Template talk:Web reference

Using optional parameters
This template does not allow for the author of the reference to be added to it, which should be part of the template. -- LGagnon 17:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * When I created the template, I never intended for it to be used so many times in this fashion. I was going to make a few variations, one of them would obviously include the author.  My problem was that I was finding web pages with no author listed. Publisher, yes, but no author. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) June 28, 2005 11:51 (UTC)
 * Can you make author optional? Like for example the computer and videogames infobox has System Requirements and Engine and such being entirely optional via subtemplates or something. GarrettTalk 08:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Use one of the alternate templates at Template_messages/Sources_of_articles. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * When the template was created there were several versions created because it was awkward to use and display optional parameters. Support of default parameter options recently allowed better optional parameter support, and the templates are being consolidated.  (SEWilco 14:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

web reference
The addition of "Web reference:" to the template seems a bit wrong to me, and does point out a bit of the naming problem of the template. For instance, there is nothing stopping from me from having a URL go to an FTP site and reference some pdf. In that respect, it has nothing to do with the world wide web, and so is misnamed. As such, a "web reference:" may not even point to a web reference! I suggest we remove the phrase and revert to its previous nature. For another thing, it doesn't match the Chicago manual of style. I don't see the reason to talk down to people, and it looks ugly. We don't say "Book reference:" or "Journal Reference:" in the other templates. It's up to the person looking at the reference to be smart enough. There is no reason to talk down to them either "Hey stupid, you're not smart enough to notice the link on the references, so we'll just tell you again". It's redundant, not to mention an inconsistent format for references, and consistency is good. The "Accessed on" implies a web source. At minimum move "web reference" to "Web reference accessed on...", but I'd prefer if it just went away totally. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I only changed it from "Web Link" to "Web reference" because that was a little less jarring in a list of references.  However, I didn't really understand the motivation for adding the identifier in the first place.  -- Visviva 14:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I put the "web link" in because there were some links listed under a "references" section in a article I was editing and it was not clear what kind of references they were, so I added the words, hoping that people would see it as an improvement, but if not, so be it. I will just put web links under a separate section entitled the usual "See also". My point is that web links don't have the same standing as books and journal articles. They are apt to be somebody's take on a particular subject, and are liable to evaporate without notice. I wanted the reader to be able to easily distinguish between the two. PAR 15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely true. Sites such as FishBase have a very strong authority, maybe even more than books because it is updated frequently.  The fact is that this is a generic reference template and it shouldn't assume that the sites being referenced are high or low quality.  Quality may not even be important, depending on the context in the article itself.  For instance, on an article on a certain religion, some of the counter arguments to the religion reference (what I believe to be) low quality web sites for the holders of the fringe beliefs.  It's a nice thought to try to inform the reader, but in doing so you may end up misinforming the reader at the same time.  &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Case of parameters
I notice that and similar templates have url in lowercase, whereas  et al. use URL in uppercase; this is a bit annoying when one is entering many different sources. There's probably some other points of departure, and it would be nice if all of these citations eventually conformed to some sort of namespace (like ,,, ). -Kwh 00:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I also think most parameters should have lowercase names. Perhaps you can find a suitable place to propose a standard.  (SEWilco 14:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC))


 * I proposed a lowercase parameter standard at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. (SEWilco 19:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

New version
A version with optional parameters has been created as part of consolidation of these templates. Lowercase parameter names are preferred. (SEWilco 15:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Uppercase parameters (obsolete):
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;Doe, John&#32;(April 30, 2005).&#32;.&#32;Encyclopedia of Things.&#32;Open Publishing.&#32;URL accessed on July 6, 2005.
 * Lowercase parameters:
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;Doe, John&#32;(April 30, 2005).&#32;My Favorite Things Part II.&#32;Encyclopedia of Things.&#32;Open Publishing.&#32;URL accessed on July 6, 2005.
 * No parameters specified, showing required parameters:
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;.
 * ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format:
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;Doe, John&#32;(April 30, 2005).&#32;My Favorite Things Part II.&#32;Encyclopedia of Things.&#32;Open Publishing.&#32;URL accessed on 2005-07-06.

