Wikipedia talk:Citation templates/Archive 3

Archives: May 2007 - Nov 2007

Magazine Citation
Which template should be used for magazine citation, for example, a video game review magazine? Thanks. – ARC Gritt TALK 11:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest either Cite journal or Cite news, depending upon the type of article in question. In general, "journal" should work, but I personally like "news" for any kind of news-type article, irregardless of the type of publication it is in. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, see Template:Citation which has advantages if you might use the citation in a Harvard type References section at some stage. .. dave souza, talk 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

putting EndNote references into a wikipedia citation?
Has anyone set up a quick method for putting EndNote references into a wikipedia citation? alteripse 17:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Patent - How do I cite
Can somebody do a template or link for citing a patent. Thanks.--Joewski 09:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's the US Patent template which produces just a link like this: . Not a proper citation though. -- intgr #%@! 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bibtex citation templates?
I frequently cite sources from NASA's ADS, which conveniently gives a bibtex entry for every source at a single click (e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1998A%26A...340..117L&data_type=BIBTEX&db_key=AST%26amp;nocookieset=1). Is there any simple way to integrate this into a wikipedia article? i.e. is there a template that I could just paste such an entry into? I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with template creation to do this myself just yet. Thanks, Keflavich 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no template that I know of that can do this, nor do I believe it would be possible to construct a template for this purpose. There's just too much extraneous data.  However, these templates are extremely easy to use...  In this situation, either cite journal or simply cite web could be used, and each template page gives instructions on how to use them.  However, I would suggest that the "adsurl" link provided on the page you linked to would provide somewhat more complete and useful data, especially author names.  If you need specific assistance, don't hesitate to ask. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's extraneous? Did you mean that simply linking to the ADS page would be enough in lieu of putting in the full journal cite?  Maybe it's easiest to write a script to convert the ADS Natbib template into a wiki template (can this be done within wikipedia at all?), but I firmly believe citing things should be made as simple as possible - if there's already a prewritten citation out there, everyone's more likely to use it if it's a simple two-click process rather than having to reenter everything by hand. --Keflavich 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, by extraneous I meant that Wikipedia scripting simply isn't designed and is incapable of independently parsing code like that page uses. Unfortunately, entering by hand really is the only option, but I don't understand why it is so difficult.  For the above, this is all you have to do:
 * Sure, it takes a couple of minutes, but considering all the needed information is right in front of you and no real research is needed to compile the data, it is extremely straightforward. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. The problem is that those few minutes are a lot more than the few seconds to cite an article when writing a paper, and if I write wikipedia articles in a similar fashion to research paper introductions (which I believe is close to correct - include a cite for each fact, essentially, unless citing a review paper), it would take much longer to add the cites than to write the article.  Take a look at some astronomy article introductions, they have a lot of citations - the two I currently have open have 5 and 11 cites in their opening sections.  Anyway, I'll just deal with it, but perhaps I'll look into some way to automate the process a little more - it's a personal flaw in terms of actually getting stuff done, but I don't like doing anything twice if a computer can do it for me, even something as simple as this.  Thanks for the replies, though. --Keflavich 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand the frustration, even though I'm somewhat anti-automation. If you have any skill with programming, its always possible to build something that can auto-convert.  However, going off of the example you first provided probably isn't the best idea, considering that it doesn't provide full author names and doesn't necessarily express all the data in best form for our use.  Either way you turn it, human control must be exerted to render the best results.  Else it's just sub-par.  Good luck in any case. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. The problem is that those few minutes are a lot more than the few seconds to cite an article when writing a paper, and if I write wikipedia articles in a similar fashion to research paper introductions (which I believe is close to correct - include a cite for each fact, essentially, unless citing a review paper), it would take much longer to add the cites than to write the article.  Take a look at some astronomy article introductions, they have a lot of citations - the two I currently have open have 5 and 11 cites in their opening sections.  Anyway, I'll just deal with it, but perhaps I'll look into some way to automate the process a little more - it's a personal flaw in terms of actually getting stuff done, but I don't like doing anything twice if a computer can do it for me, even something as simple as this.  Thanks for the replies, though. --Keflavich 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand the frustration, even though I'm somewhat anti-automation. If you have any skill with programming, its always possible to build something that can auto-convert.  However, going off of the example you first provided probably isn't the best idea, considering that it doesn't provide full author names and doesn't necessarily express all the data in best form for our use.  Either way you turn it, human control must be exerted to render the best results.  Else it's just sub-par.  Good luck in any case. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the best things about BibTeX is (ahem) natbib! These wikipedia citation templates are re-inventing the wheel and BibTex and natbib (among other systems) have gone before. Eg, there is no template yet for a chapter in an edited book. The kind where the chapters are written by people other than the book editor(s). So maybe steal more ideas from them? --66.167.135.226 04:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

show preview
The templates are nice but it seems we should be able to paste one of them into an article under edit and verify it works using "show preview". This does not appear to be the case. Rtdrury 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, given that I do just that all the time. Can you give me an example of where this happened, or precisely what happened? --  Huntster  T • @ • C 23:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You might not be able to if you just edit a section, and you may have to click on edit for the entire page. Then everything should come up properly in the preview. Tyrenius 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha, in this context the question does make more sense. I suppose it is also worth pointing out that if you are just editing a section, you can temporarily use the  template tag to see the results of your citation work.  Just remember to remove it before clicking save. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

CD notes
Please take a look at a template I created for citing booklet notes for CDs etc. I couldn't find a way to create these references using the pre-existing citation templates. I'm no template wizard, but if anyone wants to improve it please go ahead. The template is here: Template:Cite cd notes. Thanks! Grover cleveland 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally I just improved Cite album-notes. –Pomte 05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if a citation already exists, then the new one should probably be speedied. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh -- I didn't know about Cite album-notes. Would you mind if I requested a couple of extra features before we delete my template?
 * optional param for title of the notes themselves, as opposed the the overall album. Sometimes the notes have a different title from the album, especially in classical/jazz releases.
 * optional params for first,last of author of the notes, where this is given.
 * optional URL, where the notes are available online.
 * Here's an example: Last, First (Year). "NotesTitle." CD liner notes for Title by Bandname.  Place: Publisher.  PublisherID.
 * Sorry I don't have the skillz for intricate templates yet. Grover cleveland 06:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have completely re-written the Cite album-notes template code and documentation to implement the suggested changes. That was surprisingly one of the more difficult template rewrites I've done, lol.  In any case, give it a try (maybe on the Victor de Sabata album, like you did with yours?), see if anything breaks (nothing should, as I've fairly thoroughly tested it out).  If it works for you, I'd suggest placing db-author at the top of the template you created, so it will be properly deleted. Cheers! --  Huntster  T • @ • C 08:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just found this template today, works great, thanks. Can it be added to project page?  Cricket02 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll work on adding it when I get the time. Thanks for the reminder. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

location vs. place
There seems to be some inconsistency between location and place parameters. Neither of these currently seems to work, but some examples use place while the template documentation uses location. --Ott2 20:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you are referring to Citation. Can you give an example of where this doesn't work? I've never noticed a problem with it before, though I'm not a big fan of that template.  I am confused as to why there are two terms which do the same thing, though. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As faras I know, Citation has been all but abandoned as an actual alternative to all templates. Circeus 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See Clique problem for an example where location does not work in cite conference. This also seems to illustrate a valid use of Citation.  Circeus, what should one use instead of Citation if one wants to provide authorlinks for multiple authors of a book? --Ott2 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you aren't using the Cite conference template properly when using "location" in that way. Location doesn't refer to where the conference took place, but the location of the publisher who compiled the conference notes (or something like that).  Because no publisher was specified, the publisher's location won't be included either.  That is a curious absence, though...not having the location of the conference itself.  Anyway, there's technically no problem.  If I have spare time at some point, I may rewrite it to provide for such capability.
 * As far as authorlinks go, I simply write:
 * first=Sam | last=Walters | authorlink=Sam Walters | coauthors=Joe Smith and Billy Joe
 * No need for an actual field to provide a link (and really, no need to even use "authorlink"...just place a wikilinked name in the "author" field and drop both "first" and "last"). -- Huntster  T • @ • C 07:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, will use this form. --Ott2 08:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ASIN references
Is it possible and acceptable to make or use a reference which uses ASIN Amazon Standard Identification Numbers?

I am editing a topic which could be called "ethnic", that is regarding an organisation based in a developing nation

There are numerous books published and available to purchase both new and especially vintage from a variety of publisher which are available and listed with an ASIN number but not with a ISBN number due to age or ethnicity

This would be very helpful, I think that ASIN has become an alternative index by default.........If anyone could help me make or propose such a citation template, I would appreciate it. Green108 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While it would not be a good idea to have ASIN as an integral part of the citation template, as it would be seen as showing favour to an individual retailer, it would be possible to use the ID field in some templates to serve your purpose. Just type " id=ASIN B000FTWM48 ", and of course there is even the option to link to the site (just remember to use the basic links, a la http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FTWB7G, to keep links and code clean and simple), and do not over-use.  Also, remember to go to Worldcat.org and see if they have the book you are looking for...I believe they index more than just books with ISBNs, and this would be highly preferable to linking or using proprietary Amazon material. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 16:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you tried looking up those titles in WorldCat (WorldCat), the OCLC's international catalog? The OCLC number can be used in cite_book with the "oclc" parameter. That's what I use for old and isbn-less books


