Template talk:Cite web/Archive 3

message: I guess I better add my two cents worth.  I am trying to figure out when a year should be wikilinked, and when it shouldn't.  I read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and my conclusion would be:
* That for historic events, places or people the year that a pages was accessed (eg 2006/2007) has little or no encyclopediac value (other then to certify a citation).  
* For current events the date/year may be useful as a chronology of sorts.
So to have a flag with default linkdate=False (or linkdate=No) would seem to be best.  
¢ NevilleDNZ 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opt in for wikilinking accessdate, linkdate=yes should be opt in 

message: One of the biggest issue that I have with the use of these templates (cite web, cite news, etc) is that the formatting does not conform to any standard that is used with existing print publications. For example, the dates should use the format of 'December 7, 2006', instead of the less intuitive '07-12-2006'. If you look at references available in MOST academic print publications (most of which are now published on the web anyways), they do it this way. There are other minor punctuation issues as well. These issues NEED to be fixed if these templates are expected to be used by a wider group. Dr. Cash 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the full date is used and wikilinked (either manually or automatically via the template), the format in which the date is displayed is determined by your user preferences.  --ElKevbo 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Date formatting is a somewhat frustrating perennial discussion (scroll up and look into the archives). Historic consensus is to have dates in a form that enables user date preferences working, a rather obscure MediaWiki software feature available only for readers that use a login, and which requires writing dates in specific ways to make it work (hard-bundled with having the dates linked, yet another frustrating perennial discussion on this wiki). On another note, Wikipedia is not printed - after all it's still a website and a bit of a deviation from "standards" for print (note the plural) should be ok (an interesting link might be ). Per the punctuation, it will most likely be impossible to please everybody with a single format. Of course, detailed proposals for changes are always welcome for discussion and will be enacted if they find consensus. And don't forget that use of the citation templates is not mandatory. They are an attempt to split off the "how to format a reference" decision into a single location, separating that from the data set used on each instantiation. With the possible benefit that Wikipedia could look a bit more professional by having consistent formatting of references. The Germans do it by manually following a pile of formatting instructions , with the effect that changing them is pointless, as already written references cannot be changed without tremendous work. --Ligulem 10:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They may not be mandatory, but people are encouraged to use them, and they are spreading a systematic breach of the policy on varieties of English across Wikipedia. This systemic U.S. centrism is very offensive. Wimstead 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General formatting issues

message: Please, add sl:Predloga:Navedi splet. Thanks a lot. --Eleassar my talk 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: This template doesn't seem to work well in tables. I'd like to be able to use this template (or one like it) in a reference section, as you can easily do when the template isn't in a table. When this template is in a table, it displays everything instead of a nice footnote number. Is there a way around this? Any ideas? Is there a similar template that can be used? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like you forgot your <ref> tags. Can you give us a specific example where this occurs? Circeus 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The complaint ... it displays everything instead of a nice footnote number describes the template's intended behavior.  To display a nice footnote number which links to some other point in the article where the details are displayed, embed the template between  and  tags and make sure that the article has a ==References== section with a  tag in it. Alternatively, embed this or other Cite_whatever templates in the  or  templates as described at Template_talk:Ref. -- Boracay Bill 23:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template used in tables?

