Template talk:Cite tweet/Archive 1

“Check |author-last1= value”
Sometime in the past two weeks, Cite tweet began returning errors, but I can’t tell what’s caused it. The only CS1 errors on originate here, but the usage of the template there hasn’t meaningfully changed. Ideas? Thank you. —LLarson (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why that's happening. The only errors this template checks itself are if user, number, date, or title are empty. Any other errors come from the values this template passes through to cite web, so the best place to raise this issue is Help talk:Citation Style 1. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 08:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed with this edit . Square brackets [ ] can no longer be directly placed in titles, even if not part of a wikilink or external link (without generating that error) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow—awesome! Thank you. How’d you figure it out? —LLarson (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had another look at the help info linked from the error message (Help:CS1_errors), and saw down the bottom of the section advice to make sure that there are no illegal characters in the paired parameters (my emphasis) – i.e. the characters in the table below that line are prohibited in both the param-link parameters and their matching param parameters. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this! —LLarson (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding trans_title and language
Requesting trans_title and language parameters be added to cite tweet. This would help for non-English tweets. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. language was already there, but I added trans-title and script-title - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"External link in |title= (help)"
The template documentation says that in the |title= parameter, you should include any links in the tweet, but if you include an external link in that parameter, you get an error saying "External link in |title= (help)" (see EgyptAir Flight 181). Is this meant to happen, or are you not actually meant to include any external links? Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  20:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the original tweet reads, "The moment #EgyptAir hijacker 'hands over letter for his ex-wife' dailym.ai/1St7030". The "http://" shouldn't be added, and removing it would fix the issue.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see it now. Thank you!  Seagull123  Φ  20:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Imzadi, but wouldn’t it be better if the template could parse http:// (specifically ://) without choking? Why can’t it hide the protocol part of the URI in the same way Twitter itself does? My concern is that this template, which is meant to cite information, in fact requires editors to change the source, which seems problematic. — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 18:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The template is just a wrapper for cite web, and the underlying template can't do what you're asking. The MediaWiki software is helpful in that it parses any full URL as an external link, but when it tries to do that in already linked text, it creates a problem.
 * We're not changing the source; the displayed text of the tweet does not contain the protocol portion of a URL. However, when copied and pasted, some browsers are inserting the protocol portion, which we don't want because it creates an issue (as mentioned above) and alter the displayed text (which also also don't want).  Imzadi 1979  →   20:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you’re saying but it is the other way around: tweets with URIs include the protocol; Twitter hides them because they’re superfluous for Twitter’s purposes (but uses JavaScript to allow the protocol to be included when a tweet is copied and pasted). — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * cite tweet might require a new parameter quote. Semantically, a tweet’s content has no place in title. cite web’s quote, which is more flexible than title, wouldn’t require Wikipedia to cite tweets one way and cite every other source on the internet in another way. More than that, it wouldn’t require future editors to track down this thread every time they cite a tweet with a link in it. Thoughts? — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 15:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't we just use "[website]" or "[picture]" when such situations arise, as that is how we would remove words or links in a quotation? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe I’ve seen that kind of usage before. Could you elaborate? I am familiar with ellipses... 😊 — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 22:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Re Why can’t it hide the protocol part of the URI in the same way Twitter itself does? Depends on what you mean by "hide the protocol". If you just want to be able to paste the tweet into the template, including the protocol, and have the template display it without the protocol (effectively removing the protocol for you) – that would be possible with some code I've put in the sandbox: → - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all I’d hoped for! Thank you. Again! Swoon. — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 00:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I like that workaround! Would that be okay for CS1 standards? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would still be CS1 compliant as it still passes parameters through to cite web (and as far as is concerned, it's the same fix  gave above – removal of the  ) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And it even elegantly handles https:// links. Niiice. ’s work seems like the obvious solution here. It probably has value further upstream, too: do you think this is worth proposing to incorporate into cite web, citation, or Module:CS1? — LLarson   (said &amp; done) 13:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ this template with the code to remove http:// and https://. I don't know if this does actually have value in the "upstream" templates/modules, as in most contexts other than tweets an external would (probably) usually be an error that should be investigated and fixed. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 22:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