 * Thanks. Much appreciatedGreen108 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Make it easier to find the right one
Perhaps you can put a quick list of in the lead that land you at the right template for a selection of common source types, like a newspaper, a broadcast, an encyclopaedia, a novel, etc. And perhaps for a few often used sources too, like e.g. The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, etc. These link would then land you at partially filled in templates, making citing them less work. Shinobu 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless there's some Wikicode I'm unaware of, this may not be the easiest task without resorting to HTML code for internal linking. This suggestion does warrant some research. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ==headings== generate an id to link to, so you can e.g. link to the previous post. Come to think of it, using headings would result in a table of contents, which, if we structure this correctly, might go a long way in solving the problem. Shinobu 21:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What also makes it hard to use the templates is that for some sources several different templates exist and it is not clear at all which one should be used. Have one template per source, and ideally implement the other in terms of the one listed. There is no reason at all to have multiple different templates that should do the same thing. Shinobu 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One-name authors
I ran into a problem trying to cite an article by a person who uses a first name but no last name as a byline. The "first" parameter in the template was ignored. I tried putting the name in "last" instead and it seemed to work better.--Larrybob 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The better option would be to simply use the "author" field, though "last" works fine as a stopgap. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ISBN
I know it is probably me doing something wrong. But I have looked and looked, and I have used this template hundreds of times before, but for some reason the ISBN won't link using the Cite Book Template in Ref 5 of East Gosford, New South Wales. Could somebody have a check please and tell me what I've done wrong. ..... Todd #661 11:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed; you forgot the leading zero. The ISBN field must be either 10 or 13 numbers in length or it won't be recognised.  Remember that if possible, it is stylistically preferred to include dashes as part of the ISBN. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite an email?
Is there a way to cite an email?  Blue Ag09  (Talk) 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Typically, there should be no reason to cite an email, because there is no verifiability involved in email (aka, no one can independently verify the contents besides the email holder). -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Annual reports template
I find myself citing more and more annual reports in various topics and it would be good to have a template specifically for this purpose. Fields in such a cite template would be:


 * Company name
 * Year ending
 * URL
 * Page no.
 * Audited by
 * Format (as in .html, .pdf, etc),
 * File size (as most annual reports are .pdf these days some can be up to 15mb in size, just a courtesy thing)

Would such a template be possible? -- Russavia 11:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that a template is needed for this. Annual reports are not secondary sources, and if you are using them in an article about the company, they are not an independent source. I would suggest finding better sources.  UnitedStatesian 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst they are not secondary sources, neither are press releases, and there is a cite template for those. The addition of an 'audited by' field would be for the third party which has verified that information contained in the report is true and accurate. There is some information contained in such reports which is extremely difficult in obtaining via standard methods, and they can be used when the situation is warranted, right? --Russavia 12:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Primary sources such as these documents are permissible, just not preferred. See WP:PSTS for more.  So long as you are not using these as the only references in a document, you should probably be okay.  Basically, don't over-use them. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited books
There is a mthod of referencing chapters in edited books but it is currently under the heading of "Encyclopedia" where it is not immediately obvious. Could someone looking after this page add this to the "Book" section. The problem is that the chapter and its title need to be credited with the author of that chapter and then the book and title need to be credited with the editors. --CloudSurfer 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Are there no scientists here? ~:-| It is very strange that the citation method for chapters of edited books is hidden under "encyclopedia contribution". It is also very strange that the editors are not marked as such but treated like authors, and it is furthermore very strange that the page numbers are moved to the end as "at 15–98". That looks weird. I've never seen that before. I'd be very grateful if someone would fix these oddities. Biologists contribute to edited books all the time; this is a common method to get monographic treatises published. Just right now I am trying to cite such a chapter at Phylogenetic nomenclature. David Marjanović 13:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, cite book does that. It has the "chaptertitle" and "editor" variables thatserve that exact purpose. Circeus 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

ISSN punctuation
What is the difference between "id = ISSN: 0343-6993" and "id = ISSN 0343-6993"? Both are used on the project page - perhaps one is in error. Nurg 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There really should not have been a colon there, as none of the other ID types use them. I've removed it from the example. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Patents, IETF RFCs, and Other Documents known more by Number than Author
Is there a template intended for such use? For example, when I refer to RFC 4098 in an article on the Border Gateway Protocol, there's apparently some formatting mechanism that recognizes the number and makes an external RFC reference, rather than quoting Berkowitz et al. as authors. Is there a way to use a Harvard Reference type to refer to pages in such a document?

Patents, government reports where there's no individual author, etc., have the same sort of problem.

Suggestions? Is there a template that I've missed? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Podcasts?
Should there be a template for Podcasts? Norm Donovan 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See cite podcast. --cjllw  ʘ  TALK 04:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanging indent proposal
I would like to propose the addition of an optional formatting parameter, which when used would make the cited reference in a bibliographical listing appear as a hanging indent if it wraps over multiple lines. Thus, the following listing: would appear formatted as:
 * A line of text which comes after the reference for some reason

Some more tests and examples using longer lists for formatting comparision may be viewed here.

Formatting in this way has the advantage of making it far easier to pick out the keyword (ie, the authors' names) when scanning down a bibliographical listing, when they would be undifferentiated otherwise. If you look around, most reference lists provide some sort of visual cue to make the keyword stand out, and I find this particularly useful and convenient with a lengthy listing.

The optional formatting parameter, let's call it hi, would be specified with a postive integer value that would determine the size (in em) of the indent's offset. The coding can be achieved thus (there may be some more efficient way): ...rest of template code... AFAIK this would be browser-agnostic. The only minor drawback I've identified in testing is that if anything appears on the same line after the templated citation (typically language icons, or perhaps some annotative text), then that gets bumped to a new line: However, this is readily fixed by also adding a |freetext= parameter, to include the text inside the  tags: For consistency, the |hi= parameter should be added to all of the "cite X" templates (cite book, cite web, etc).
 * A line of annotative text which comes after the reference for some reason

I would like to implement this shortly, unless there are strenuous objections or someone can identify incompatibilities I haven't considered. Any comments, thoughts?--cjllw ʘ  TALK 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

H-I-P arbitrary editing sub-section1

 * Wow, contrary to my initial expectations, that works really well. At least here. I checked various window widths and font sizes as well as inserting an image to see if the flow would break. It worked every time. With and without Javascript. Neat. -- Fullstop 10:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this is more of an issue with citation lists than with citations. In fact, I think it would look horrible if applied to only some of the citations, or in an irregular fashion.  We already have several styles of citation lists, including  tag (Cite/Cite.php), which generates a numbered list of the inline cites and footnotes captured between tags. In fact, if you try to use it on citation templates that appear between tags it causes the text to be offset on a line below where the corresponding auto-generated number appears.


 * Instead, this feature is intended to be available for use at those articles that contain a listing of reference works, alpha-sorted by author bibliography-style (ie, the listing is separate from the output generated by ). Some examples of articles whose cited references are set out this way are Mayan languages, Taiwanese aborigines, Chunchucmil, and others which adopt the 'Notes and References' approach.


 * In such cases, this formatting proposal is a method intended to make it easier for the reader to pick out a specific reference in the citation/bibliographical list. I agree, that within any given article the formatting style of references ought to be consistent, and so if this particular hanging indent formatting is used in an article it should be applied to each of the entries in the list. Consistency of formatting between different articles is another matter, and when applied, it would be better to format all of the entries in the biblio list with the same hanging indent format.


 * As for whether or not it should be up to the editor or the template to decide on the offset value for the indent, I take your point. It could easily be done that way, and have a default value (say 5em, which is used in the examples above) if |hi=yes is specified. It would also be possible to code for that default to be overridden to some other value, if some specific layout circumstances require it. It might be a handy flexibility to have, but I concede not a necessary one. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Think this is a great idea. Submit just changing your default code to:

...rest of template code... }}
 * would be a better generic implementation, and since could be rapidly incorporated into all the cite templates, would quicky create uniform appearance in article space and affect the desired formatting effect.

(No need of the #if, since is implicit in the parameter evaluation in wikimarkup, and since all are default indented, the trailing div becomes an automatic no brainer. It also preserves the (rare I would think) option of defining 'hi' to a different value at need, and obviates the need to go back and define hi to get the effect... all of which means there is no editor or server loading outside of changing the templates code themselves.)

Good idea! Just act boldly, and add the freetext= parameter as well. This shouldn't hurt anything, and will make many things look much more professional. You go dude! // Fra nkB 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

re: the above, your closing }} pair follows the template expanded contents, so is correctly rendered as it's outside the div block you added, whereas your fix: 'freetext=' defines a new field within said block. GIGO principle! Ooops! (At least causality isn't being violated! That's some small comfort, I'm sure!) Cheers! // Fra nkB 16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * regarding such as...
 * A line of annotative text which comes after the reference for some reason

H-I-P arbitrary editing sub-section2

 * Many thanks for the comments and suggestions, FrankB. I did consider proposing to make the hanging indent layout as the default for these template calls, which your more economical coding would achieve. However, and unfortunately, there are two reasons I think it is preferable to make it available as an option to be deliberately selected.


 * The first is that it is quite conceivable that someone somewhere would object to a compulsory formatting change of this nature. Given that reference lists are also frequently a mix of templated and manually coded cites, there could be some untidy results.


 * The second reason is due to a glitch in how the citation template would display if it is used inline between  tags, and this hanging indent feature is turned 'on'. As I alluded to earlier, the output generated by the   tag results in the reference citation appearing on a new line below the associated number. It would display like this:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
 * The scene depicated on the western wall is evocative of the world trees illustrated on folio 1 of the Codex Fejevary-Mayer.
 * ==Notes==
 * tag, although its usefulness in formatting this output may be a little redundant. In principle it could be used on any bulleted list with long items, or indeed any general block(s) of text, if there were to be some reason to do so. But it does satisfy the purpose I originally had in mind, and so I'd propose using this method, and leaving the citation templates themselves unmolested.