message: At present these templates impose U.S. formats, by only showing numerals, and by doing so in the American order ie month before day. This means that an article like Alton Towers appears to be written with the convenience of only American readers in mind. This is a breach of the policy of showing equal respect to different varieties of English. It gives a bad impression of Wikipedia and on a practical level will lead to huge numbers of people misreading dates. Can they please all be reformatted so that the month is shown in words? If possible it should also be left to the editor to decide whether the day or month goes first. Wimstead 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? It should be entered in YYYY-MM-DD format (the international standard) and wikilinked to allow date preferences to work. That allows a logged-in user to see it in a variety of ways according to their personal preference. Trebor 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta agree with Trebor here.. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but perhaps you have some examples of how this template is imposing US formats? The only date fields that are automatically formatted are accessdate and archive date and the rest are up to the editor to format in their preferred date format. --Bobblehead 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a hopelessly inadequate response. It imposes U.S. formats 'every single time. Are you not aware of the issue at all? In the U.S you write month-day, but in the UK we write day-month. British people will interpret 11-02-2006 as 11 February 2006. Wikipedia has 170+ million readers a month and only 2% of them are registered. Do the other 98% not matter. Then what about the many of that 2% who will not be aware of the option to change their display settings. Wimstead 04:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wha-? The software does not display dates in a "11-02-2006" format! Circeus 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please start by making your claims in a language that is actualy understandable. If you have a gripe with the use of numbers for the footnotes:, then register your complains at m:Cite/Cite.php. Circeus 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't my fault if you simply don't understand the issue. I did not appreciate that Americans do not even realise the difference exists! Wimstead 04:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am British and I cannot see what the problem is. All the possible date formats are given in the section "Date formatting problem part 2" above. I take it that Wimstead is objecting to the all-digits format. This format is favoured by some in the IT industry because it is easy to sort (an ASCII based sort will put the dates in chronological order). The YYYY-MM-DD format is both rational and international. If we must have an all numbers date format then it would be madness to have more than one standard. Gaius Cornelius 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The international standard seems to be the best way to do it. Trebor 15:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please reformat all of these so they are not U.S. centric

message: Saying that 2% of users can change their display preferences is a woefully inadequate response. Wimstead 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps a change can be made to the default.  As I understand it, the current default is to display dates to unregistered users as the dates were entered by the wikieditor.  Perhaps a best-guess about the date format desired by users who have not bothered to (1) register or (2) if they have bothered to register have not bothered to express a date format display preference would be to make a guess about their preference based on a guess about their location based on their IP address. Of course, such a change should not be made template-by-template; it should be made globally, wiki-wide.  (No, I am not serious) -- Boracay Bill 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand correctly, Boracay Bill. I have my date preference set to default and whatever format is used by the editor that added the date is displayed.  Wimstead, perhaps the problem is that the default date format on your account is set to the US standard instead of the UK standard.  Select this link, choose the Date and Time tab, and make sure the radio button next to your preferred date format is selected. --Bobblehead 19:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, Wimstead believes that there is in a big problem in that 98% (Wimstead's figure) of wikipedia users do not have wikipedia accounts, and are therefore unable to use date preferences.  Wimstead further believes that it is incumbent on wikieditors to use date formats in line with  Wimstead's feeling as to what would be the date preferences of that presumed 98% of users who do not have accounts. In particular, Wimstead wishes date formats used by wikieditors in articles related to the UK to be European-style by default. Wimstead believes that it is necessary to warn wikieditors using templates with dates as parameters about this on a template-by-template basis - hence the raising of this issue here on this particular talk page. -- Boracay Bill 23:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I repeat, please unblock these so I can mark them as unusable for UK articles. And please sort out the U.S. centrism as well

message: An admin, please add the Romanian interwiki :ro:Format:Citat web.--Roamataa 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Say if I want to site BBC News and there is no specific author, would I list BBC News as the author or   leave author blank and put BBC News under publisher? ex.  W3stfa11/Talk to me 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I confirm. In the case of Websites (and web news), it is not seen as bad form to leave the author field blank if the author is unknown. Circeus 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: publisher or author?

message: :fi:Malline:Verkkoviite Thanks! —Ppntori 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki addition 