CS1 maint authors list being flagged
Can someone look into the CS1 maint checks. This template has recently been complaining about "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reposted to Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . CS1 error checking has changed again since January, so now we're back to using regular square brackets    instead of encoded equivalents   and   - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Link to Twitter
Shouldn't the citation link directly to Twitter somewhere? Either separately like a publisher or from "(Tweet)", perhaps? czar 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The examples in the documentation link to the tweet being cited. Is that what you are looking for? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to the Wikipedia page on Twitter. For example, if you had no idea what a tweet was, the citation can be more helpful. czar  02:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't appropriate to show Twitter as a publisher – tweets are self-published. If "tweet" is to be linked, then a parameter is needed to turn off the link, to avoid overlinking when the template is used multiple times in an article. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine to link the template each time in an article (especially when there are many citations in-between)—the rule is consistency so either link just the first instances or link all. But no objections to a parameter to turn off the link. czar  16:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Twitter should not be italicized
A recent edit by added Twitter as the "publisher" to cite tweet (making Twitter not italicized), a move that was probably warranted. A subsequent edit by changed the parameter from 'publisher' to 'website' with the edit summary "no editorial role, so not publisher". The problem is that the 'website' parameter italicizes "Twitter" – well, the 'work' parameter (e.g. ) also italicizes and that does imply an "editorial role". Therefore I strongly think that "Twitter" should not be italicized when using cite tweet. One obvious solution here is to use the "via" parameter for "Twitter". The other possibility is to go back to some form in which Twitter is not italicized... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with using "via" which according to WP:CS1 "Name of the content deliverer (when they are not the publisher)." and which is being used for YouTube videos. Although there aren't really any other companies that "tweet" so it is redundant? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think using the  parameter is the solution here, a la cite AV media. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "via". I just felt that "Twitter" needed to be somewhere in the citation, because though you don't "tweet" anywhere else, it should still be there to help readers looking at the citation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll give this a few more days to see if any objections are raised. But if there are none, I'm going to go ahead and change the parameter from  to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

first=/last=
Could we have first, last passed through so that the presentation of the author (Clarkson, Jeremy) becomes consistent with all the other citations in an article. —Sladen (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you just list the author as Clarkson, Jeremy? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You could, but this template should have those parameters as well to handle their use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . Yes, it would be possible to return to hand-writing all citations manually.  Writing long-hand misses the opportunity for metadata interpretation, bot processing, consistent formatting, and error checking.  Therefore, as  recommends, it probably makes more sense to add these parameters in order to make this template a more useful specialisation—which is its rationale for existing.  —Sladen (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, here's the sandbox with last and first:

I set it up so that last and first would override author, which is a bit different from how cite web normally does it. Cite web would emit an error message. Any comments? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've copied the sandbox to the template. Let me know when the inevitable bugs crop up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Script-title generates an error
When using ja: and such, it places an article in the error category, despite no error showing.-- Auric    talk  22:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an example:


 * I don't see an error or an error category, but I'm going to save this edit to see if it shows on the page. Is there a page where this is happening? What is the error category? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think I found and fixed it. The template was testing only for title. I added script-title as an equivalent to title for testing and error-tracking purposes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sfn footnotes
Is it possible to use short footnotes/harvard referencing with the cite tweet template? Attempting to do so on the Sutton Hoo helmet page results in an error message (see footnote 651). If it is not currently possible, could such a capability be added? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have added it, but because of the way the template is constructed, I chose to make it so that the harvid template is required in the ref value. Someone could probably do something more intricate, but as a hack, it works reasonably. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fantastic, thanks for doing it (and so quickly)! --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Locations
Can a location parameter be added? Some tweets have locations attached, like https://twitter.com/KaijiTang/status/980291413953974272 .-- Auric   talk  01:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ location has been added.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Non text tweets
How do we show media such as photos or images with this template? Is there any way to indicate a "quote tweet"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When tweeting an image, or quoting a tweet, all you're technically doing is add a link to that thing at the end of your tweet, which twitter converts to a visable thing. We could ust include the link to that thing (qouted tweet/image) by copying the link, and include it in the title. (t) Josve05a  (c) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * is including that link necessary? I think we should run a bot to standardize all Twitter citations, at least those that use this template, since this hasn't really been explicitly explained in the template documentation. w umbolo   ^^^  20:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * having a bot expand all Twitter citations seems like a job for User:Citation bot. w umbolo   ^^^  21:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've used the template to cite parts of tweets - leaving out @ names, irrelevant links and hashtags, or simply superfluous text. They should not be expanded to the full tweet.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with using parts of tweets, or summarizing like "Check out my new hat [picture link]" The @ name depends if they are replying specifically to that person's tweet. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the TemplateData says for the title: Entire content of the tweet, including hashtags (#), at signs (@), and links. w umbolo   ^^^  21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's one I did for Yuri Lowenthal filmography :   I let ReFill do most of the work and it printed out the pic.twitter.com link, then I converted it to cite tweet and added the annotation about it being a screen cap.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's inappropriate to add comments like that to the title. w umbolo   ^^^  22:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even though it is in brackets/parentheses it is not clear that it is not part of the tweet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest then? Just leave the link as produced by the bots? And how can MOS:PMC be applied? Do we need another field for follow-up notes? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * even if you did cite a photo and not a tweet, you would put a description of the photo instead of a title, and you wouldn't use quotes nor italics. w umbolo   ^^^  22:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest another field is best, but I am open to better ideas. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would consult a book like APA Style Guide to Electronic References. w umbolo   ^^^  22:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's an APA style guide but it mainly deals with how to list if the link is already a text like the Bill Gates video. The "Social Media Photo or Graphic, Without Caption" suggests just bracketing the graphic description. I suppose I could write up that description following the cite tweet?   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a bot called which converts cite web to cite tweet. I looked at how it formats tweets, and it looks like the bot trims tweets to a certain length (splits by word).  how does the bot behave with non-text tweets?  w umbolo   ^^^  19:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I had seen that bot had not realized that it trimmed tweets. Could you please provide an example. No need to ping I'll be watching here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This diff shows the bot trimming a tweet that contains non-text media. I can't find an example of the bot trimming a tweet short enough so the bot has to decide what to do with the media. No need to ping me either, I'm watching too. w umbolo   ^^^  21:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing me that example. It is problematic that the bot does that and henceforth I have turned it off at User:TweetCiteBot/status. Please nobody turn this on until the problem has been resolved. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we need input from WT:CS1? w umbolo   ^^^  22:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if we technically don't need it, I don't think that asking at what looks to have more watchers would do any harm. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I asked there and provided a link to this discussion. w umbolo   ^^^  14:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweets are no longer trimmed by the bot (and haven't been since mid March), I just haven't had a chance to run it again. Please see User_talk:TheSandDoctor/Archives/2018/March and diff (linked in discussion). The bot also has the ability to actively add archive links to all of its conversions, it just has not actively been enabled (but could in under 5 seconds). -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The exception is that the Twitter API adds a link to the end of every tweet (that isn't in the tweet itself), so the bot does remove URLs from the text, which is why I implemented the archive functionality. As for emojis and things in Tweets, they should just be copied and put in the title parameter. -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * APA Style Guide to Electronic References cites as title the whole tweet. In my opinion, if we modify it, it is no longer a title, but a description of the work. w umbolo   ^^^  15:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Replies
How do we cite tweets like this, which are replies? -- Kailash29792 (talk)  04:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * According to the APA Style Guide to Electronic References, you should write the title as "@SmoaknArrow @ARROWwriters Yes." The alternative is Re: The Title Of The Original Post but the "original post" that the reply is responding to doesn't have such a title (in italics) so stick with the whole tweet like I said before. w umbolo   ^^^  08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice idea. At Draft:John Diggle (character), I've cited the tweet like this: . It's acceptable, isn't it? -- Kailash29792  (talk)  08:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this:
 * rendering as:
 * "@SmoaknArrow @ARROWwriters Yes."
 * ? w umbolo   ^^^  08:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even better, provided cite tweet has a parameter called "quote". Kailash29792 (talk)  08:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Even better, provided cite tweet has a parameter called "quote". Kailash29792 (talk)  08:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I usually use two cite tweets in the reference: The first to pose the question by the random user, and the second to indicate the tweet that has the official response. Sometimes I can just use the second as linking to it will reveal the question asked.
 * renders as:
 * renders as:
 * This at least doesn't confuse the two tweets, as "Re:"  isn't really part of the tweet, and tweets aren't really formatted to be like forum topic responses.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, better cite both tweets separately. You can remove the link to Twitter in one of them, via no:
 * I think we should add an option to suppress the redundant "via Twitter" gimmick entirely; I would suggest hide, what do y'all think? — JFG talk 14:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable author
The documentation says: ''When known, the author's real name should be specified in the |author= parameter (or |last= and |first=). If their real name is not known, then the tweet is probably not an acceptable usage of a self-published source.''

Sometimes the "user" parameter is self-explanatory; real examples include "AP", "CityFredPolice" (in an article relating to a specific city, Fredericton); there are citations with such a "user", and no "author" (or "first/last"). Should this officially be accepted if "author" is missing? Not an acceptable usage is an invitation to delete, rather than improve, a citations. Pol098 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * By real name I would assume common name of the person, not their non-stage name. Sometimes the Tweeter changes their displayed name temporarily as with Ben Diskin calling himself Lord Noodle Doodle. Author missing could apply to non-notable tweeters like the ones asking the questions to the subject in question. There it doesn't matter what their real name is, however, if the subject tweets and there's no verification of whether that account is really from that subject, then the tweet is questionable.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose saying that "user" is OK in some cases (as I'd suggested) is an invitation to misuse, so it's best to leave the situation as it is. I'd hope that users such as my "AP" and "CityFredPolice" (real examples, cited without an "author") wouldn't get deleted out of hand, but either left, or completed. Pol098 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see where the author is missing in those tweets: They seem to be verified twitter accounts with the blue checkmarks. So you don't need the author to be further specified unless the author's name is confusing. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fredericton Police example :
 * AP Central U.S. example :
 * AP Central U.S. example :
 * AP Central U.S. example :


 * When I made my comment the references were less thoroughly filled in. Even so, probably sufficient. And they were expanded soon after, rather than deleted. So apologies for the unnecessary suggestion. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Partial tweets
There was a discussion at Template talk:Cite tweet/Archive 1, which had this sub-discussion:


 * I've used the template to cite parts of tweets - leaving out @ names, irrelevant links and hashtags, or simply superfluous text. They should not be expanded to the full tweet.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with using parts of tweets, or summarizing like "Check out my new hat [picture link]" The @ name depends if they are replying specifically to that person's tweet. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the TemplateData says for the title: Entire content of the tweet, including hashtags (#), at signs (@), and links. w umbolo   ^^^  21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And as so described, Pigsonthewing did template:Cite tweet/doc, changing


 * "description": "Entire content of the tweet, including hashtags (#), at signs (@), and links",

to
 * "description": "Partial or entire content of the tweet, optionally including hashtags (#), at signs (@), and links",

The above talk page section ends with this comment:


 * APA Style Guide to Electronic References cites as title the whole tweet. In my opinion, if we modify it, it is no longer a title, but a description of the work. w umbolo   ^^^  15:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia should follow that standard and therefore the edit of Pigsonthewing should be undone. And, even if users believe it's OK to trim a long tweet, I think it is misleading to omit hashtags and at signs. Sometimes a political candidate tweets that an individual or organization endorsed the candidate, and the tweet consists of the endorsement statement followed by a kind of throwaway "Smith4Congress!" or something like that. Perhaps I could be persuaded that such throwaway lines could be omitted, and I also think that image links should generally be omitted. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether to use part or full depends on what you are trimming.  I would trim "Replying to tweet by AngusWOOF: @AngusWOOF Agreed."   to "@AngusWOOF Agreed." as it shows an obvious redundancy.  I think something like  "I'm so proud of @AngusWOOF (screenshot of AngusWOOF's name in the credits) (picture of dog)" would be more helpful than "I'm so proud of @AngusWOOF  (http link 1) (http link 2)" if the actual tweet showed pictures.    Something like "I would like to thank @person @person2 @person3. #hashtag1 #hashtag2 #Smith4Congress!"  could be posted untrimmed.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 06:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Verified Source
I've added information on a show, that according to one of the host's Twitter accounts, will be airing new episodes in February. However, their Twitter is not 'verified' and a user reverted my edits. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia stating, "unverified accounts cannot be used as a source", so am I able to add back my information and the tweet as a source? Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey . Per the info at WP:Twitter-EL, second bullet, this talks about how, if using Twitter as a source, they should more likely than not be a "verified" account, to add to their reliability. However, there are some exceptions, and this sounds like it might be a case. I'd suggest if you plan to continue potentially using this hosts tweets, you start a talk page discussion at the article to have other users weigh in to get consensus to potentially use the tweets from them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add, the whole point of using the verified account, is we don't want editors adding content sourced by an account that is just some random person that has no credibility to the content they are talking about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

date-ifying the date parameter
In Cite tweet/sandbox, I've done a simple tweak so that whatever gets passed to  gets formatted with date. This has an added benefit of being able to copy-paste the date from Twitter as it is shown there. -Einstein95 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Template:Cite tweet/testcases, where the sandbox is changing the date format in the first example. This is undesirable per WP:CITEVAR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

number=..
On Hannah Witton I just claimed that "we" (=enwiki contributors) use special social media templates incl. instead of to indicate that "we" know the relevant policies or guidelines, e.g., WP:TWITTER. For I know all tricks, for this template I'm not sure: To some degree number=.. does what I want, i.e., link to a Twitter profile instead of a Tweet, but it should say (profile) instead of (tweet) in the reference, and this kludge could be documented. –84.46.53.29 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , cite tweet is for citing actual tweets. cite web can be used if you are just trying to cite the person's profile for information like their residence area  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * cite web has type. This might be of help. w umbolo   ^^^  19:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Emojis
Some tweets may contain emojis. I ran into this problem earlier when using the template to cite this tweet. Should emojis be included in |title=|? On one hand, it could be argued that including emojis is important for keeping the full source quote intact (and for contextualization). On the other hand, emojis in the citations could be distracting or viewed as unencyclopedic or unprofessional. I think certain emojis, like the US Flag one in the previous example, don't render properly in Wikipedia. What is the consensus on including/excluding emojis? Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey ~ I personally am not in favor of the whole tweet being included in the |title=| I usually only include just enough to lead the reader to read the full tweet for themselves. ~mitch~ (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Emoji are usually fine to quote, and they bring necessary context. — JFG talk 00:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Cite web requires website
Template is showing an error: " Cite web requires |website= " // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Via
Why is this invariably outputting an empty " – via ." with nothing in the documentation? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Like this? . I see "– via Twitter." Always link to an example page if you have a question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved. This behavior was due to my Adblock Plus settings. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

urls in tweet titles
In this template, the rvalue for title looks like this:

What this does is remove  and   from any urls in title so that cs1|2 doesn't complain that there is an external link in title. Here is a simplified example:

As far as that goes, it is fine I suppose. I wondered if there were a better way to accomplish the same thing. First, I thought: take the capture and nowiki it as the replacement value. This does not work:

( is the capture reference; similar to regex  ) I tried the pattern without the capture parentheses and I tried ; none of which worked. But then I hit on this:

Now the title rvalue is rendered as it was written which I think is better than the simple simple stripping that the template does now. It is not perfect because it won't handle protocol relative urls (those without the  and   schemes) nor will it handle any of the other schemes that might pop up in a tweet. Here is an example sandboxed, first with

and with

and with  which gives an error message:

So why does this really work? What Module:String  gets is a replacement string that has a stripmarker followed by the capture reference:

When  has made the replacement, it hands it off to cs1|2 as:

cs1|2 is happy because a strip marker is not a valid uri scheme. When cs1|2 is done rendering the citation, MediaWiki replaces the strip marker with 'http', and bob's yer uncle.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

String of tweets
I want to cite a single idea that, for twitter technical reasons, spans two tweets. That means it has two IDs etc. At present, I have cited it like this [in a talk page! "As we prepare for the next Rounds of negotiations, I want to reiterate the Government's position on the transition period created following our withdrawal from the EU. Transition ends on 31 December this year. We will not ask to extend it. If the EU asks we will say no. Extending would simply prolong negotiations, create even more uncertainty, leave us liable to pay more to the EU in future, and keep us bound by evolving EU laws at a time when we need to control our own affairs. In short, it is not in the UK's interest to extend."

- David Frost but surely there is a better way? (I have seen ten-part tweets). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest two options: 1) use a WP:CITEBUNDLE, so inline it is only one reference tag, but it holds each URL you need. Or 2) use the Thread Reader App (or similar) url (for your's it is here) as that has the whole text. And if using that, I would also cite the first original Tweet url, since you can then click "Show this thread" on Twitter to see the remaining tweets in the thread. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess I had hoped for something clever like id1=, id2=, id3= . Threadreader it is then. You suggest citing the original tweet – doesn't that take me back to two citations? (obviously if there is a sequence of ten, that is fine but for two?). Or did you have in mind using via= in cite web?  Have you one that you put in the oven earlier that I could plagiarise? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The cite template currently doesn't support anything for multiple ids, hence my suggestions. I was potentially going to use Threadreader for a cite, but never ended up using it. However, I would cite your content as such:, which will produce . You can make the title text and the plain url where I said "Original tweet" other text as you see fit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would use bundle the two tweets as follows:
 * It doesn't work with ProveIt, but at least it keeps the tweet together. If you have a secondary source that quotes both, then you can use that instead. Two separate tweets is okay, not overkill on the citations. I've seen cast announcements done on twitter like that. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In this specific instance, I'd probably go with and use a cite bundle (though I also suggested Thread Reader) because it is only 2. But if it gets to be a large number of tweets in one thread, I think either options are still viable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the cite bundle is intended for distinct sources rather than (as in this case) a single source that has been broken for technical reasons. I really don't see it as appropriate to use here: if people are using it then they are doing so as a kludge to get round the lack of an id1=, id2=, id3= syntax. In the meantime, I am far more convinced by the Threadreader syntax as closest to the spirit of WP:citing sources.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Avoid citing a tweet directly if at all possible. Twitter requires JavaScript and the tweet may disappear any time. For politicians, you can often find the tweet archived on reuters.com and other agencies (for this specific tweet, at the moment I'd cite The Irish Times). Otherwise, Thread Reader is a good method. Nemo 13:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I prefer that one and it solves my immediate practical issue, thank you, I will use it because of the added journalism. It leaves open the wider issue of how to cite fragmented tweets, though: is CITEBUNDLE really the preferred method? (when there is no alternative to citing Twitter directly per your remarks about it not being a stable source). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I run into a similar problem when citing snips from Newspapers.com where an article spans two or more pages and you need to separately link to each snip. The solution I've been using at present is a narrative addition; for instance see reference 1 (Rodman 2014) in El Rey Network. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Title= for tweets?
ON Twitter, there is no provision for titles. So, what should be the rule on titles? Do we all become titles sub-editors and make up our own? or do we include the entire tweet and clutter up the references section? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 08:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Other style guides recommend citing the whole tweet (MLA) or the first 40 words (APA). - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the point?
What's the point in institutionalising the citation of twitter? The fact is, the use of self-published platform fails WP:PRIMARY and is thus frowned upon, and editors should be encouraged to cite secondary sources where they exist – and such comments made on Twitter usually have an abundance of secondary sources if WP:notable (like all other happenings). Isn't it just plain lazy not to have to look for secndary sources to replace the tweets, as the existence of this merely makes the practice seem acceptable? In any event, this template ought to be made to display the same warning as primary source inline template. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As a general principle, IMO you are absolutely right. But if a very notable person publishes something on twitter, can we really pretend it never happened? So yes, we do have to look for an RS secondary source that reports it as both newsworthy and authentic, which allows us to cite it indirectly according to our standard criteria. Again IMO, citing a tweet is a last resort and it should come with serious health warnings. Indeed the template should automatically attach better source needed every time it is used. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:TWITTER allows it for citing non-controversial claims the author makes about themselves.-Ich (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Location parameter
What is the point of  in this template? I can hardly think of any situation where it would be useful to readers, especially considering that tweets are almost never available via anything other than the Internet. Glades12 (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * location is for referring to the location something happened at. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elliot321: Really? That's not how it's used in other citation templates. Glades12 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * uh, what? per Help:CS1: "location (alias |publication-place=): Geographical place of publication (not where you found your copy, nor location of material in the source). This is usually City, Country, or City, US State." Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elliot321: By "the location something happened at", I thought you meant an event described by a tweet (which is not something that is or should ever be included in a citation). Glades12 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ah, sorry for the confusion. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
Copy the changes I've made in Template:Cite tweet/sandbox to the main template. This allows it to automatically calculate the date from the number, making date optional (which is good, since calculating it is more reliable and not subject to issues like manual error). Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a couple concerns with going forward with this change.
 * What about the time zone? I assume the automatically generated date would be in UTC, but I don't think we always cite the UTC date (nor should we).
 * The preferred format in the given article could be ISO, DMY or MDY. This should be addressed.
 * Nardog (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the time zone is UTC, yes. I'm pretty sure CS1 templates automatically detect and convert to the preferred date format, and since cite tweet simply wraps a CS1 template, the date will be automatically converted to the appropriate format. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per your concern about UTC, see the existing documentation on cite tweet: "Note: a tweet's timestamp is in your local timezone, and may need to be adjusted to UTC." (emphasis mine, of course) the template already requests you use UTC over any other timezone. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems the CS1/2 templates adjust the format if the page has Use dmy dates or Use mdy dates, and df can be employed to tweak it at the editor's end. That said, I for one would prefer the default format to be ISO (which is most neutral) or DMY (the default on MediaWiki).
 * I wonder if that TemplateData instruction has any basis in consensus and if it's actually observed. If I was citing or quoting a tweet I'd set it to whatever date in the time zone the tweeter is based in. Nardog (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair, I can set the default to DMY if that would be preferred.
 * I think using the time zone of the tweeter is kinda over-the-top - maybe a nice to have detail but that's often not known. UTC is consistent and what Twitter provides us with. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be okay to use for cases where date is not explicitly placed, but if the cite tweet specifies the date then UTC should not override. There are many tweets where the person is citing an event as "today" such as birthdays, and it could be weird if that date is not consistent with the time zone. This is also consistent with cite news and AV media referring to the time region of origin. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how it's implemented. If a date is specified, this doesn't mess with that. I considered adding a warning if the specified date didn't match the calculated one but I decided against it. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be a good idea to issue a warning if the input is off by more than one day then. Nardog (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try to figure out how to do that. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done, see Template:Cite tweet/testcases. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done but feel free to revert it in case of any disruption. Nardog (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Seems to be working well - I checked the category for errors and it seems there are about ~900 — checked about ten of them and yeah, they're inaccurately entered dates, so this is working as intended. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Seems to be working well - I checked the category for errors and it seems there are about ~900 — checked about ten of them and yeah, they're inaccurately entered dates, so this is working as intended. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)