 * I can't at this stage guarantee this produces a pleasing result in all possible configurations and personal settings, but I suppose any oddities can be looked into if and when they come up. If anyone can see any shortfalls in this new approach, pls speak out at the new template's talk page.
 * Thanks again to all who reviewed/commented, and cheers --cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note, on my Firefox 2.0.0.7: In the ref indent page examples, the actual indent bullet that should be at the front of the line gets set as if it were being indented itself to the level of the second line, even though the first line text it is supposed to lead is properly set. So I'm left with a bullet floating in the middle of the author names. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd advise removing the "or alternatively simply use an explicit &lt;/div&gt; tag" comment in the doc. It may be correct today, but the implementation inside  and  might be completely different a year from now and a closing div tag may not be the same as a  .  RossPatterson 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster for picking that up, it seems that was attributable to a difference in how Firefox and MSIE treat the "attachment" of bullets to lists. I've now implemented a fix, so the problem in Firefox (& I presume other Gecko-based browsers) no longer occurs. In MSIE however the bullet now appears right up against the text, which may be sub-optimal. The whole issue can be avoided by using a non-bulleted list, which can readily be achieved by using a colon ( : ) instead of an asterisk ( * ) as the list item delimiter.

And thanks Ross, I've taken your suggestion on board and have amended the template doco to that effect. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Special versus general templates categorization
I'd like to see a concerted effort to clean up the in two respects:
 * 1) uniformity of style and clear consistent usage, patricularly with regard to a careful definition of what a parameter is meant to define and cover. (There are so many parameters ending with 'date' in some templates, my head is spinning!)
 * 2) movement to a sub-cat of same of the greater majority of specialized templates currently cluttering up the collection of general (and commonly used) templates. Basically, if the template isn't one listed in the two guideline "articles", it's a specialized typing aid or special case template of some sort, and should not be listed together with the commonly used templates. It's both confusing, and counter productive. Template:Cite web APA, Template:CitePiHKAL, Template:CiteTiHKAL, Template:Citeref patent just to point out a few.

Most cites should be handled as uniformly as possible. Where the harvard templates (there seem to be several varieties) fit in that schema, I can't say, but simplifying the choices in the main category can only lead to good things for newer and citation inexperienced editors. Thus I propose a sub-category: category:Special uses citation templates, and assert that three quarters or more of the citation templates listed in the current category should be relocated therein.

Ditto the simplified usage. For example several common templates (cite books, cite web etc.) present the idea that the empty parameters should be deleted. Nonsense. The pre-processing stage evaluates any pipe-term-equals-sign as a null value, and so no logic acts on such terms, as it does not when they are deleted. I guarantee you the processor 'deletes' those bytes far faster and more effectively than we inefficient humans, and page rendering is done but once, when the page is cached for retrieval. OTOH, having a few blank fields in cites actually makes them stand out and become more readable imho within a text paragraph, and furthermore, suggests further information to editors that could be added, and generally, educates the reader of what capabilities are within the particular flavor of cite template. In short, leaving the empty parameters retrieved in a cut and paste actually adds to reability and so to edit-ability of a paragraph, section or page... it helps the eye pick up the reference block from the prose of the article proper. Compacting unprovided optional parameters that are not filled in, really costs little in terms of overall storage space considering the way we waste space by keeping historical pages of every saved edit, ad infinitum.

My problem with documentation is more minor, and generally one of a missing definition of parameter use and meaning. What, for example, is the accessdate field in cite book or cite visual. The day I'm looking up a particular phrase/viewed a particular documentary? What possible use is that going forward to anyone? Aren't the copyright dates and edition (where applicable) and page, et. al. sufficient? Best regards // Fra nkB 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've started making this change, by making a sub-category for single source citations (called ) and moving the first few I could find. CharlesGillingham 18:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. I've moved 99% of templates that are used to reference a single book or website into the subcategory . CharlesGillingham 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the new category is named too generically for its intended purpose, and may lead to some confusion. It should also probably have the word 'templates' in its name, the suggestion by FrankB earlier or something similar may be better.--cjllw  ʘ  TALK 06:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, something like or similar would be far more appropriate.  The current name doesn't differentiate between templates and, say, articles about citation types/formats.  Far too vague for Wikipedia's purposes. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 07:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I was a little too bold. I'll clean this up tomorrow. What should I do about the merge request? I can't just move out from under it. What should I do? CharlesGillingham 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No cause for concern, Charles. Now that there's a CfD merge/rename request in play, no need to do anything further. Allow the CfD to run its course, once it's decided then an admin or bot will come along and put everything back into the appropriate categories.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming I understand what you are specifically referring to, "accessdate" should always be used when referencing something that comes from a URL or other source which may vary over time. It simply establishes when the information was last known to be valid.  If no URL/etc is used, accessdate needn't be applied. Of course, for these reasons, I cannot fathom why "accessmonth" or "accessyear" would be useful.... --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 08:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Huntster, did you mean to place this comment here? Doesn't seem to follow...?--cjllw ʘ  TALK 09:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was in reply to FrankB's ending paragraph above. I should have clarified that. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Huntster (Two 'thanks' from me in one day, you lucky dog! <G>), that was as I surmised a bit later. I've been out of schools for a long while, and getting a handle on cites was a bit daunting as I ramp up to wiki-time again. (It's the old if you don't use it, you loose it, again! Alas! And the shear numbers there were certainly an impediment.)