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date formats in cite templates to centralize discussion. Please comment there. CMummert · talk 15:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CMummert, I observe that You reverted date formatting changes pending consensus in favor of them at 09:58, April 14, 2007, and Splash reverted your changes on 22:50, April 14, 2007, commenting, "there is the barest minimum disagreement on the talk page => tought luck)". I've looked at the discussion which you moved to the Village Pump, and I agree with you that no consensus was established in favor of the changes.  I suggest that you conduct a vote here and now in order to establish whether or not there is a consensus (1) to revert to the pre-changes date format and (2) to retain that format unless and until the Village Pump discussion produces a consensus to the contrary.  I vote yes. -- Boracay Bill 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not plan to revert anything more until the discussion comes to a conclusion, per WP:1RR. CMummert · talk 21:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please comment at the village pump, not here, to keep the discussion together. Although it is frustrating for things to be inconsistent during the discussion, nothing would be served by changing back and forth before the final compromise is reached. CMummert · talk 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not done There appears to be no consensus at present in the discussion (given the amount of discussion that's been generated in this issue, across several talk pages, 4-0 in a straw poll in a small separate VPR section is not consensus); the editprotected request above is basically requesting admins to engage in a wheel war. When the discussions die down and/or there is a definite consensus, an edit request may be more appropriate; consider asking User:Tariqabjotu or User:Splash to make the revert (as the admins who made the original change), as they're the only admins who could revert this edit without effectively wheel-warring. (I have no opinion on what the final date format decided upon is; the discussion seems to be swaying towards 'leave it unformatted for the time being' at the moment, but it hasn't reached consensus either way yet.) --ais523 14:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tariqabjotu reverted it on April 20. CMummert · talk 12:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forcing one date format 

message: The "Publisher" is italicized. It shouldn't be. Only "Work" should be in italics (unless I'm misunderstanding the fields). You would italicize "Detroit Free Press" but not "Gannett Newspapers".—Chowbok ☠ 01:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done The 'publisher' field isn't italicized, so there's no change here to make. (See the examples on the template itself). If the publisher's appearing italicised in an article, either someone's typing publisher=Publisher's Name or there's a bug not apparent in the examples; could you clarify where the problem comes up? --ais523 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry, thought this was . Not enough coffee when I posted that. —Chowbok ☠ 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publisher italics

message: Instead of just saying "Parameters url and title must be specified", couldn't it say that and then list the blank template with nothing filled in?  Then we could type  in an article, preview, and then copy and paste the template into the article so that we don't have to open this documentation page to remember all the field names.  This should be done with all the citation templates, really... — Omegatron 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A brilliant idea, in itself, only it won't help when adding references to a section, as the citation will not appear when pressing the "Preview"-button in these cases. Shinobu 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure it will.  Just don't put it in a ref tag when you preview. :-) — Omegatron 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using without any values 

message: I have a case where it makes sense to reference the Wayback Machine's list of all archived versions of a page.  Of course the basic syntax for this is easy, but  comes so close to supporting it that it would be nice to be able to use it.  If I understand ISO 8601#Time interval correctly, all I'd need is for the template to support something like 
:archivedate=2004-10-31/2006-05-26
Note that I need only date support, not support for full date and time or any other options.  Here's an explicit example:
*
Thanks in advance. 66.167.49.170 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest allowing basic ISO 8601 date intervals for archivedate 

message: At present, 'language=' and 'format=' values are shown in inverse order: An Acrobat logo appears immediately behind a linked url with .pdf extension, followed by the language, and only then the given format of the url. Obviously, format=pdf should cause (pdf) to appear immediately behind the Acrobat logo (unless the template would disregard 'format=pdf' as the logo makes it rather redundant). The Template:Cite journal renders a correct order. 
At present: [the first }} are the end-if mark of what preceeds]
}}
Should become:
}}Just copy the 2nd here from the discussion page while in reading mode, and paste it in the template in edit mode, please. — SomeHuman 02 Jun2007 19:41 (UTC)
:I'm worried about this code. It doesn't match the template code due to HTML entities always rendering. In read-mode, the   spaces don't show, and that will most likely cause problems. I suggest putting the code below with but use & where ampersands would go. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've disabled the editprotected request until the issues have been resolved, and the new code has been tested. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameter ''format=''  

