Template talk:Cite LSA

message: Can you help me and explain how to cite a chapter that has its own authors in a multi-chapter book? For example, I have a chapter about piRNA in a "collection of invited, original, peer-reviewed chapters" i.e. a book. How do I cite the chapter? Chapter in question and the book in question. Thank you. --Helixitta (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Book with chapters that have each a different author

message: In the second example in the documentation, should the citation not end with a period? Is that an issue with the code, or is it intentional? Graham (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, that was quirky. Thanks for fixing it, ! Graham (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period 

message: Why are people using this template in non-linguistic articles?  Also, shouldn't it support things like  and such considering that we are a website and not a printed article: LSA stuff followed by links?  Lastly, doesn't the LSA style sheet's small caps everywhere violat the wikipedia style guide? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CITEVAR. Editors are free to use whatever citation style they choose so long as it is consistent and sufficient to identify the necessary source. The template supports a  field and  field that are not well documented (I'll add them); you're free to add  support if  is insufficient. This citation style is explicitly mentioned in MOS:SMALLCAPS as one in which small caps should be used. See also WP:NOTBURO. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I share the same question about supporting identifiers, especially the DOI. Maybe this can be made to depend on  so you don't have to redo all the logic? Nemo 17:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added  support, it supersedes the url parameter if both are provided. It automatically adds the 'https://dx.doi.org/' to the front of the DOI so the input should just be the identifier. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Unlike almost all other  templates I know,  doesn't accept an  field. This leads to ugly-looking results, as in e.g. Los Bastos Formation; where P. J. Currie has to be linked as P. J. Currie. Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem is also visible at Antonio de Lebrija (conquistador), where linked author names create poorly formatted CITEREF values for sfn/harv template use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorlink

message: This misbegotten template should never have been created.
*  was created 7 December 2004.
*  was created 4 February 2005.
*  was created 15 February 2006.
*  was created 15 November 2005.
*  was created 24 September 2006.
Presumably, Type 1 templates were created because people wanted to facilitate standard appearances of footnotes. Presumbably,  was created because some people wanted one single template to do the work of many, so people wouldn't have to remember which template to use. The Type 1 and Type 2 templates display the same, except that Type 1 uses periods and capitals and Type 2 uses commas and not always capitals. But Type 1 templates can display like Type 2 by adding , and Type 2 templates can display like type 1 by adding . Along comes , which was created presumably in order to comply with Linguistic Society of America standards. Rather than creating this template, Type 1 and Type 2 templates should have been modified to allow . At this point, we have skilled editors trying to address spacing issues, double periods, and parameters that users expect to work, such as . Some day, Wikipedia will face the style requirements of another academic discipline, let's say, Bozoology. If that happens, rather than creating , we should just add functionality to . Then we won't have to fuss with issues like, are parameters hyphenated or not. All of these issues have been solved. The only purpose of  is to have slight changes in display. These changes should be handled on the output side of existing templates not by creating a whole new template. Let's merge  with existing Type 1 and Type 2 templates, mark it as deprecated, and eventually get rid of it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline is considerably more complicated than the above summary hopes for. The first four templates were not converted into the more modern Lua versions that we have today until 2013. A bit later, this template was involved in a misguided merge with , which you can read about higher on this page and at this discussion. After that, I think everyone just got tired of the teapot-sized drama and walked away. Your idea may have merit, but someone would have to have the energy to add and test a bunch of new code to support just 1,200 articles, most of which could easily be using CS1 templates with little significant difference in the reference formatting (and much better error-checking). Clicking on a semi-random sample, I see a mix of CS1 and Cite LSA at Antonio de Nebrija, and probably unnecessary use of Cite LSA at Wilcox Group and hundreds of other geology articles. My preference would be to just get rid of it as redundant to the CS1 family of templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonesey95: Thank you for this explanation. I just edited 4 articles that wrongly used this template. Now there are 1221 articles transcluding the template, nearly all of them unrelated to linguistics. Not sure what I want to do now. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the usually are full of non supported parameters and such, with no error checking to show that half the reference data is ignored. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The user (Tisquesusa) responsible for creating/referencing many of these inclusions (everything formation and fault related) was banned in 2021. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

text:  Gadzooks, what a mess. Many of these articles use short references and a bibliography, with the access dates in the bibliography instead of in the references. And as far as I can tell, there's no proper way of using cite templates to display "et al" except by listing the authors you don't want to display along with . Some of these  refs have markup like , so I had to hunt down the book, copy in the full author list and add . I spent almost an hour  Crato Formation, and that was after I had already fixed the same Weishampel reference somewhere else. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this:  →  – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jonesey95, that's what I needed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Type 1 and Type 2 templates