Wikipedia talk:Embedded citations

message: This page is a verbatim copy of Wikipedia:Citing sources#Embedded HTML links. Having two copies of the same guideline in the Wikipedia namespace seems like a bad idea for several reasons, one of which is that the two copies are likely to get out of sync. Does anyone object to my redirecting this to Wikipedia:Citing sources? I'll wait a week or so for objections and then do it. —Caesura(t) 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I changed the example to use the cite news template, as this provides consistency and is pretty common on Wikipedia. Sorry, I marked the change as "cite web" by mistake. ---Remember the dot 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was wondering how to work that in.  I re-added the manual technique for comparison.  I see no problem offering the option.  Folks shouldn't need to get templates to try to use this.  ∴ here…♠ 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite news template

message: The first item in the "References" section is a self-link to the article page.  Is this intended as a style example?  or should it be removed?--Turangalila (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Link in Article?

message: I was recently asked to remove the 'on' in 'Retrieved on' in my refs at FAC. This turns out to be difficult as {cite web} creates the word as standard per the overleaf example. This has been raised at Template talk:Cite web#Redundant word "on" before the date and I have suggested to the guardians of the template that the usage recommended at WP:CITE is at variance from the template. I now see that this is true of this page too. 
WP:CITE#Embedded Links suggests the format: Accessed October 27 2005. Ideally this would be changed from 'Accessed' to 'Retrieved' as this now seems to be the standard verb in use, but there is clearly a discrepancy on this page too regarding the use or otherwise of 'on' that should be cleared up. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent use of 'on' 

message: The project page doesn't offer any guidance if there already is a "References" section that is being used for footnotes or Harvard referencing.  I can see three possibilities; whichever one is the consensus, the project page needs to be changed, along with information at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. 
#Embedded citations shouldn't be used, because we don't mix citation systems within a single article.  (But according to the project page, we do.)
#The editor should change the header of the section titled "References" to something else (that would be "Notes" for footnotes; what would it be for Harvard referencing?), and should add a new "References" section, where the full citations required by the embedded citation system should be placed.
#The editor should leave the "References" section as is, and add a new section (titled what?) to place the full citations that are required by the embedded citations system.
As someone who thinks the embedded citations system is problematical (particularly because off-line citations are impossible with it), I'd appreciate the opinions of others - and in fact if there already is consensus on this, including someone changing the project page to address this issue.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if the "References" section is already in place and has citations from one of the other two acceptable citation systems? 

message: How? I've asked at the citeweb template, which is scattering thousands of ons all over the place. We just don't want them. They pass the buck to this page. Who can help? Tony (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: erm.  What are you talking about?  Which redundant "on"?  Is there a typo somewhere? -- SiobhanHansa 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Retrieved ON 4 September, 1978." Can we get rid of the "on" please? It's redundant. Tony (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're talking about.  Unless others object soon you should just be bold and change it.  I have no preference myself.  You do seem to have been given the run-around a little so far, but you should prepare yourself for the real work after you've succeeded in editing the templates.  I expect you'll start to see more opposition from people who care after the change starts trickling down to actual article pages - a lot of these guidelines and template pages aren't watchlisted by many people.  -- SiobhanHansa 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't: only admins can. And I bet you a beer that no one will object. What we will' get is every so slightly tidier lists of external links. Tony (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page doesn't seem to be protected - you should be able to go ahead and make the change. If not use  -- SiobhanHansa 12:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, but where's the "on" to remove at template:citeweb? Isn't it in some kind of source code? I've no idea what to do. Tony (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you need to change the wording in a whole host of places, starting with the two examples on this page.  Once you've got it changed here you'll have something "official", as it were, to point to when you actually try to get the wording changed on each of the cite templates.  As I understand it, the wording is done individually on each template so you'll need to make the change request on each template talk page (most templates are protected and need admins to change them), opening up opportunities for opposition in each place.  That's why I think you probably have most of your work still ahead of you.  After that of course there are still all the hand coded references that will each need to be manually changed, but that's a work in progress that all editors can tackle over time - and it may be possible to get a bot to do that once it looks like people accept the new wording.  It might make sense to get some other editors on your side who are known for their attention to that kind of detail, then you'd have a workgroup to help with the effort involved.  -- SiobhanHansa 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for you advice, Siobhan. I'll think about what to do. Tony (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, can we get rid of this redundant word "on"? 

message: Copies of the same link have a different numbering, is there some way to reuse the same link and have the same numbering? One possible way is to use [url <nowiki>[2]<nowiki>] but this may not be the best option available. 209.244.43.112 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuse of same embedded link 

message: With embedded citations, is there a way to credit more than one author? Rdavi404 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had that same problem.  Common occurrence and template in basic editing panel is ignorant to this. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the problem. Surely embedded citations don't credit any authors, they just show as numbers in square brackets like this.  --Redrose64 (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple authors? 

message: Much of this page is contrary to the advise in the guideline section Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links. I suggest that this page is marked historical with the the template  -- PBS (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical