se, but it could encourage good referencing habits from users who use this template (by good, I mean what I've discussed above, such as including full citiation, etc., from the related source — however, certainly template users will use these as they feel they should use them). Edit what I've added as you may feel necessary. +mwtoews 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Automatic reference formatter
Having spent much of the last month referencing articles, I've been yearning for a quicker way to enter the citation data, and eventaully knocked something together here that will automatically generate a preformatted entry from the results of a Google search.

I imagine that this will be useful to many other users of this template and thought it may be appropriate for a link to the utility to be put on the template description page. | Verisimilus  T  11:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an excellent idea, and something I had craved for for a long time. However, it does not work (for me). First, the "Get BibTeX" in Google results don't work for me. Secondly, and more critically, clicking "Transform" takes me to authentication page (by "Raven"), for which I have no login. There also is a typo; "Use the Google Scholar search box, at the bottom og the page, to find your article". Extra information: I'm using Safari on a Mac, but could also test with Firefox. --Stephan Schulz 11:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be compatability problems - it works now fine with Firefox ( I hope ) but I'm having really weird problems getting it to work with IE. How is Safari dealing with the Get BibTeX link now? | Verisimilus  T  13:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It breaks in different ways with FireFox and Safari. For Safari, clicking "Get BibTeX" gets me a new empy page, for Firefox, it gets me an empty box on the same page... --Stephan Schulz 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah-ha! I've got to the bottom of it - it turns out that you need to set your Scholar preferences. Check the page for instructions on this point. I'll see if I can code around this... | Verisimilus  T  13:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed
I've now fixed and greatly improved the tool, and it seems to work on IE and Firefox. Would anyone mind testing it before I request its inclusion on the template page?

Thanks! | Verisimilus  T  12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can import your research documents into Zotero and then paste them into Wikipedia as citation templates with Ctrl-Alt-C. — Omegatron 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite Conferences

 * Hi Verisimilus! It's a huge improvement, but there are a couple of problems. First, the Google interface works. But: It fails to include the actual journal, and it also cites conference proceedings as "cite journal". Finally, when I try to use the textbox interface, all I get is an error message. This is the text I pasted:

@Article{DKS97, author =      {J. Denzinger and M. Kronenburg and S. Schulz}, title =        , journal =     {Journal of Automated Reasoning}, year =        {1997}, number =      {2}, volume =      {18}, pages =       {189--198}, note =        {Special Issue on the CADE 13 ATP System Competition}, annote =      {StS}, }
 * HTH, --Stephan Schulz 17:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ The problem with the text box was the use of spaces, which Google's BibTeX entries do not have. This format is now compatible.


 * Conference proceedings will now use the 'cite conference' template (which I didn't know existed!), but as BibTeX only discriminates between books and journals, I've had to use the possibly satisfactory method of searching for the word 'conference' in the journal title. If you can find anything that doesn't get caught in that fashion do let me know. However as the transcribed results are the same, regardless of the template, I don't think it's a problem. Comments as ever are welcome. | Verisimilus  T  09:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better! One more suggestion: Google seems to ignore this, but BibTeX does have a separate entry type for a conference article, namely "InProceedings". You could make those into a 'cite conference' always. Example:

@InProceedings{Schulz:KI-2001, author =      {S. Schulz}, title =       , booktitle =   {Proc.\ of the Joint German/Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI-2001)}, pages =       {320--334}, year =        {2001}, editor =      {F. Baader and G. Brewka and T. Eiter}, volume =      {2174}, series =      {LNAI}, publisher =   {Springer}, annote =      {StS}, }


 * This one currently seems to break the system in other ways, as well (it fails to extract the correct title). Bye, --Stephan Schulz 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, that'll be simple to do once I'm at the right computer. Having only used the citations from Google - never BibTeX itself - I've not been able to investigate too thoroughly! | Verisimilus  T  09:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ✅ | Verisimilus  T  18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite Book
I need to work out how to include details on the editors and 'series' for this template, too, to cover articles in books. Does BibTeX have fields for this? | Verisimilus  T  09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Books in BibTeX usually means monographies. Examples:

@Book{Gr95, author =      {P. Graf}, title =       , publisher =   {Springer}, year =        {1995}, volume =      {1053}, series =      {LNAI}, } @Book{Ll84, author =      {J.W. Lloyd}, title =       {Logic Programming}, publisher =   {Springer}, year =        {1984}, key =         {Ll84}, series =      {Symbolic Computation}, }


 * For collections, BibTeX has @InCollection:

@InCollection{BG:Superpos-98, author =      {L. Bachmair and H. Ganzinger}, title =       , booktitle =   {Automated Deduction --- A Basis for Applications}, publisher =   {Kluwer Academic Publishers}, year =        1998, editor =      {W. Bibel and P.H. Schmitt}, volume =      {9 (1)}, series =      {Applied Logic Series}, chapter =     {11}, pages =       {353--397} }
 * Bye, --Stephan Schulz 09:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

✅ - Everything now seems to be working. (Except the year, which should be enclosed in {}s to be valid BibTeX syntax, I think?)

I've created a user subpage where you would be more than welcome to make further comments! | Verisimilus  T  18:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think (but only think) that {} and "" in items are both only delimiters and not needed for items without whitespace. This certainly works with real BibTeX. I strongly suspect that your parser will like this change ;-). Asking the Oracle from Mountain View has yielded this, which confirms my thoughts and may be useful. --Stephan Schulz 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Trailing space
Is there any particular reason why the template ends with &amp;nbsp;? If someone wants to add a comment or an alternate url after the citation, then there will be 2 spaces between the citation and the comment, unless they know somehow to not leave a space between }} and their text. –Pomte 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It "contains" a machine-readable tag for downloading the citation information. span tags are stripped by mediawiki if they don't contain anything, so it has a space inside it.  The content inside the span tag is replaced by OpenURL tools, so we can't really wrap it around any part of the text itself.  :-/ — Omegatron 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Date by season
The template as it stands doesn't allow for publications dated by season (e.g. "Autumn 1975"). Andy Mabbett 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can just set the "year" parameter and then use the "month" parameter for such details, just as one can if the month is split (eg "June/July"). David Ruben Talk 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Using the ParserFunctions
Note that some ISPs that offer MediaWiki installation (e.g. Dreamhost) do not install the ParserFunctions needed for this template to work. If, after installing the template, you get errors and badly formed citations, check that the ParserFunctions are installed. Jeff Ubois.

Organic Syntheses
In WikiProject Chemistry, there is a new WikiProject Chemistry/Gold Book workgroup, and they have created GoldBookRef to help ease citing Compendium of Chemical Terminology. I'm proposing a similar template for citations to Organic Syntheses, because of their ubiquity.

Compared with Gold Book, there are more parameters such as author, year, title, etc. Thus I was hoping to piggy back on cite journal. In the same way as we have the doi parameter, and the pmid parameter, perhaps we can have a parameter to include this data? Organic Syntheses is divided into Collected Volumes, and each paper can be identified by a page number. The website is similarly logical: this website will display collected volumes 1, page 016. Can someone advise/help? --Rifleman 82 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. In principle, it should be possible to have a template which actually calls cite journal so that the formatting would remain consistant even if this template were ever to change. Or it might be simpler just to copy the code. Physchim62 (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By using the latter approach, I have created OrgSynth. Enjoy! Physchim62 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was originally thinking of adding yet another parameter to the cite journal, but this seems a cleaner solution! Thanks! --Rifleman 82 14:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DOILABEL support
The doilabel parameter is not supplied in the correct syntax - so it doesn't work. This should be a trivial fix... I'd make it myself if I could. Verisimilus  T  10:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just fix the URLencode bug. — Omegatron 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive links
Someone please add the archive URL/date parameters, they're needed if the main URL is dead. Reinistalk 09:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pushing for this above at, but I'm meeting resistance. I ask interested parties to join the discussion above. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Publisher, Location parameters
Since not all journals have an article where a reader can see who publishes a journal, it would be helpful for one to personally assess the credibility of a source if the publisher and/or location could be added to cite journal.

If, to give a fictitious example, in an article about about Drug XYZ, a reference is cited to the journal National Drug Review (about which there is no article), it would be helpful if one were alerted to the fact that such a journal was published by ABC Drug Corporation, manufacturers of said drug.

Also, to give another fictitious example, if a Spanish-language journal were cited about Cuban affairs, it could be viewed differently if it were published in Havana versus being published in Miami.

If added as purely optional parameters, I don't feel that they would detract from the reference listing. Thanks. — Bellhalla 13:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need to link a journal to begin with. Such parameters are entirely unnecessary since no system uses them, adding them would be entirely improper. It is up to the editors to properly assess the credibility of the source before using it, not the reader. Circeus 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An address/location field is not found in any "Journal" bibliographic reference styles that I have come across. You might want to use cite book, or suggest adding the field to cite paper, since this is more generic. Or, you could add a note after this template. But ultimately (as Circeus pointed out), you should avoid citing biased "science" references anyways (unless you are trying to make a point Journal "X" clearly made a biased article). + m t  19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion misses the point that editors can and do used biased sources, and that, in wikis, all readers are effectively verifiers. We cannot assume that cited sources are inherently reliable or unbiased, so links to articles about the journals from which information is taken are obvious aids for reader/editors to help us consider possible bias. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not add the wikilink for the journal then? I've seen somewhere that journals are inherently notable (hence won't be deleted because of notability). Hence, more information can be found there. --Rifleman 82 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No general form of publication is inherently notable. If I web-publish The Journal of Left-Handed Redheads, complete with quarterly issues and yearly volumes, someone might be able to cite it using cite journal but it would likely not warrant a Wikipedia article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If your journal were a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, representing a legitimate field of research, it probably should be notable. And that was the basis for my statement - a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. --Rifleman 82 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion seems to have gone off on a bit of a tangent dissecting one particular motivation for including these fields. Notwithstanding, there have been a few other unfulfilled requests for this functionality earlier on this talk page, and at WP:CITET. I've now added both publisher and location fields to the template. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanging indent proposal
For a proposal to add an optional formatting parameter to this and related citation templates, which would allow display as a hanging indent, see this discussion. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 04:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiley DOIs
Currently many DOIs provided for Wiley journal articles don't resolve correctly at dx.doi.org. Perhaps another parameter could be added that links directly to Wiley's DOI system:

... -->3.0.CO;2-K

It resolves at doi.wiley.com but not dx.doi.org. Ciotog 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just discovered that the URI encoded version works at dx.doi.org, but I don't think it's reasonable for the average wikipedia editor to know to encode DOIs when necessary. Ciotog 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That needs to be URL-encoded. It doesn't even work for Wiley unencoded: Wiley URL because MediaWiki is breaking the URL at the &lt;.  If that's a legitimate DOI value, then perhaps this template (and others like it) should URL-encode the DOI via  . RossPatterson 02:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's correct, I thought I had tested it well enough but obviously not enough. Lots of DOIs have angle brackets so it definitely needs to be urlencoded. Ciotog 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I played around with urlencode but it's no good - it turns &lt; into &amp;lt; and &gt; into &amp;gt; instead of %3C and %3E as it should. Ultimately I fixed the issue by hand urlencoding the angle brackets. Ciotog 03:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rats. It's a MediaWiki bug, as noted at Template_talk:Doi.  There's a bug report at 9031, but there's no obvious plan to fix it. RossPatterson 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request: add bibcode field
editprotected

I would like to request that a field for the bibcode identifier, used by astronomers and astrophysicists, be added to this template. This can be done by changing the wikitext currently at to the wikitext provided here. Spacepotato 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections. Done. --- RockMFR 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Spacepotato 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving April 2008
Large amount of material that long should have been archived Mar-Dec 2007 that overlaps the Dec06-Nov07 already included above. David Ruben Talk 12:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Undone - mea culpa, material was from template talk:citation not template talk:cite journal - Doh ! David Ruben Talk 14:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)