Template talk:Cite web/Archive 6

src: mtomas.com

Video Template talk:Cite web/Archive 6

Parameter translation

I have added support for translation parameters. Will add the document later. Return if there is a problem encountered. See also here. Crum375 (talk) 13:43, June 23, 2009 (UTC)

If the URL of a non-translated English language page is included in the template - something like | trans_url = Ã, ?? Or is it messing up the template? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I see no reason to do that. Leave it to the reader to decide which translation tool they like, rather than giving preferential treatment to anyone. - AnmaFinotera (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 14:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Cite web/Archive 6

Accessyear Parameters

The current interaction between accessdate and accessyear is determined by the following code

{{# if: {{{accessyear |}}} | {{{accessdate}}} {{{accessyear}}} | {{{accessdate}}}}}

If accessdate parameters including years and access are specified, the result will have a double year. The solution is to bypass this line entirely. But in that case, if the access date does not not include year and accessyear specified , we will not have a year at all.

In other words, this code represents an assessment of what mistakes are less likely to occur. I would like to ask the editor to reevaluate the assessment. Based on the documentation page, which calls for the full date in the access date, and does not even mention the parameters of accessible left, I will choose the opposite solution. Debresser (talk) 22:29, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the second issue

Removing the accessyear parameter will solve it, but does it have consensus? Maintaining the status quo is another option, and changing the code is another. Debresser (talk) 16:03, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Hello all! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm having trouble with quote web templates in one of the articles I'm working on, so I thought I'd ask a question here. In the Andalusian horse article, two reference templates for some reason put some website url into the title. The link works fine - it just appears wrong. Here's the format I use:

& lt; ref & gt; {{cite web | title = ANCCE | publisher = National Association of Horsemen of the Knights of Spain | url = http://www.ancce.es/ver_wysiwyg.php? id = historia & amp; seccion = Ã,¿Que es ANCEE? & Amp; subseccion = Historia | accessdate = 2009-09-29}} & lt;/ref & gt;

& lt; ref & gt; {{cite web | url = http://www.ancce.es/ver_wysiwyg.php? id = datos & amp; seccion = El Caballo Espaà ± a ol & amp; subseccion = Datos del Caballo EspaÃÆ'  ± ol | title = Important Information about PRE Horse | accessdate = 2009-06-20 | publisher = National Association of Spanish Horse Knights in Spanish Uniform}} & lt;/ref & gt;

And here's what comes up:

es ANCEE? & amp; subseccion = Historia "ANCCE". National Association of Buffalo Horse Breeders from Spain . Retrieved 2009-09-29 .

Caballo Espaà ± a ol & amp; subseccion = Datos del Caballo Espaà ± à £ ol "Important Information on PRE Horse". National Association of Spanish Horse Knights Certified Spanish . Retrieved 2009-06-20 . Ã,

Does anyone have any ideas on how I can improve it? Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the URL exists. Replace a space with the proper URL encoding (% 20 for spaces). "ANCCE". National Association of Buffalo Horse Breeders from Spain . Retrieved 2009-09-29 . - AnmaFinotera (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary! Thank you for your prompt response. Guess you learn something new every day :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

src: ilab-australia.org

series identifier

There is no way to specify a serial identifier, such as "Technical Report TR23-45A" or subtitle. Both will be very helpful. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 02:52, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

src: collegeinfogeek.com

Italics for the "Working" parameter

The "Work" parameter appears to automatically print italicized entries, but not all applicable entries must be italicized, such as a website. This seems to be a problem for me. Drewcifer (talk) 06:50, August 11, 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no style guide to show what output this template generates, how do you know the website should not be italicized? --Jc3s5h (talk) 10:52, August 11, 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. Use work when publishers must be italicized (like quoting NY Times website or similar), otherwise use a publisher column that is not italicised. - AnmaFinotera (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 12:42, August 11, 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Jobs are always published media, publishers are publishing companies. Jobs are skewed, publishers are not. - Huntster (t o @ o c) 04:20, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

