Template talk:Cite web/Archive 1

message: The article on AIDS has been nominated for FA status, yet the first comment in place is about the wikitext. It is called a perfect example of what best practice isn't. AIDS extensively uses this template along with the cite journal and cite book templates within the text. This makes for better reading and better referencing. Just thought people should know. --Bob 00:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AIDS/archive1]]

message: It would be nice to be able to include the date of publication of documents that have no author. At present, this yields the year 'floating' at the start of the citation, which is unsatisfactory e.g.
:
A better renderingn would be
:I Am A Search Engine. Google, 1066-01-01. URL accessed on 2006-11-04.
i.e. move the year to follow the publisher when there is no author. I don't speak metatemplate, so I don't want to boldly break everything... -Splashtalk 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could start to get your feet wet on rocket science under your user space: user:Splash/cite web (could be used as  for test inclusions, for example on user talk:Splash/cite web). BTW, qif doesn't bite :-) (just don't look at the code of qif..). --Ligulem 18:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  year without author 

message: Hi folks. I have done an experimental implementation of cite web using m:ParserFunctions at User:Ligulem/work/cite web 1 (first non-meta template implementation!). Test inclusions can be seen at User talk:Ligulem/work/cite web 1. Please keep in mind that ParserFunctions have been enabled on a trial basis . I would propose to put User:Ligulem/work/cite web 1 into template:cite web and see if it works. Thoughts? --Ligulem 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My current version of User:Ligulem/work/cite web 1 doesn't work if any of the parameters is set to "0". See also . --Ligulem 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by Tim:  --Ligulem 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental implementation using ParserFunctions 

message: I've noticed that mixing some of the cite templates can make a References section look a bit jumbled. For example, cite news puts the full date after the publisher, but cite web puts the year in parentheses after the author.  I'm not saying one format is better than another, but that there should be consistency between the two, if possible.  For an example, see: Ex-gay. eaolson 00:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: I really like the cite web template, and think it makes web citation easy to do without having to worry about stylizing everything with wikicode. I do have some problems with its style, though:
*Retrieval dates are links — the dates that are linked are the dates at which the author of the Wikipedia article went and looked up the document. How are links that lead to pages that tell what happened on those days relevant? They don't have anything to do with the cited material or the article, and thus, we should acknowledge the manual of style in this instance and not link.
:: Linking less than important dates is done frequently in wikipedia so the date will display according to user prefs.  Unfortunately unlinked dates will not follow user preferences.  So while your points are very valid, complete dates are frequently input as a link in ISO format to support the user preferences.  "Fixing" this would require code changes, and possibly new wiki text syntax.--J Clear 13:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "publisher" isn't intended to be the name of the web site, although this may occur if the website and publishing organization name are similar.--J Clear 13:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The best way to propose changes is to make a proposal for a new version of the template code under your user space. This is quite common. For example you could do it under User:Michiel Sikma/cite web and do some test inclusions at User talk:Michiel Sikma/cite web (using the syntax . Please also have a look at the other citation templates like , , etc (including discussions there). We usually try to keep them consistent where possible. --Ligulem 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style changes 

message: Has the inclusion of an optional parameter to hold referring URL information been considered?  This information could be useful, displayed or not, for tracking URLs that have gone dead. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referring URL