A new idea wrinkle
Last night it occured to me that a Wikipedia page sucking in the primary citation templates '/doc' pages would be a good idea... since it allows a comparison between selections from one place. The difference from the two current wikipedia pages would be that it would be a One-stop-shopping-plaza, as it were, for cutting and pasting a template one needs but doesn't normally need, so one needs to cut (N paste), etc.! Since t'would update automatically when the '/doc' page changes, would hardly ever need any maintenance editing. Just section title, followed by /doc pages invocations.

The result would be a page with a TOC by template name, allowing a jump-to and set up a shortcut to get there in a hurry when need to 'consult' with and select such a template. My suggestion would further be to place it in template space, perhaps, and include that page into (or not) any Wikipedia: page (Keeps the template categorizations fenced off). Substing such a shopping mall would be contraindicated as then requires overt maintenance edits to update and should be avoided. Cheers! // Fra nkB 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So you just mean setting a page where all the major citation doc pages are transcribed onto one page? That is extremely easy to do, and I'd suggest (and will probably just be bold and create it) making such a page a subpage of this article, perhaps Citation templates/Docs or WP:CITED.  I would strongly suggest not placing it in the Template space, as a shortcut would make it easy to simply go to the page itself, and if someone really wanted to include that page elsewhere (in their own userspace, for example), it would be just as easy to set  .  Preserve the Template space for, well, actual templates. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 22:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, nevermind, I forgot two key points: if the doc page is transcribed, the doc's full TOC will be transcribed too; and there is no way I know of to prevent the doc's categories from being transcribed as well.  So the resulting page will have an enormous TOC (every section of the transcribed docs included, which is only partially helped by setting supersections with single equal signs, such as =Cite book= ) and will contain every category used on those doc pages, which is entirely unhelpful and generally un-good.  If anyone knows how to defeat these two problems, perhaps this can go ahead, but for now, best leave it alone. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 22:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It would involve a bit of careful editing but the judicious use of if-then-else structures and ifeq: testing:

Prior Conditional tests and section ...

Material common to both states follows (or precedes) the if block. ... Next Conditional tests and section


 * For a concrete example of similar purpose, see catlst/doc which is used to display help for several variants. The global magic word _ NOTOC _ SHOULD, iirc, suppress even overt (e.g. TOCnestright) invocations of a TOC. Another, neater way (avoiding some of the clutter of catlst/doc) would to break the cites templates '/doc' pages into sub-doc pages (/doc1, /doc2, ... /docN}} which could be individually included or not (one method), or just conditionally displayed in the logic structure given above. There is also template capability to test for matching multiple pagenames for combined testing (I'll have to track 'that' (name) one down from places I know I used it--Ask if it will help you.). Thanks for the enthusiasm! // Fra nkB 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, I'd be all for something like this if it did not require a complete reorganisation of the existing formats. While it would be a good idea to standardise the docs (I may work on that at some future date), I don't really agree with the idea of splitting into conditional subpages and getting into if-then-else statements potentially in both the doc pages and the main templates, when the doc system was created to move any of that stuff out of the template.  I'd be interested in see some other editors thoughts on this. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Echoing here a response on Hunsters talk, on the above. The doc page technique had nothing to do with getting conditional logic out of templates documentation--but enabled direct template documentation to be displayed where before it had been hidden on a talk page. However, that benefit is a side effect. The primary reason underlying the /doc pages was to reduce server loading requirements in two ways:    1) on widely used templates... someone would come in and make a trivial edit (Say add an interwiki) and if that template was widely used, the page caching had to re-render all the pages affected and renew the cache causing large surges in server processing demands, and great delays while the que was emptied again. In the /doc method, the documentation is walled off behind an noinclude block, so the only pages which need reprocessed if the /doc page changes are those linked directly to it--the template 'display' of help for the editor needing the information on how to apply the template.     2) At the same time (about 13 months back, iirc) the developers imposed a cap on the preprocessing memory allowed for expansion of all templates on a page. The /doc page with the same fence off, shrinks that need significantly, and eliminated a lot of problems on pages with a lot of template use (numbers count too).

It follows then, that complexity inside the doc page is irrelevant to those reasons, and is pretty trivial matter in any event. Most of our notice templates have far more complex structures (see below). // Fra nkB

Discussion dying

 * applying CPR...