TfD nomination of Template: Web_reference variations
Variants of Template:Web_reference have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. — (SEWilco 04:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC))
 * }
 * }

date links
Modified the template so we don't have multiple useless date links in accessed on thingy. Vsmith 16:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it not necessary to wrap the dates in wiki brackets in order for user preferences to function? (SEWilco 05:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Yes it is. I have restored them. Rich  Farmbrough 19:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I see the purpose to wikilinking them for user preferences, although there is no actual purpose to wikilinking them. In the future, please do not make threats in edit summaries&mdash;it only brings down the quality of Wikipedia. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-11-23 09:26


 * Re: "In the future, please do not make threats in edit summaries&mdash;it only brings down the quality of Wikipedia." I assume you refer to the edit summary of SEWilco on the revision as of 08:53, 23 November 2005 where he wrote "(...) .Read warning about understanding before changing." If I'm correct with my assumption, I would like to write that I do agree with SEWilco's sentiment. Please assume good faith of SEWilco as I feel he was just concerned about the possible effect of changes to this template. The template is used in a truckload of articles and I think we should therefore be cautious about making changes to the template as a lot of users are affected. Beeing bold is a good thing but it should be applied with care. I would propose to present new ideas for this template on this talk page here before doing significant changes. This does not mean that new ideas should be suppressed and I do value all contributions. Maybe new ideas could be presented under the user space of the inventor, together with some test cases on the discussion page (a — maybe not exactly so good — example for a test template under user space could be User:Ligulem/book coauthors (talk). It shows at least how templates under user space do work). At least, it would be a good thing to test intended significant changes on the side before applying them. Thanks to all! – Ligulem | Talk 10:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently, although there are wikilinks, the date in this template does not appear the way it should according to the user preferences. I tried to have a look at the code, but couldn't find anything there, maybe someone more familiar with the code could try to fix that... --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hallo Fritz. If I do
 * Which is expanded at the moment you read this as (indented):
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;My Favorite Things Part II.&#32;URL accessed on 2005-07-06.
 * and I switch the date format in my user settings I get different displays of the date.
 * For example if I have set it to "No preference", I get (A):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005-07-06.
 * If I have set it to "16:12, 15 January 2001", I get (B):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 6 July 2005.
 * If I have set it to "16:12, January 15, 2001", I get (C):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on July 6, 2005.
 * If I have set it to "16:12, 2001 January 15", I get (D):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005 July 6.
 * If I have set it to "2001-01-15 16:12:34", I get (E):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005-07-06.
 * Could you explain what exactly does not work? – Ligulem | Talk 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 6 July 2005.
 * If I have set it to "16:12, January 15, 2001", I get (C):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on July 6, 2005.
 * If I have set it to "16:12, 2001 January 15", I get (D):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005 July 6.
 * If I have set it to "2001-01-15 16:12:34", I get (E):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005-07-06.
 * Could you explain what exactly does not work? – Ligulem | Talk 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005 July 6.
 * If I have set it to "2001-01-15 16:12:34", I get (E):
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005-07-06.
 * Could you explain what exactly does not work? – Ligulem | Talk 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on 2005-07-06.
 * Could you explain what exactly does not work? – Ligulem | Talk 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what exactly does not work? – Ligulem | Talk 15:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On several pages the date is listed like "January 15 2001" while I have my settings to "January 15, 2001" (your C). This only seems to occur when the year is set as a seperate argument, e.g.
 * becomes
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on July 6 2005.
 * instead of
 * My Favorite Things Part II. URL accessed on July 6, 2005.
 * Hope that helps. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hope that helps. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifiying. You are right. I could reproduce that. Date preferences do not work if the "date", "year" variant of the template is used. At the moment, date preferences only has an influence if the whole date (including the year) is specified with "date". I do not know whether this is intentional. Maybe we could state that specifying the whole date with the "date" parameter should be preferred by users when inserting calls to this template. I personally prefer to use only "date" in ISO format, as this is clear how to interpret in all languages. – – Ligulem | Talk 16:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got an idea how to fix that. I'm working on a new version for the code of web reference. Watch at User talk:Ligulem/web reference 2005-12-02-1. I will post here if I think I got it or I failed. 18:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I got it fixed. I invite all to review my proposal to change web reference at User talk:Ligulem/web reference 2005-12-02-1. Discuss there (on bottom of page) or here, as you see fit. Thanks! – Ligulem | Talk 08:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see it works. Thanks for doing that! --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Saved to web reference as revision 2005-12-03 17:03:09 UTC. Please revert quickly if you see something broken. – Ligulem | Talk 17:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Idea of AzaToth, as contributed 11:07, 23 November 2005
On 11:07, 23 November 2005 AzaToth contributed the following:

I'm just going to revert this right now as I would like to discuss this first. – Ligulem | Talk 14:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm reporting that I have reverted to the revision as of 08:53. – Ligulem | Talk 14:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, there is mostly a indentation made, simlar to the indentation in, second I added numbered params to all calls to ensure if someone have = as argument, third there is a boolnand to check that url and title is specified, that is all. --AzaToth talk 14:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you explain (to a dummy like me :-) "... I added numbered params to all calls to ensure if someone have = as argument". I suspect your intent was to catch a usage error with this, but I'm too blinded to see this. Maybe you could give an example? – Ligulem | Talk 14:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to pass argument foo=bar you have to type 1=foo=bar etc... Because this is a complicated template, it's better to be safe than not, therefore, add number as param-name catches those attributes, it will also show the user he/she typed wrong, when author's name is John=Doe. Also it's easier to see if a parameter belongs to one call or another. --AzaToth talk 14:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand. Please correct me: If someone erroneously tries to assign the value "John=Doe" to the template parameter "author" he would do what? He would write ? – Ligulem | Talk 14:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, this template have no First/Last parameter, so this particular example is bogus. But think if the user forgot a   in it's argument. will give   as value to work.  --AzaToth talk 14:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Confusion still increases with me. You write "This template has no First/Last parameter"'. Yes that's correct. The template does not have a paramater with the name "First" and neither a parameter with the name "Last". But what does that tell us? – Ligulem | Talk 15:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First/Last was just a example, used by other reference templates, I was refering that a parameter in this template, even if you have not consider it, could take a = as value by some sense (like format could for example be a format called foo=bar). --AzaToth talk 15:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If I just say that I do not understand what you want to say (and even say how I understood it) how can I not consider you? However, I'll stop here. My final qualification of your proposal (as I sorted out how I understand it) follows. – Ligulem | Talk 16:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The "numbered params" added to "all calls" does not refer to calls to . The numbered parameters are being used within special effects templates such as .  The first parameter of  is being specifically indicated with "1=" in case there is an equals sign in the value.  (SEWilco 15:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC))


 * What means "specifically indicated"? – Ligulem | Talk 16:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It means that a parameter unless specified/indicated, will be the parameter 1..n, for example is the same as , but  is as it is. --AzaToth talk 16:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should not apply AzaToth's proposal. While it catches unimportant usage errors such as  it significantly complicates the template code. The presented solution intelligently solves a nearly inexistent or not so prominent problem. As I understand it, AzaToth's proposal assigns inside the template values to unnumbered unnamed parameters 1 and 2, in fact using them as variables. As I understand, this also would make the usage of "real" unnamed parameters 1 and 2 that would transfer information from the calling place of the template impossible, something that could be used for possible future extensions. – Ligulem | Talk 17:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (corrected by striking at 21:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC))


 * I think you have missunderstand us, unnumbered parameters are numbered, but you can't see it, they get numbered on the fly, where you tinking about sending a parameter 1=2=1?. Also, do you think that indenting the code make's it more complicated? --AzaToth talk 17:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "unnumbered parameters 1 and 2" was a botch by me. Sorry. I wanted to write "AzaToth's proposal assigns inside the template values to unnamed parameters 1 and 2". Is that correct? – Ligulem | Talk 18:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats correct, there are two reasons to have the parameters specified, one is to catch values with embeded =, one is to have a better look what parameter belongs to what function/template (if |1= comes after |2= you probably understand that they not belong to the same template call). The numbering is not necissary, but I personally think it's better to specify them for a hint to others that we are using this specified parameter. --AzaToth talk 18:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indenting does *not* make the code more complicated. If that was your main goal, then please go for it. – Ligulem | Talk 18:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "thinking about sending a parameter 1=2=1". No. I thought about things like . Just as a not so useful example. – Ligulem | Talk 18:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * will be expanded to, i.e. if you specified a parameter, it won't be extra expanded. even if you type   it will be expanded to   (see m:Help:Template) --AzaToth talk 18:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with this statement. But that abviously does not help to solve my misunderstanding. I propose that I'll stop now completely about your proposal. Please revert my revert. – Ligulem | Talk 18:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We are only humand :), have reverted your revert --AzaToth talk 18:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I found a minor bug:  will be expanded to   and   it will be expanded to  . – Ligulem | Talk 19:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it's correct --AzaToth talk 19:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Talking to myself: I wrote (at 17:38) "As I understand it, AzaToth's proposal assigns inside the template values to unnamed parameters 1 and 2, in fact using them as variables." No, this is wrong. The code as presented by AzaToth does *not* assign to unnamed parameters of web reference. All assignments to unnamed parameters ("1=", "2=", "3=") are unnamed parameters at the scope of the respective called templates, which are, and . What AzaToth did is explicitly specify the numbers of the unnamed parameters when calling for example :   (A) is equivalent to   (B) and seems to be the same, but it is not exactly. Because if "green" would be replaced with "==Best color==" then variant (B) does not work as one might expect (See m:Help:Template). In fact, I'm asking myself now, if we just should always use form (A) inside templates for subtemplate calls. – Ligulem | Talk 21:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe, sorry if I twisted your mind :) I thought it was best to be on the safe side when typing complicated templates. Perhaps my english is not so good after all :( --AzaToth talk 21:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not just a thing for complicated templates. And your english is quite fine. And it's me who is the newbie. – Ligulem | Talk 21:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dammed. I finally see what you template geeks are doing. Sorry for stealing your valued time. AzaToth, I think your original proposal is even better than the one that came out after my stupid intervention (I whish I had not, but you are so dammed fast). Sorry sorry. That's really strange stuff that if an actual parameter of a template contains a "=" char the original code behaves that strange. Thanks for the lesson! – Ligulem | Talk 19:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ping pong, a new little template is available now AzaToth talk 13:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Strange bug with space chars
I've documented a very strange bug under my user space at User:Ligulem/web reference 2005-11-27-1 (please don't edit there). I invite all to help discuss on the associated talk page. Of course, you may also post here, as you see fit. Thanks! – Ligulem | Talk 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reworked the handling of space chars (revision as of 12:26, 30 November 2005 UTC). The bug seems to have disappeared. – Ligulem | Talk 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies
I had this open for reference and edited it by mistake, apologies Hiding talk 08:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Logic templates on WP:AUM
See the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_using_meta-templates. – Ligulem | Talk 15:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Change proposal: break dependency on template tl
I propose to do this also here. Admin help needed due to protection. – Ligulem | Talk 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done by Ral315 (diff). Thanks. Ligulem 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

HTML cite element, anchor
encloses its content in an HTML  element, with an ID attribute formulated with the author's last name and year. This allows an in-text citation to link directly to the bibliographic entry as an anchor.

[content]

Web reference needs a required parameter to substitute for the Author's last name in the value of ID. The URL would work, but some URLs are very long and have a lot of irrelevant cruft. Perhaps addition of a required element with a unique part of the reference's domain name would be a suitable substitute, so that a web reference could look like this:

[content]

This template needs the same feature (I'm making use of it in the article "T-34"). I'd rather someone familiar with it do the coding, but if there's no interest then I could give it a shot. —Michael Z. 2005-12-27 23:58 Z 


 * It looks like the major proposal for a revision may not see the light of day (see dev version, below), but is there any reason not to add the HTML cite element to the current in-use template, even if it is lacking the id attribute? —Michael Z. 2006-01-1 23:49 Z 


 * With no response in a week, I will attempt to add the HTML cite element on my own. I'll probably leave out the ID attribute for now, because I don't feel too confident messing with the complex template code, but I'll give that a try soon.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-9 05:34 Z 

