Wikipedia talk:Citation templates/Archive 3

message: Which template should be used for magazine citation, for example, a video game review magazine? Thanks. – ARC GrittTALK 11:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest either  or , 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)
replies: text: Alternatively, see Template:Citation#Citing journals, newspapers, magazines, or other periodicals 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)
thread_title:  Magazine Citation 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  show preview 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Make it easier to find the right one 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One-name authors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 T • @ • C 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN 

message: Is there a way to cite an email? BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 T • @ • C 21:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite an email?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 T • @ • C 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annual reports template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually,  does that. It has the "chaptertitle" and "editor" variables thatserve that exact purpose. Circeus 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited books 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 T • @ • C 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSN punctuation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Patents, IETF RFCs, and Other Documents known more by Number than Author

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

message: ;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 Wikipedia:Citation templates II, with similar (Suffix a '2') to shortcuts for Wikipedia: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—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— 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—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. // FrankB 15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion dying

message: For templates, should the full version be used or the commonly used versions? Noahcs 00:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You pick what you want to use.  Whichever version you might choose, just delete the fields that your particular citation does not require. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Version or Common Usage? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 T • @ • C 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 T • @ • C 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont forget to add Cite Blog and Cite e-mail to your list.--Hokeman (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition Sources? 

message: 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). // FrankB 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on whether to propose a rewrite on cite templates 

message: How would I cite a newsletter? Noahcs 01:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of newsletter, electronic or paper?  We have a  that may work for you. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite newsletter? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 T • @ • C 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why pp 10-15 is unacceptable? - X201 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to use a single named reference with a citation template, but have a different page range for each reference, then  is currently the only method.  This places the page number as an in-line superscript.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  12:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 pp. 10-15 would not work. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Realistically, either method sets off the page numbers visually:  pp. 10-15 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.   is a hack, but so is the rest of the reference system.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 T • @ • C 19:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone found a citation template that can work like this?