Subsequent to the above and a couple of talk exchanges with Huntster, I stubbed up a working solution using four citation templates and essentially three methods trials. All involve creating a second smaller sub-page of the material to display on the compendium page as the best "Technical means" of keeping the same material on the usage pages as is to be displayed on the compendium page. The fourth implementation here is the simplest and easiest.
 * Bottom line, is such a page can be created fairly easily
 * The biggest hurdle is what to call it, and my recommendation would be Citation templates II, with similar (Suffix a '2') to shortcuts for Citation templates.
 * The technique is straight forward:
 * Refactor the current usage page (/doc) so the material for the compendium is grouped together.
 * Link to a new /doc2 page as if is template call
 * Cut the material into that page.
 * Install If-then-else parser logic to bypass those materials (e.g. a section title wanted in the template help, but not in the compendium; certain small auxillary tables.
 * Add a transcluded message edit section (modified technique of the WP:DOC transclusion notice), but If-block around that so it only manifests on inclusions to the directly viewed primary /doc page. This provides an edit link into the second (/doc2) page for maintanence needs. It does not manifest and ruin the display of either the (Template page viewed) or on the compendium page.
 * Should some mix of "wanted" and "don't want" parts of an "display this when" condition&mdash;an if-then-else block which contains a wikitable (that needs displayed or not) then that table needs be implemented using ! and !- instead of a hardcoded '|' combinations (the pipes mess up the if block parsing otherwise). Thus table ends become "{|", and "|}", and so forth. These are generally minimal changes and the technique is common to a huge number of templates (Virtually all xFD, merge, and cleanup "notice types" of templates use the pipe-template method to get around the overuse of the pipe character as an operator/delimiter in wikimarkup and parser function logic.
 * I should note, that these methods all leave categories and interwikis and such other matters inside the primary /doc pages totally unmolested and unaffected.
 * The most important remaining question (I've settled out the feasibility matter, I'd say) is what "style" to display when reworking the Citation templates into a compendium. I used the tall versions in my Mock up trial mainly because they are generally located adjacent to the parameters definitions section whereas contrarily (of course it couldn't be easy! <g>) the short wide versions that most people probably prefer to cut and paste from are located well above the definitions sections.
 * The easiest fix would be to reverse the order of presentation for the tall versus the wide varieties in the usage pages as well, make some people unhappy, but having the virtue of putting the wide versions next to the definitions.
 * A second method would be to split parts of the /doc into two sub-pages (/doc2 and /doc3) allowing the usage display and the compendium to be displayed in any order desired&mdash; assume the definitions are in /doc3, the compendium parts in /doc2.
 * Alternatively, the tall ones can be deleted, or the order of the three page elements can be rearranged with the definitions above the wide versions. (My own inclination and preference&mdash;I generally define a term before giving an example. Others have a legitimate need to cut and paste more often than to read the definitions again, so I've got sympathies with that aspect... but the proposed page is a means to accomplish exactly that resource.


 * Go/No Go discussion by the community would be helpful at this point.
 * content still needs some clean up before it can act as a source list, but suggestions as to the most useful templates most often used are needed. // Fra nkB 15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I just noted on user talk:Omegatron, it would be quite feasible to crosslink WP:CITET and the proposed page, provided sections are added to break that large table into subtable elements. If the wide form is used, the user has the longform and examples on one aid, whilst the long form is already on the CITET page, and the proposed WP:CITE2 would have the wide form for cutting and pasting plus the detailed definitions&mdash;both crosslinked for one click access. (One click access for the /doc page already exists on CITET. Kudos to whomever did that!)


 * Lastly, extending the auxillary sub-page concept (/doc1, /doc2, /doc3) would allow both help aids to be low maintenance--all the edit changes happen on the relevant subpage which is displayed on each page as desired by transcluding the template subpage of interest.


 * A modified form of doc page pattern transcluded can be developed for such cascaded aux-subpages [featuring the edit link to only the primary /doc page&mdash;"change things from here Central", as it were]. It would likely need subst'd, but it could also automatically include the guts of template doc page viewed directly making preparing the auxillary sub-pages a cut and paste plus the template described. The only other changes needed would be if-blocking around any unwanted titles limiting their scope. //Fra nkB 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct syntax for a review of a film in a journal
I would like to know the correct template and syntax to create a citation to a review of a film published in a journal. (That is, the review is published in the journal).

I know the following information about the review:
 * Author
 * Journal name, date, volume, issue, pages

and I know the following about the film that was reviewed:

I cannot figure out how to use citation templates to create a reference to the review of the film. Any help will be appreciated&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Title
 * Names of the people who made the film (it's a scientific documentary, so 'director' is not quite right)
 * Release date
 * Distributor of the film


 * I would suggest that you use something like:

 
 * If the film review in the journal has a title, you could use that in the title field, otherwise as above should do. Presuming the info you are citing appears in the review's text, that would be your source and there'd be no need to have extraneous info like the film's distributor and so on.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 04:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Full Version or Common Usage?
For templates, should the full version be used or the commonly used versions? Noahcs 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You pick what you want to use. Whichever version you might choose, just delete the fields that your particular citation does not require. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition Sources?
I was wondering whether we should include the templates for CD notes, DVD notes, Executive Orders, Hansards, Interviews, Patents, Podcasts, Speeches, US Bills, Video games, or the Wayback Machine on this page? Noahcs 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These are certainly worth mentioning on the page, though I don't think they need to be fleshed out as the current ones are. Thanks for compiling them...I'll be taking a look and seeing what can be done. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Obliviously they don't ALL have to be included, they were just some suggestions that I thought might need to be included. Now that I think about it, maybe just the more popular ones like Interviews and Speeches? Noahcs 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't mean list them all in the same full format as those currently on the main page, but they may all be deserving of a mention and explanation somewhere on there. -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dont forget to add Cite Blog and Cite e-mail to your list.--Hokeman (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to propose a rewrite on cite templates
On Template talk:Cite book the question of whether an overhaul of these templates is in order has been raised on several occasions, for example to simplify AND allow differing styles (phrases). A technique for determining where and when a particular field (param) has been suggested, suggesting BOT organized mass edits make any style overhaul feasible. See this, and the linked discussion from the top of that about one vexing problem (editor and or translator). // Fra nkB 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Edited book
Why isn't there a template listed for citing an article from an edited book? This happens frequently in book science and literary publications, that a book will consist of a collection of articles by various authors, but published under a single title and edited. --EncycloPetey 18:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is what you are talking about, but Cite book has an "editor" field that should work fine for your purposes (just write something along the lines of "First Last (ed.)" in the field), along with the "first" and "last" fields for the actual article author. Try just putting the compilation title in "title" and the article under "chapter". -- Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 21:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that doesn't help at all. That places the editor in entirely the wrong place and doesn't allow me to identify the book title.  I need to cite an article found within an edited book.  Here are two specific examples:


 * Crandall-Stotler, Barbara. & Raymond E. Stotler. (2000). "Morphology and classification of the Marchantiophyta". Pages 21-70 in A. Jonathan Shaw & Bernard Goffinet (eds.), Bryophyte Biology. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ISBN 0-521-66097-1.
 * Nehira, Kunito. (1983). "Spore Germination, Protonemata Development and Sporeling Development". Pages 358-374 in Rudolf M. Schuster (ed.), New Manual of Bryology, volume I. (Nichinan, Miyazaki, Japan: The Hattori Botanical Laboratory). ISBN 4-938163-3045.


 * This is the standard way such citations are given in journals and books. I can't get the current template to acommodate the appropriate fields or position them correctly in the citation.  This sort of citation is very common, as I said, so having to use some kind of a workaround to coax the template into a semblance of a proper format reveals a weakness in the templates themselves. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to remember that the templates themselves aren't necessarily based on any one citation format, but follow a generic style that presents a wide array of data. This isn't necessarily a weakness, just the way they were intentionally designed.  If you want to use a specific format (APA or whatever), it would be best to not use a template at all, and type in as you have above.  From what I can see, the only significant difference between what I gave you and your examples is that the "page" field comes before the section title, a format I don't think I've come across seen before.  Using "Cite book", this is what I come up with:


 * This sort of need gives added weight to having alternatively named fields here and there in a template so that editors can format their own without the 'boilerplate' assumptions such as the "in" imposed by the editor field. See link given just above for that discussion about an overhaul. Where such normally inoperative fields are located is certainly one thing we can encompass in the discussion. // Fra nkB 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite newsletter?
How would I cite a newsletter? Noahcs 01:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of newsletter, electronic or paper? We have a cite mailing list that may work for you. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, its not a mailing list. Its a free, paper newsletter from a business. How would cite this? Noahcs 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone found a citation template that can work like this?
Has anyone found a citation that could work like this? (for example)
 * (Pgs. 10-11),
 * (Pgs. 11-12),
 * (Pgs. 12-13),
 * (Pgs. 13-14),
 * (Pgs. 14-15), Author. 2000. Book Title. Publisher, Publisher Address. ISBN #? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribDigita (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen a citation format of that nature, and cannot quite fathom its use. Do you know of any instance of its use elsewhere online, or can you say what citation guideline it comes from?  --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why pp 10-15 is unacceptable? - X201 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to use a single named reference with a citation template, but have a different page range for each reference, then rp is currently the only method. This places the page number as an in-line superscript.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  12:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it will work, but given that less than a hundred pages actually use it, I'd worry that people would be clueless as to what it actually means when they see it in an article. I also don't see why  would not work. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 16:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Realistically, either method sets off the page numbers visually:   or   The only problem I see is that if a developer comes up with a better cite method, then a bot or tool could update templates fairly readily.  rp is a hack, but so is the rest of the reference system.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to actually use "code" for the page number, merely that "pp. 10-15" in an existing citation template should work fine...for such small numbers of pages (even for larger numbers), using the single citation for all pages works fine. Until the developers design a more robust, integrated reference system (which I cannot understand why it wouldn't be a priority given the demand for verifiable references), we just have to make do with what we have. --  Huntster  <sup style="font-size:9px;">T • @ • C 19:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)