Template talk:Cite study

Justification of this template
To cover the addition of funding companies on citing of scientific studies, like here, and for the recommendation received here Template_talk:Cite_web

Let's see if it can be tweaked more to support studies better than cite web --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see any examples of this template in use. Further, it appears to give bad output:


 * Why is it necessary to include the funding body in a template? Why not just go ? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to include the funding body in a template? Why not just go ? Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see its uses on the "what links here" link.


 * Thanks for bringing this up, Smith609. I made this fork of cite web some time ago, but I later found that my original idea was flawed. I only left in place because some people had started using it. I think I'll simply redirect it to cite web and fix articles as necessary. Ooops, I just remembered why I didn't redirect it before: I found that editors were using the template. For example, these two studies cited in Geography of Malaysia:
 * both studies are from conferences, the first being a background paper and the second being a proceeding, none of them published at journals. People don't use cite journal it requires them to fill the journal field, and they don't use cite web because it requires them to fill a URL, when some studies don't have online copies. So this template is still filling a real need from editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this, Enric. Could users use {Cite conference} or {citation}? I don't think {cite journal} requires a journal parameter any more, either. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  04:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they could use those instead, I changed the doc page to link to those templates. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the template with a redirect to Template:Citation; this will avoid template drift. As it's a low use template, it should be possible to manually fix any errors that occur. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have checked a couple of articles, and it appears that there are no problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the template with a redirect to Template:Citation; this will avoid template drift. As it's a low use template, it should be possible to manually fix any errors that occur. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have checked a couple of articles, and it appears that there are no problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)