message: I suggest adding a new parameter (dead=yes, in example). This will add a note in the reference display stating that the web site cannot be access, and that it should be updated/replaced. This is better than deleting the reference or adding a  note. Anyone disagrees? -- ReyBrujo 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the idea behind the archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters.  Instead of marking a reference as unavailable, you add these two parameters and the template will use that link instead.  Almost every page on the web gets archived someplace, whether intentionally or not.  The first place to look is usually the Internet Archive. RossPatterson 13:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would actually like to know why this or something similar did not exist before. It's really aggravating to get articles based on events, etc that took place in the 90s to FA status because the main sites used as references redirected the pages and the web achieves do not help. Wikipedia is still new, so what will this site do of the current references used in articles decades or even years from now? FMF|contact 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there are these things called "books" and "newspapers" that western civilizations have been archiving for centuries. :-) Seriously, the transience of the web one of the problems with basing articles on references that are only available on the web.  The reference guidelines recommend using more-permanent (and more-identifiable) references for exactly that reason.  RossPatterson 13:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but what about articles whose main references come from web sites, like video games? Should the parameters you mentioned be used for redirected pages? FMF|contact 22:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That depends on what you mean by "redirected".  If the referenced page itself has moved, then no, I'd just update the url= parameter.  It doesn't matter that the reference isn't at the same place it originally was.  But if the referenced page doesn't exist any more and you've found a backup copy at site that archives from other sites, then yes, I'd leave the url= pointing to the old location and set the archiveurl= to the backup site.  To my way of thinking, the distinction is whether the new locaion purports to be the page's home, or merely a copy of the page.  I know that's pretty arbitrary, but I can't imagine anyone seriously citing a reference "published" by Google's cache servers when it started out at nytimes.com.  RossPatterson 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are places that do not allow archive.org to crawl, and cannot be backed up. -- ReyBrujo 22:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, a dead reference is a reference that cannot be currently accessed. If the reference has been added, accepted and stayed in the article long enough, it is considered that the reference was, at one time, working (otherwise it would have been removed on sight). We assume good faith and leave the reference there to acknowledge that the information was verifiable at one time. The fact that the article was chosen FA with a reference that was once working only enforces the notion that the reference is valid, although it is currently not working. While, in the end, the reference should be optimally replaced with a working one, there should be a way to have both the old reference marked as currently inaccessible and suggesting to find a new reference, cataloging the article in a maintenance category at the same time. -- ReyBrujo 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parameter for dead references 

message: I propose a new parameter, called qualification= or qual=, to specify the qualification(s) of a source's author. This would help a reader to quickly distinguish a source written by a layperson, a summary, etc, from one written by a qualified author. For instance:
:
would display:
:Smith, Bob, Ph.D. A Scientific Report.
That way, people can tell if the source really knows what he or she is talking about. I'm not familiar enough with the code to implement this myself, so if consensus is an agreement, someone else will have to do it. PaladinWhite 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be pretty easy to do from a code perspective, but I'm not sure it's a good idea.  Wikipedia has considered the question of whether and how much "qualifications" matter on several occasions, and as Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant, Wikipedia:Ignore all credentials, and Wikipedia:Credentials matter indicate, there hasn't been any consensus so far. RossPatterson 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Ross.  Although there may be some cases in which an author's "credentials" may be clear-cut, I fear there are many, many more where they are not.  I don't care to leave that judgment to Wikipedia editors.  Caveat reader.  --ElKevbo 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, aren't those policies aimed mainly at readers? Meaning they're generally intended to point out to the reader that he or she should make a case-by-case judgment about the validity of sources? I don't see how indicating the author's professional accreditations can possibly impede judgment at all; the reader is still free to make his or her own decision about what to trust. PaladinWhite 02:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, those are not aimed mainly at readers.  What if Dr. Smith wrote a paper that was unrelated to his discipline - should his Ph.D. still be mentioned?  If we didn't know about his Ph.D., would his scientific paper be more relevant?  Shouldn't we have to verify that he actually has a doctorate (from an accredited institution)?  What if...you get the idea.  I don't think those are the kinds of questions we should have to answer.  That raises the bar too high and is unnecessary additional work.  It's a solution in search of a problem, IMHO.  --ElKevbo 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, simply having a degree does not mean one is qualified as an expert on the subject they're discussing. A PhD in physics doesn't necessarily mean the individual is well-trained in botany, for instance. Not to mention "degrees" from uncertified institutions, which people use to try and make themselves sound knowledgeable about a subject when, in reality, they've had no formal training in it. -- Kesh 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Reliable sources states, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (my bolding added). My thinking goes something like this: If an author's material is included as a (reliable) article reference, the author has been judged as authoritative on the subject. Conversely, if s/he is not an established authority, the reference's inclusion fails WP:RS, and should be removed. To use your example, I feel that a correctly-referenced botanical article wouldn't cite a physicist in the first place, and thus, the proceeding arguments are a non-issue. The reader ought to be able to see what type of degree the cited botanists have, and the physicists should be summarily eliminated from the list. PaladinWhite 03:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Won't "those people" fight tooth-and-nail for the source's inclusion whether the issue arises through this new parameter, which leads to the source's deletion, or by the flat-out deletion of the source because it is simply judged as unreliable? Again, I fail to see how this parameter would do anything but highlight problems that already exist. If it helps to make a source more defined or accessible in even one article, it has helped, and if it has the added effect of bringing to light questionable sources along the way, I view that as an added benefit. PaladinWhite 06:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parameter for author qualification 

message: Would someone else be so kind as to look at the Robin DeJarnette article and see if they can figure out why the second reference/footnote isn't working correctly, while the others (which appear to me to be the same) are working?  Thanks.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The url was missing the http:// prefix. I've fixed it. → AA (talk • contribs) — 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I thought I might be overlooking the obvious, but that didn't help identify exactly what I was overlooking.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 19:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that  or named link will create a link to whatever, while [whatever] or [www.whatever]  or similar constructs will just output square-bracketed text (i.e., , named link, [whatever], or [www.whatever]).  I infer that the wikitext parser uses the presence or absence of the "http//" immediately after the opening square-bracket to decide how to treat the square-bracket-enclosed stuff.  I looked around quickly in the guidelines and the help, and didn't find this explicitly documented (it may be documented, but I didn't see it). -- Boracay Bill 23:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that square-bracket stuff above. I'm going through my watchlist and got confused about which talk page I was responding on.  In my confusion, I thought we were talking about a square-bracketed inline external link.  I think the remarks above probably apply to most places on wikipages where a URL is expected, including the url= parameters in citation templates. Boracay Bill 00:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with a cite web template not working 

message: I simply refuse to use it. It's too bloated and too large and gets in the way in the text when you're editing a page to the extent that you can't even see what paragraph you're on. A simple reference is fine as far as I'm concerned. If that stops me from getting articles to GA status, then I'm damned. I'm almost tempted to nominate this for deletion because I hate it so much.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I use WikEd; it color-codes a lot of things in the edit window, including references, making it easier to see the actual text. -- tariqabjotu 13:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful tool! Glad I had this page on my watchlist :). → AA (talk • contribs) — 14:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For most web citations, you just need the url, title, and accessdate. That's really not that bloated and large. Wizardman 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When one adds author, date (although that is more relevant to cite news) and publisher, it does get longer. Just remember that as long as all references are done sensibly, there's no MoS of FA criterion that can be used against GA status. Templates are explicitly optional. I personally like them for the standardization they bring, but I realize others don't. Circeus 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wholeheartedly concur. It is ugly and inconvenient. Fatalis 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate this template with a passion 