Publishers and jobs are two different things, at least in the case of many websites. Allmusic, for example, published by Macrovision. And you are right, there is no MOS about this template specifically, but there is a MOS about the website and that they should not be italicized. Where is it in my current eludes, but if you need proof I can try and dig it up. So, that said, any template meant to facilitate a website must have the ability to facilitate a website with an appropriate style, that is, it is not italicized. Drewcifer (talk) 05:05, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I do not agree about that, just pointing to AnmaFinotera that two fields can not and should not be used interchangeably. Because web Cite should not be used to quote printed news in physical form (for example), I do not see a problem with removing italics altogether from this template, speaking in a broad sense. - Huntster (t o @ o c) 05:09, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

I feel that working parameters must be created without auto-italicising. Instead we can make the publisher an automatic sign as the way it does to cite news templates. Just a thought. - Legolas ^{( talk 2 me )} 05:44, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

The template auto-skips the work entry automatically, but if you are skewing an entry like this: work = Allmusic , it will appear in the normal font in the reference section. For example reference # 10 in the article "Live to Tell". Frcm1988 (talk) 06:12, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

Website is not "published media" but is generally a content publisher. It makes sense to me. And do not say use it interchangeably, there are several web sources where you can and should use both. - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 11:15, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

The website is the most publicized medium... "published" does not always mean the same as "printed". The website has never been a content publisher, only works containing content... there will always be individuals, companies, or other entities behind the website. Two very different things. If you can insert both sets of data, then do, but "work" is the only thing that is badly needed. - Huntster (t o @ o c) 22:50, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

The concept of what a website is, and a publisher, is not described in the documentation (probably because there is no agreement on its meaning). In my mind, a website is a work; the media is the World Wide Web. Publishers are companies, partnerships, or individuals. Unless you think Tron or The Matrix is non-fiction, publishers may not exist in electronic form. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:27, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

My only concern with reworking the template is that it will fail to backward compatible. ie, all instances where the "work" parameter should be italicized. I can not think of any examples, but I'm sure it's there. So instead, what if we just added an additional parameter: "website". It's more straightforward language-wise (calling websites that "work" is always a bit of a stretch, IMO), it will be un-printed skew, and it will not mess up all the millions of times the template is already in use. Drewcifer (talk) 17:01, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous editor who posted on 17:01, August 12, 2009 UT, what is a website? --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me. One too many tilde, though I've fixed it now. I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Go to the website to find out more, I think. Or does this question lead to somewhere? I am very confused. Drewcifer (talk) 00:08, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

The website article shows, and I agree, that the website is a collection of digital content addressed with a single domain name or IP address. This can be a job if it is under the creative control of one entity. On the other hand, if the only different component share is the address, then it does not qualify as a job. For example, home.comcast.com will not qualify as a job because the component pages are self-made by many customers to the ISP. On the other hand, Wikipedia (English version) is a single work. If there is a website parameter, there should be clear instructions about when to use it. In some cases, it would be redundant to provide both work parameters and website parameters. Also, because quote web citations will usually include a link, the website is indicated by the address, so it's usually not necessary. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:36, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

I think we kind of agree here. Adding website parameters is not meant to replace working parameters. And alternatively, they can of course be incorrectly used, like any parameter in any template. So of course clear instructions will be needed to avoid misuse and redundancy. That said, a clear distinction between what would be called "work" and what's called "website" means we need to add or customize something in the template. Drewcifer (talk) 00:55, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who objected led me to a place that says the website name should not be italicized? I can not find it. Good up 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: The Style Manual (title) does not specifically address the website title, but the website is not included in the italicized list and in most citation styles, the website name is not italicized or inserted in quotation marks. - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 18:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it will appear that (the site name is italicized or not italicised) may be accepted under the current guide. Personally, I do not care, but what I think disturbing is the upcoming practice of entering website names into the publisher parameters of this template to avoid italization. Is it the only thing that keeps us from adding website parameters that we have not yet decided how the documentation should be updated? If yes, how about this? Good up 4: 1, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

src: www.elliottwavetrader.net

Why is this COINS output?