blocked?
Why is this template blocked? Is there a Wiki policy that is now in place since the markup language became more complex? Thanks, Steven McCrary 17:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven. Sadly, this template is blocked because it is a high-use template (several thousand articles depend on that) and the current implementation of templates in MediaWiki has the problem that if a widely used template is changed, all dependent pages are changed immediately. This can even lock the data-base server for seconds, which is said to be very bad. So this template here would make a fine vandal vector. Please note that I have not blocked this template and I'm not a admin but I agree with it beeing blocked. However this does not mean that this template should never be changed. If you have a change proposal write it on this talk page and wait a bit what others say about it. If there are no objections, simply ask an admin to make the change or unprotect the template for you. (See also High-risk templates and List of permanently protected pages). Disclaimer: WP:AUM. Ligulem 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ligulem, thanks. I kinda' figured it out, since after I posted the question I went to the blocked pages and did a little exploration.  But, I did not see the High-risk templates page, so thanks.  I posted a change (above) yesterday, but so far, no discussion on it.  Thanks, Steven McCrary 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just an Idea: What about starting a development branch under a subpage, for example under template:web reference/dev? We could then do the usual wiki-process of editing there and after consensus ask admins to copy a revision identified as "to release" (by consensus) over to the "hot" template. Ligulem 18:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I have done so.  Steven McCrary 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. Now we need test cases to demonstrate that all old and new features still work. Think I start that at template:web reference/dev-test. Ligulem 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change
I agree that should include hypertext to allow for linking the notes (at the end) to the reference (in the text). Here is a portion of the markup from  This addition would eliminate the need to have both  and. A one way link is all I am requesting here, i.e. from the reference in the text to the note. The template includes a link to the notes. A back link is not needed. Thanks, Steven McCrary 15:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have implemented the change at Template:Web reference/dev. Test the development at template:web reference/dev-test. Steven McCrary 21:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion at Template talk:Web reference/dev. Ligulem 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The format of the id should follow the one in, starting with "Reference-", and not "endnote_". —Michael Z. 2005-12-30 07:44 Z 
 * Michael, thank for the input, good idea, however the formatting is different in, , , and . So, those templates would require change as well.  Thanks, SteveMc 16:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Eek, that's too bad. Is it possible to harmonize all of these for consistency, by changing one or the other?  They should all be able to work together as a unified framework.


 * Barring changing one or the other because they are already in wide use, can one or more be replaced with a similar template with compatible output, so that the old version can be deprecated and the new one phased in gradually? Sorry to be so clueless, but I only started dealing with references in a long article recently ("T-34"), and I'm unfamiliar with most of these templates.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-30 22:21 Z 

Good question! I am a member of that club as well. I have exchanged discussion with Ligulem at Template_talk:Web reference/dev. He is generally against the idea. I have not tried to gather discussion from others; I am not inclined to try to garner support; I do not have the time or the motivation to do so; so right now the proposal is likely to die anyway. SteveMc 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

&amp;nbsp; addition request
Can you folks please change }}. over to }}. to prevent an ugly thing like a line beginning like this:
 * 2005.

TIA, --BACbKA 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done that change on the dev branch. See . But I would like to investigate a bit further before asking an admin to copy that to the "relase" (I'm not an admin). Can you point to an article where that bug you want to fix with this change happens? Ligulem 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. See 3D Monster Maze, and wiggle the right margin of your browser to make it happen (so that just the right amount of text spills over to the next line in those refs that are web references). --BACbKA 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Seen. I think your change would not fix that. for example uses the  parameter. So year is not set and the line with your &amp;nbsp; is ignored in this case. The date is emited as 2005-12-16 (<-look at the wiki source of this!) by the template and the MediaWiki software translates that on the fly to your preferred date format (which is set in your preferences). Inside that translated date I see no way to influence the line breaking. But I also think it is ok to write the year onto the next line. Did I miss something? (Anyway I go now to bed. Good night! See you tomorrow :-). Ligulem 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the date is only auto-formatted if you put it in the form yyyy-mm-dd:
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;you-are-ell.&#32;URL accessed on 2005-16-12.
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;you-are-ell.&#32;URL accessed on 16 December 2005.
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;you-are-ell.&#32;URL accessed on December 16 2005.
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;you-are-ell.&#32;URL accessed on December 16, 2005.
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;you-are-ell.&#32;URL accessed on December 2005.
 * Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;you-are-ell.&#32;URL accessed on 2005-12.
 * <cite style="font-style:normal;">Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;you-are-ell.&#32;URL accessed on 2005.
 * ··gracefool |&#9786; 22:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Think I have a deja vu. Haven't I fixed that somewhere before already? (scratching my head...). I will take a closer look at that. --Ligulem 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a bit complicated as it is (don't ask me why it came so into the template). See the doc. You can leave off the year from the date parameter and specify that in the separate year parameter. So you can write (look at the wiki source):


 * <cite style="font-style:normal;">Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;example.org.&#32;URL accessed on 2005-12-16.
 * <cite style="font-style:normal;">Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;example.org.&#32;URL accessed on December 16, 2005.
 * <cite style="font-style:normal;">Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;example.org.&#32;URL accessed on 16 December, 2005.
 * <cite style="font-style:normal;">Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;example.org.&#32;URL accessed on 16 december, 2005.
 * <cite style="font-style:normal;">Web reference error: Parameters url and title must be specified&#32;&#32;example.org.&#32;URL accessed on december 16, 2005.
 * --Ligulem 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something, but none of the above examples cures the spilled year problem (look at the resulting HTML source --- there's no nbsp before the year). --BACbKA 11:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I think I already said above why this can't be cured. I also think it needs not to be cured, because it is simply ok as it is. --Ligulem 12:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought from your later writings that you were going to fix it anyway. My inspiration for a non-breakable space in such places comes from Donald Knuth's The TEXbook. I feel that in the beginning of a line, a number followed by a period looks ugly, and gives an impression of a numbered list item on one's quick scanning of the area (of course, when one reads into the context, and looks at the neighbouring lines, the perception goes away, but the ugliness remains IMHO). I agree that this is not a very high priority thing, but, if at some point, a way to fix it w/o a lot of effort becomes available, I'll be happy. (For the record, bibtex also suffers similar problems :-) ). --BACbKA 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly feel there is some point you didn't catch (Sorry for being so direct, it's nothing personal). As I understand it, we have no influence on this behaviour on the level of the template as the template for example just emits the char sequence  which is then converted to 2005-12-16 by the mediawiki software. The the html currently created from this (with my personal date setting from "my preferences" - your html might look different) is:

<a href="/wiki/December_16" title="December 16">December 16</a>, <a href="/wiki/2005" title="2005">2005</a>
 * The html that is produced depends on the date setting in your "my preferences" (see on top). I do not see how to influence that html without changing the mediawiki software. The template is certainly the wrong level to do that. --Ligulem 15:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for having missed it, you indeed had said that already the first time. I agree fully, the template code is not the right place to try to tweak that. Unfortunately, the prefs only let one select from a predefined set of strings, I can't force an nbsp insertion there... Thank you very much for your patient explanations! --BACbKA 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Additional parameter for Internet Archive links
Since each of these is supposed to have an "Accessed on DATE" entry, why don't we include a parameter so we can link to the Internet Archive's abckup of that page at approximately that time? --maru (talk) contribs 17:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving to template cite web
Hi all. I would like to introduce a move to the new. This includes deprecation of web reference and moving all calls to cite web.

Motivation: web reference currently provides both upper and lower case parameters, which is nedlessly complex and brittle. cite web is much simpler as it provides lower case only. cite web is also less likely to break and it is easier to throw in stop-gap measures like weeble code or hiddenStructure hack if some god should shoot (See also that never ending story on WP:AUM and user talk:Brion VIBBER. Hopefully we will get a Media-Wiki built-in qif soon).

I have done the same on (replacement for ) and I'm still converting  to.

Please note that it is not safe to just throw out the upper case params on web reference, even though nearly all calls already use lower case. We need two templates while doing the move to make sure that no article is hurted. There is no way to tell for sure that each and every article uses only the lower case parameters of web reference.

Per the name: we already have a bunch of cite xxx templates. See category:citation templates.

Thank you for your careful consideration. --Ligulem 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe cite uri would be better than cite web? --BACbKA 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I'm not so obsessed on names. I could live with that. Reasonable short and is compatible with the cite xxx pattern. OTH, cite web is closer to the old "web reference", so "cite web" might be easier to accept for editors as it also has "web" in the name. uri is technically correct, but I would guess that most editors do no know what an uri is. --Ligulem 13:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

field name changes
Also, it would be nice if before we move, we discuss some field name changes, such as date and year to accessdate and accessyear (easier to understand their use), and likewise publishyear to year. This won't be hard to do with AWB as part of the move, right? ··gracefool |&#9786; 13:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Simple parameter renames are no problem. Of course I agree dicussing first. I've added a warning text to so that it's not used prematurely. We should also wait putting the deprecated tag here until there is consensus what to do exactly. This went wrong on book ref last time. --Ligulem 13:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the renames date → accessdate, year → accessyear, publishyear → year. --Ligulem 13:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the above change as well, makes usage of various cite xxx templates more consistent with each other. --BACbKA 15:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)