message: When should I be using this parameter? Was the use in Carlos Vela correct? Also, I think the date parameter should automatically be linked as the accessdate parameter is, or alternatively, if people prefer the other way, both should not be linked by default (granted, a bot would have to be run to fix existing instances). Yonatan talk 21:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote

message: I noticed that on Wikipedia:Press coverage 2006 that some of the articles for Carsten Cumbrowski have a correct-looking authorlink parameter, but that that HTML that you get when the template is rendered is broken — somehow mangled with the author first/last name. Could someone with access to this template fix investigate and fix this error. Thx.--76.220.203.159 20:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please diagnose the problem, write test code in a sandbox, and test it, then put u[p an editprotected tag. The tag is the last step in the process, not the first. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is authorlink broken? 

message: Hello, and pardon if this is my error or I overlooked an obvious reason. Under the "External links" section in Minneapolis Post Office, why does the U.S. Postal Service not find a url inside a cite web template and does in a simple link? Looking back in the edit history, 1) a simple link works, 2) cite web template fails to connect, and 3) a visual approximation of cite web but again a simple link works. (To maybe save some time, I'll copy this question to both the Village Pump technical and the cite web talk page.) Thank you. -Susanlesch 03:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Cite web worked as it should. If you do  in the text, the link will show up wherever  is placed (under "Notes" here, as it should be). If you want to link to an external website, the best method is not use a regular link because there's no reason for the access date (and other specific information) to appear there. If, however, you are noting a reference, you should use , which appeared to work as it should – placing the reference under "Notes". -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... I see another response was given on the Village Pump. I'm unsure which issue you were asking about, so I'll just leave my above reply. -- tariqabjotu 04:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thank you, Mike Dillon and sorry for the cc. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 05:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not found error only in a citation template 

message: Please place the two occurrences of Category:Articles with broken citations inbetween <includeonly> tags, so that this template doesn't show up in the category. Melsaran 12:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason that  is appearing in that category is that , which is transcluded therein, contains an example of a broken template. There is nothing wrong with the code as such. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, fixed :) Melsaran 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it was only fixed for the moment.  Subst'ing the template is a bad idea for the output of an example — the output should always reflect the current results of the template, not the results at one point in time.  I've deleted the example for the time being, but I'm looking for a better answer.  RossPatterson 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Includeonly

message: I have a complaint: If I still have to specific a "original" url, even when I specify an archiveurl, then all URL checkers like m:Using the python wikipediabot's weblinkchecker.py are going to have to trip over that dead url. In my opinion, that is not much progress.--SallyForth123 10:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the scripts be fixed to respect archiveurl instead? Reinistalk 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands now, any article that uses archiveurl will end up in the 404 area of Wikipedia:Dead external links. Could we at least stop providing a live link to the "original"? As far as the tools getting smarter: I do not think that any of the existing tools actually parse the wikisource fully. Anyway, they would then also have to take into account our inventory of templates. That is a bit more work that would be never finished because more such templates could be added at any time.--SallyForth123 20:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiveurl is flawed 

message: There is currently no way to know how to use the authorlink field.  Some people (like myself), don't really understand that you have to use the first/last fields in addition to the authorlink.  There are plenty of opportunties to include this in the examples.  Thanks, Cacophony 08:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks explicit as Deep Throat to me: "authorlink works either with author or with last & first to link to the appropriate wikipedia article. Does not work with URLs." Circeus 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pleaes update the Usage for authorlink 

message: Is there a precedence for titling a web reference when the article in question has no title? My question arises from citing CSVs. akuyumeTC 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title precedence 

message: I wonder whether someone here can remove this word from the template; it's appearing in the thousands all over the place, and is quite unnecessary (= irritating). This issue has come up in the FAC room. Tony 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the template needs to be changed. Inconsistency is bad, and so is a redundant word, especially when repeated ad infinitum through a work list. I have no option but to discourage the use of the template unless this change is made. Tony 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant word "on" before the date