message: There is a more specialized template, the , which deals specifically with references to pages in the Internet Archive, but which has fewer parameters than .  I think that we could do away with  by making judicious additions to .  My suggestions for consideration:
* Add a parameter 'archive' with full name 'Archival Repository' with the usage description 'If the target URL points to a page in a page archive, such as Internet Archive, indicate the identity of the archive here.'  This parameter could be used for Google Cache and other shorter or longer term archival stores if they exist.
* Add a parameter 'oriurl' with full name 'Original URL' with the usage description 'If the target URL points to a page in a page archive, such as Internet Archive, indicate the original URL that was at one time live on the Internet here.'  This parameter wouldn't necessarily be needed, particularly if the original URL is included in the archival URL, and because the mechanics of page location as instantiated in the URL should be independent of the content of the page for purposes of Wikipedia.
Thanks for considering this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! Just dropping by to say that I've seen this proposal and I think it is noteworthy to have a deeper look at this. I will try to put it on the list of my "things to ruminate". Quick first comment: may I suggest to use lowercase parameter names only, this fits better with the new lowercase param style used on , , , etc. Another note: If possible, it would be cool if you could provide a proposal for the new code of the template. I know I'm getting boring with this perennial proposal here, but you could for example put the proposed new template code into User:Ceyockey/cite web and use that as  on a page with test inclusions at, for example, User talk:Ceyockey/cite web. Just ask me on my talk if you need help with doing that (take also a look at user:Ligulem/work/cite book 1 and user talk:Ligulem/work/cite book 1 for an example how that can be done). The conditionals are documented at m:ParserFunctions. As an alternative, you could put up a page with simulated calls inside .. (or ..) tags and manually created proposed template output (just provide the plain wanted wikisource that your simulated template calls should produce). --Ligulem 07:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the 'OrigURL' parameter suggestion to 'oriurl' based on your lowercase suggestion.  I'll look at doing a userspace version as you suggest.  Thanks. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've got a version of this that I'm playing with at User:RossPatterson/cite web, with examples of its use at User talk:RossPatterson#cite web-waybackref merger.  The difference from the suggestions above is that I've only added archiveurl= and archivedate=, leaving the original URL in url= for historical reasons.  The intent is to make it easy for someone to convert a  that has gone offline into an archive reference, simply by adding the URL of the archived copy and the date when it was archived.  I've made both parameters required if either is specified, since I believe the date when a copy was made is significant.  The end result is that if the archive parameters are specified, the link on the title= value points to the archive copy, and the text "archived from the original on archivedate" is added, with a link to the url= URL on the phrase "the original".  See the examples I mentioned above for some test cases and one full example (User_talk:RossPatterson#Example 6).  Comments and criticism are very welcome.  RossPatterson 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job done. This is a cool proposal. I think we should apply it on the hot template. However, waiting a few days for additional comments by others cannot harm. --Ligulem 07:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is a good solution.  Thank you.  What is the path toward consensus and a modification to the main template (the hot version)? The few of us agreeing doesn't exactly constitute a quorum for such a widely used template, I wouldn't think. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say if there appears no opposition within a week or so, we can do it. That's fair enough. Those that are interested in this template need to put it on their watchlists. --Ligulem 20:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note about this discussion at Template talk:Waybackref in case there are folks that monitor the template. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea that template existed, but think adding the arhive parameters to this one is a good idea. --Scott Davis Talk 10:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for doing this.  I look forward to the change. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done (I think). —Ruud 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Testing:
* 

}}</br> → 
Looks good to me. Thanks Ruud! (I start getting accustomed to having the citation templates protected ;) --Ligulem 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks fine now, thanks! --SevereTireDamage 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering merger with 'waybackref' template 

message: There are a few typos currently in the template for these parameters. Here is the discussion example as it appears now (emphasis mine):
List of psychotropic substances under international control (in English). (PDF) (2005-04-30). archived from the original on 2005-09-11 Retrieved on 2005-07-06.
There should only be one period after the article title, the one after the actual article date (in this case 2005-04-30). The first mention of "Archived" needs a capital A, and there needs to be an extra period after the archive date, before Retrieved. Can someone fix this? --SevereTireDamage 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (I think). —Ruud 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Testing:
* 

}}</br> → 
Looks good to me. Thanks Ruud! (I start getting accustomed to having the citation templates protected ;) --Ligulem 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks fine now, thanks! --SevereTireDamage 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typos

message: The usage needs to be explained much better, such as for author, last, first, authorlink. - Centrx 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: author, last, first, authorlink should behave the same as in  (see ). We had some complaints that the docu there is too complicated :P. --Ligulem 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage documentation 

message: Hi guys,
please, take a look at the note section in the G. Napolitano article: any idea why the "double arrow" image which marks external links is put before, or on top of, the final quotation mark? BTW, article titles may already contain quotes. What we can do for this case? :-/ --Gennaro Prota (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, that article titles may contain quotes in the first place is a non-issue.  We're just following standard documentation procedure for nearly every citation format in existence.  I have several objections to changing from " to &ldquot;/&rdquot;, most importantly that the distinction is meaningless in monobook.  I'll get back to you in a few hours on the Napolitano issue.  Ingoolemo talk 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes and MediaWiki 

message: The newest changes by Evil Saltine look interesting . I did some fixes. The new position for the date stuff when there is no author is handy (We have discussed something similar on cite book but haven't yet taken it into use over there, maybe we can learn form here). Some notes: Being bold is sometimes cool, but please don't forget that if this template is changed, 9'500 pages get their cache invalidated on the en wiki. So doing brain surgery in a sandbox might be a good idea (ok, I'm guilty on this myself, just as a reminder :-). --Ligulem 09:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of date/year/month if no author 

message: I have used the 'format' parameter a bit more expansively recently than is noted in the usage guidelines.  For instance, I've entered the values 'BLOG' and 'FAQ' in a couple of instances.  The reason why I've done this is that source lifecycle and notability can significantly differ based on the type of web resource; I don't advocate a drastic atomization of 'types' of web sources, but I think that someone knowing that a source is a blog entry or an FAQ page is somewhat useful to the interpretation and utilization of that web resource.  Perhaps rather than contaminating the 'format' parameter, a new parameter might be created, or would such 'type' information be better placed in the 'work' parameter field?  Your thoughts would be appreciated on this.  Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh. Please not into the "work" parameter. Using the "format" param for this fits much better. Or do we need a new param? (Oh noes! not another param :-). I'm thinking about a param with name "type". But I have no idea how that should be displayed... --Ligulem 16:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This would be especially helpful with links to streaming video or youtube content as well.  PaulC/T+ 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Format' parameter 

message: This template is included in thousands of pages. Since there was a a change in the way MediaWiki updates templates' cache, via the asynchronous job queue, means that a vandalistic change can affect pages for hours after the vandalism is reverted. Surely it is a good idea to have it permanently protected? Titoxd(?!?) 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well. If you are prepared to respond to change requests within reasonable time, then protection might be manageable. I've been doing a lot on the citation templates but can't edit protected pages. So I'm not exactly so happy with full protection. I do have a close eye on this template here (and cite book, cite journal) and that worked quite well so far. If we have to ask some admin for every change then this in fact will lock me out from helping here (sometimes, also admins make inadvertant failures here). So it's up to you. In fact the job queue makes editing this template here easier as we are doing less harm to the servers with an edit. --Ligulem 23:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a bad idea to me.  This template (and the rest of the "cite something" family) are under active development.  There hasn't been a single case of vandalism to this template, or to any of the others that I checked.  There have been some reversions, but they were cases of an editor "being bold" and sparked a discussion on the talk page rather than an edit war on the template.  RossPatterson 23:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears to be only semi-protected now, which seems adequate, but I don't like this "oh no! it's in use!" approach to template protection. The corollary of the job queue is surely that any quickly-reverted vandalistic change would be quickly mopped up, and it would only even be a problem if it affected categorisation anyway. Other template updates continue to be essentially immediate. -Splash - tk 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with that.  As solutions to non-problems go, semi-protection is inoffensive.  To date, there hasn't been a single anonymous editor of any of the "cite *" templates I checked above, so nobody would be harmed by this.  RossPatterson 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cough. Cite web has been semi-protected since short after we finished the mass migration from good old  (protection done thanks to Bluemoose per my request on IRC). That's why you haven't seen a lot of anons here ;). --Ligulem 23:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doh! RossPatterson 01:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I too think that full protection is unnecessary. This is a difficult to edit template and thus full protection further limits the amount of people who can make changes to it. That doesn't seem like a good idea while it's still under development. I do think that we should probably reach a sort of consensus on how this template should end up (i.e. FINISH it at some point), at which point we can begin to consider full protection. —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 09:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection?