Template talk:Cite report/Archive 1

When should this be used?
So what sort of source is this template intended for? It needs documenting. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Documented. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Corporate financial documents
Suggested alternative use: --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Form 10-K annual financial reports to the US SEC
 * annual reports to shareholders published by companies

Archived reference feature
Suggested additional feature: --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * an archive date / archive url parameter set to support references to, for instance, web.archive.org or webcitation.org

What does docket do?
Most things are self explanatory. Docket is not. Could someone please explain it? -  ??o??ia?  t ¢  04:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to know!  Blue Rasberry  00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One use appears to be as a synonym for "Article Number", as in the case of Reference 46 from Circumcision and law. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of Reference 4 from A. Schulman, I used docket to include the IRS Employer ID Number when applying to an SEC 10K report for the company. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why no page number parameters?
Being able to state the page number in the report would be useful.Martin.Budden (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a fairly lengthy USDA report (with page numbers) from which I'd like to cite just a couple of sentences, but it'll make verifiability harder for other editors if I can't specify the pages in question.  Does anyone have any objections or comments about adding a page number field? Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  18:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Useful...
...but it needs to use the Template:Citation/core engine for it to be perfect. Anyone up for coding? Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ref would be useful
There are a few articles that could use ref with this template. Is there a reason this can't go through citation/core? CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles that need this: Hawaiian language, Petitcodiac River.


 * Anybody here? CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this. –  VisionHolder « talk » 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I third this. It should go through citation/core for consistency. Since there is no opposition, it will be done. Int21h (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, just saw merge discussion below. Int21h (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See . ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect
Propose to redirect this to cite journal and update all current uses of this template.
 * Cite journal is a more mature template and includes parameters that should be in this template such as page number.
 * Cite paper was merged into cite journal years ago after journal was updated.
 * Cite report is not compliant with the style using in Citation Style 2 (cite web, cite book, cite journal, etc.)

Comparison of template output:


 * cite report


 * cite journal

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 21:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The name of cite journal should be changed, likewise, to be less confusing. I have used cite report because my understanding is that cite journal is for periodicals, and not one time media releases. -  ??o??ia?  t ¢  23:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If redirected, you can use cite report, just like you can still use cite paper for academic papers. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please reiterate what you want to do. Are you saying that all the fields of cite journal will be in place for cite report and cite paper, but users can still use any of these or other labels when they are creating the citations?   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Update to citation/core
Sandbox version now uses ; this makes Cite report compliant with the other templates in Citation Style 1 (cite web, book, journal, etc.). All features of cite journal are supported including author.


 * Cite report




 * cite book




 * cite report/sandbox







I surveyed a sample of uses and don't see docket in use, but I added support. The type defaults to Report, but can be changed with type. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

✅ ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the effort! I'm trying to use it as often as I can, so your work will not go unnoticed. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The update to cite core broke the non-italicisation of the titles of unpublished works. I unbroke it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is not italicized, then it should be in quotes to match the other CS1 templates. This should have been discussed, since there are better ways to do this.

Some other changes I see: ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 02:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation is always terminated; the other CS1 templates do not terminate if quote is defined.
 * lastauthoramp was changed to use ampersand before last author and no longer matches other CS1 templates.
 * template sandbox notice was left

Except it shouldn't be in quotes. Quotes indicate that a document has been published and is a subsection of another work. Compare: "Chapter" Published Book; "Article" Published Journal; "Particular sub-webpage" Top-level webpage containing sub-page; "Newspaper article" Published Newspaper. Reports aren't published. They don't take italics. Reports aren't a segment of another object, they don't take quotes. This template was established to specifically achieve the unquoted, non-italic format. The undiscussed change to force italics when integrating this object into citecore is fairly worrying. I do not understand the forced termination, change to lastauthoramp or template sandbox notice as I followed the sandbox procedure to the best of my ability, thank you for notifying me of these defects. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Titles in quotes indicate shorter works and italics indicate longer works; see Manual of Style/Titles. There are some instance where a work is not formatted, but this is not one. I see no discussion on the format.


 * "Reports aren't published" is worrisome in light of Identifying reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." If a report isn't published, how do other editors access it? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to look at the documentation and article history; this example of Harvard citations at pages 6-7; and, to note the difference between publication as in commercial utterance, and publication as a term of art within wikipedia's verification policies. Reports like  have been clearly uttered by a responsible agency; but, aren't published in the sense of being commercially uttered under an ISSN, ISBN, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What does an ISBN or the like have to do with publication? If the Australian School of Business accepts unpublished material as a reliable source, then that is their prerogative, but it is well outside our reliable sources guidelines. Since there is an objection to the update, then I will revert my changes and remove the template as compatible with Citation Style 1. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 04:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what I was saying or referenced? "Unpublished" has multiple meanings.  Did you investigate that hurricane citation?  It is certainly published for Wikipedia verification purposes; but as far as MLA, Chicago, Turabian and Harvard citation systems, it is an unpublished work.  This template was originally set up to cover the wide variety of reports that were uttered by a responsible authority, and that are available for consultation (through library or specialist collections), but were never offered to the public or placed on sale. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted and am abandoning any attempt to make this template CS1 compliant. I will can not recommend that this template be used with other Citation Style 1 templates. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks like extremely unconstructive behaviour based on your distaste for a citation style pre-existing in this template, embodying the purpose of this template since 2009, and amounting to four single quotes. Constructive. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not going to convince you that I am wrong, you aren't going to convince me that I am wrong. I have no dog in this fight— I was asked to look at this. The format you desire does not meet the style of other templates. I am unwatching this and will not be back. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally in BRD this is where other editors become involved. I have taken this to the talk page for citation/core in order to gain more interest in the specification issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from whether they should be used, the way italics are currently added for the title parameter here breaks the display of works whose names start with italics, as at Adiantum viridimontanum (the article is a featured article candidate). &mdash;innotata 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, solved. Please check your bibliography. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the documentation for this template, the description of "publication" as possessing an ISBN or ISSN is just wrong. Fifelfoo's preferred description at the University of North South Wales states "Research may involve use of work from materials that are not sold or distributed to the public that is not published." So anything available on the web from a responsible organization that qualifies as a publisher does not fit the description of "unpublished". Note that it does not matter whether the material (like some tape recordings in the Oval Office at the time of Nixon) was published close to the time it was composed, or published much later; what matters is whether it is available to the public from a responsible organization. Fifelfoo's example of the preliminary Hurricane Gert report is currently available from the National Hurricane Center's web site, which qualifies a publisher, so it is published.
 * With the documentation in its current state, I don't see how anyone can figure out when to use this template. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a problem comprehending something that is made clear in every citation manual due to the wikipedia term of art "published". This is about the 100 year history of citation styles off wikipedia who use "published" as a term of art involving made available to the public for purchase. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the distinction between Wikipedia's term of art, which would consider a personal website to be "published", and how the term is used in scholarly writing, which requires publication by a recognized publisher. But being a recognized publisher is different from being able or willing to assign an ISBN or ISSN. The documentation for this template is just wrong. It is so bad I think that I would change any citation I come across using cite report to some well-documented template. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Some documented parameters not supported, etc.
I note that some parameters described in the documentation (e.g., section, chapter) are not supported by this template, that some (e.g., at) are only supported in special cases, that the code appears to support some undocumented aliases (e.g., place for location), and that some supported parameters (e.g., periodical -- aliased as journal, magazine and work) are not documented. Should the documentation be updated to match the code or the code updated to match the documentation -- or is some other action needed? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Section and chapter should be added, I use those in almost every instance. Many reports have no page numbers, only sections. -  Floydian  t ¢ 23:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * still uses (not Module:Citation/CS1), and moreover doesn't utilise the full parameter set of . The full parameter list for  is:
 * access-date, accessdate, archivedate, archiveurl, arxiv, asin, ASIN, at, author, author1 to author9, author1-link to author9-link, author-link, authorlink, authorlink1 to authorlink9, author-mask, authormask, author-name-separator, authors, author-separator, bibcode, coauthor, coauthors, date, day, deadurl, display-authors, docket, doi, DOI, doi_brokendate, doi_inactivedate, edition, editor, editor1-first to editor4-first, editor1-given to editor4-given, editor1-last to editor4-last, editor1-link to editor4-link, editor1-surname to editor4-surname, editor-first, editor-given, editor-last, editor-link, editors, editor-surname, first, first1 to first9, format, given, given1 to given9, id, ID, in, isbn, ISBN, issn, ISSN, issue, jfm, JFM, journal, jstor, JSTOR, language, last, last1 to last9, lastauthoramp, laydate, laysource, laysummary, lccn, LCCN, location, magazine, mr, MR, month, number, oclc, OCLC, ol, OL, osti, OSTI, others, page, pages, periodical, place, pmc, PMC, pmc-embargo-date, pmid, PMID, postscript, publication-date, publication-place, publisher, quote, ref, rfc, RFC, separator, seperator, series, ssrn, SSRN, surname, surname1 to surname9, title, trans_title, type, url, version, volume, work, year, zbl
 * note, that includes all aliases and other mutually-exclusive parameters. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Format parameter: behind the title/url?
With most of the other Citation Style 1 templates, the format (e.g. HTML or PDF) is placed in parenthesis after the title and link, but cite report has it before the title and link, which makes for awkward placement on references without a specific article. Would anyone be opposed to moving the format parameter to the same place as the other citation templates?  Sounder Bruce  03:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an artifact of – the engine that does all of the formatting and rendering work for . The issue was addressed in Module:Citation/CS1 – the engine that does all of the formatting and rendering work for all but a few CS1 templates.
 * – rendered with
 * – rendered with Module:Citation/CS1
 * – rendered with Module:Citation/CS1


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about cite report
There is a discussion started about at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)