Why is the list of web generated reference list items outputting with COINS ranges? This does not make sense unless the resource may exist as a book or article in a periodic, something that can not be specified in the template. Worse, everything is set as a book. This limits COINS values ​​because the large percentage of ranges in the citation list now make no sense (according to web content only, defined as books). Therefore, it also hurts apps that use coins by making them look like waste of time.134.181.233.102 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) - Applying unvoken comments added by 134.181.233.102 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009

Please sign your post, by typing four tilde as follows: ~~~~ --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Incorrect error message

In Phillies Phillip 2009 season, this error message is displayed about 50 times: "Error: If you specify | archivedate =, you must also specify | archiveurl =." The thing is, they all already have that parameter. What should I do to fix it? Coemgenus 15:21, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

This is a temporary error caused by recent changes that have been returned; try clearing your cache and see if it works. Ã, Skomorokh , barbarian 15 : 25, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it worked. Coemgenus 15:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

archiveurl error

In History Louisville, Kentucky, in reference # 12, I see an error "Error: If you specify | archive = =, you must also specify | archiveurl =", even though the archive is indeed specified. Is there anything missing? thanks. Stevie is the guy! ^{Talk o Work} 15:24, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Someone is obviously changing something because I get this error on an archived item that I know is okay yesterday. I suspect it's probably {{Citation/core}} but I'm looking for it and hope it will be fixed soon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:26, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem. I posted it to the village pump, too, to see if anyone knows what happened. Coemgenus 15:27, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

View User talk: Amalthea # cite web etc. Rettetast (talk) 15:40, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Already fixed, see for yourself. Nothing is broken, it just takes time to change to all the new templates. In the meantime, we have these messages. Debresser (talk) 16:24, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk o Work} 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

src: i0.kym-cdn.com

Letters of the template name

recent edits by DebresserÃ, (talkÃ, bb Ã, Â · contribs) change all {{cite web}} {{cite web}} {Cite web} }} in the documentation, with a cryptic comment "m using AWB". When I get back, Debresser reinstalls edits (along with a typo) with the summary "Restore the web Cite with capital.That is the name of the template, and what should be.General or not is another important. provide an official document here, not how to do it wrong. "This editing summary is wrong. First, there is nothing "wrong" with {{cite web}}; it's well supported, and easier for many editors to read while editing. Second, the documentation section provides a general format for broad usage, not the official name of the template. The official name of the template in uppercase at the beginning of the Template: Quote web, and the official name is not affected by what goes into the documentation.

The documentation has been {{cite web}} since it was created in 2006. It should not be converted to capitalization simply because of personal preferences that capital letters are "supposed".

My initial thought about this was that it was not worth the amount of discussion that had been spent, let alone the level of passion displayed. Templates work in exactly the same way, regardless of what the example shows in the documentation. It's beyond "small", it's trivial. This is not worth the effort to systematically change it in any direction. That includes the following Debresser around just to restore the changes (not necessary but not harmful). If you make some other real improvements to the documentation, and while you get an open editing window you want to waste time changing the capitalization, then that's your call. It does not affect anything but it may be pleasant or offensive to your subjective aesthetic preferences. --RL0919 (talk) 13:06, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

• Trout is slapping everyone for wasting time with meaningless changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, but the problem is that Debresser has now taken RL0919 comments as a strategy to change things like Debresser prefers, and recently installs unrelated changes to many documentation pages, including these edits. all the names of the templates, [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] although there is a clear consensus here on the capital letters and to this kind of change. This is a further imposition of personal preferences that are different from common usage, and it is quite counterproductive to make such a change. Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This may differ from more general use, but it is also common. And conformity is also important. It is better to have them all capitalized then the bottom of the upper letters.

The edits I made to that page are important updates for annotations related to archive parameters, based on a successful formulation (with my help) at {{Cite web/doc}} last month, and are highly relevant in my rich people's view experience in the category of damaged citations. I did not make any edits to other documents where my edits have been restored before. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

All of these have lowercase letters since the beginning of time and are almost always used in small letters in the article. Make them smaller, otherwise it will only get worse in the edit window. There's no reason to change it, so keep them that way. HeadbombÃ, { ^???? _???????? Ã, -Ã, WP Physics} 01:45, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

At dawn time there is no Wikipedia too, so the argument is "non-argument". However, your opposition to the top case is really recorded. It's a matter of taste, maybe. To me, I expect a capital letter after "{{" parentheses, and find it satisfying aesthetically. Debresser (talk) 07:18, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

And I hope to see lowercase, as I imagine, most people will see. And can you be less patronizing? That's very annoying. HeadbombÃ, { ^???? _???????? Ã, -Ã, WP Physics} 13:59, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's my style. I did not even notice it. So you have to stick with it. Debresser (talk) 18:06, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

No further comment, and there is consensus (with the main exception of Debresser) that this should be left alone, so I change it back to the old state. WP: RETAIN seems right here. Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for enforcing the consensus. You are an uninvolved type editor who should do that. And what about the consensus that this is not worth editing? It's very hypocritical, to choose from consensus only the parts you like, and ignore the ones you do not like. Well, people know by their deeds. Debresser (talk) 16:22, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

src: stuffandnonsense.co.uk

Double-period bug

Cite period double templates are one of the most common mistakes in Wikipedia. I am collecting some examples here. It affects about 45,000 articles (1 1/2% of a random sample of all 3 million), and about 23% of the most frequently read articles (probably because they are longer and better referenced). Since I can not ask anyone to fix a template or write a bot, I hope to use WP: AWB editing to resolve this issue at the same time I am doing Style Manual editing. 45,000 too many articles to fix one by one, even with AWB, but maybe I can fix the most commonly encountered example of the problem. The problem affects the Cite Web, Cite Book, Cite News, Cite Press Release, Cite Journal, and Cite Encyclopedia, so it may affect all the cited templates.

Sometimes templates add an extra period; sometimes not. So I can not tell AWB to remove any period from the end of any citation template field, since it will delete one correct period along with removing one from a pair of duplicate periods. It's easy to say that I have to use the AWB preview for each template change quotation, but that eliminates most of the reasons for using AWB. So I compiled my list of examples, experimented with them, and looked for patterns. The pattern is that when the template version displayed adds any brackets or other punctuation, it does not add an extra period to go with it. Unfortunately, AWB reads the encoded parameters, not the finished product being displayed. I think the pattern works like this, at least for the most frequently encountered version of this bug:

publisher = almost never ends with a period. However, to quote a press release and cite a journal, which has no parameter = first, the last period should be not deleted if there is a (not empty) date = parameter.

first = The last period should not be deleted if there is a non-empty date = or year = parameter.

Similarly, authors = and co-authors = must keep their last period (if any) if there is a parameter of date = or year =.

title =, accessdate =, isbn =, page =, pages =, editor =, editor2-first =, and encyclopedia = must have the final period removed.

location =, last =, edition =, and editor1-first = must be left alone.

year = not possible to end with period, but if it happens, it will be duplicated if there is month = parameter, and not vice versa. month = must be left alone, assuming there is one year = go with it.

journal = must be left alone unless volume = and problem = both are lost.

So, is that true? Art LaPella (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on for some time in Framework Discussion: Quote # Stop full at the end of template 2 that may affect the above. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has been halted for a while now. Due to several complainants. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

The "edition" parameter is required

{{Editprotected}} The parameter is required, for online work that changes over time but stores the cited static material, and possibly for some other cases. This field will only appear if the work parameter is used, and it must be formatted as, and has the same syntax as, the same field in Template: Quote the book. Example:

 & lt; ref & gt; {{Cite web  | title = What is Occam's Razor?  | first = Phil  | Last = Gibbs  Articles of 1997 in compilation in May 2009  | work = FAQ Usenet Physics  | editor = Don Koks  | url = http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html  | accessdate = August 17, 2009  }} & lt;/ref & gt; 

will be much more elegant like:

 & lt; ref & gt; {{Cite web  | title = What is Occam's Razor?  | first = Phil  | Last = Gibbs  year = 1997  | work = FAQ Usenet Physics  | edition = May, 2009  | url = http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html  | accessdate = August 17, 2009  }} & lt;/ref & gt; 

Please note the difference:

• accessdate : When the editor sees the page quoted.
• date , year , month : Related to when the page or set of pages cited is/(ie, usually proximal to the authorship date)
• archived : only related to Archive.org, etc.
• edition : An open parameter where any value can be entered, e.g. "2009", "3", "revised", corresponding to larger jobs containing the page or a series of pages quoted. When used to provide a working publication date, it may be years different from the value of date (or year / month ).

- SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] <(- Ã,¿ -)> 21:11, August 17, 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. But do you mind leaving it for a few days to collect comments and get consensus before placing {{editprotected}}? --Ã, Martin (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 08:58, August 18, 2009 (UTC)

Edition parameters are required. Do you have code for that change so we can slap back the edited banner? - Philosophers Let's reason together. 13:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} No objections, more than 2 months later. - SMcCandlish [cont] <(- Ã,¿ -)> 4:51, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Can you put the required code in the sandbox version? --Ã, Martin (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Disabled for now, because there is no response and it appears that the code has not been written yet. If you can not do this yourself, you should find someone familiar with this template who can code for you. - Martin (MSGJÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 07:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Date format

This template documentation seems to violate WP: MOSNUM, which says that the date format YYYY-MM-DD should not be used. Should not it be updated to fit the guidelines? Team meh 03:13, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

View Wikipedia: Mosnum/proposal on numerical date YYYY-MM-DD. Good luck with that. --- - Ã, Gadget850Ã, (Ed) ^talk 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Might have to, and in practice the example is, but as noted, there is no consensus one way or the other, basically submit it to each editor of a particular article to decide, at the end. - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP: MOSNUM does not say that the date format YYYY-MM-DD should not be used in quotes. It just says that the format should not be used in prose. This is quite common for the format to be used in the citation. Eubulides (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is an ambiguous and vague format that should not be used anywhere. Debresser (talk) 05:51, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Can we take this debate back to Wikipedia: Mosnum/proposal on the numerical date YYYY-MM-DD and thus store it in one place? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions : Why not make this template format the given date in accessdate parameters according to user preferences, as is the case for {{date}}? That may satisfy more people than the current situation. I saw the proposal of Mosnum but quickly ran back here. -84user (talk) 23:28, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best thing to do is to encourage the use of one format for consistency, either mdy or dmy format, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Using the iso format introduces ambiguities such as dates and months to be completely discouraged. Team meh 23:49, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Please return this to Wikipedia: Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD and avoid WP: CFORK - Redrose64 (speaking) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow the massive RfC to leave date linking and autoformatting, this functionality-which is inside the template and which changes the date of ISO to dmy or mdy according to user preferences-is turned off. After that autoformat again is a step back. Ohconfucius ^{Ã,¡digame!} 4:03, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Oh. Or Redrose. Or Timmeh, so the footnote format can be consistent with the format in the article body. But definitely not by forcing an all-numeric format, as it increases ambiguity.-- Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The template does not violate MOSNUM, which states " the style date of YYYY-MM-DD (1976-05-31) is not common in prose English, and should not be used in the sentence ". Obviously the citation template is not covered by it. As others have pointed out, a general proposal that will include quotes was recently discussed and dismissed. I do not see any point in repeating it, and the discussion that preceded it, here. ^bigissue 18:54, 18 November 2009 ( UTC)

src: totalrewardssoftware.com

"page =" parameter problem

The little thing I noticed with some of the references I used, the parameter "page =" only shows the number instead of "p. #". Describes:

• {{cite web | publisher = [[IGN]] | author = Shea, Cam | url = http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/954/954036p2.html | title = Street Fighter IV Reviews AU | page = 2 | date = 2009-02-12 | accessdate = 2009-08-09}}

• Shea, Cam (2009-02-12). "Street Fighter IV AU Review". IGN. p.Ã, 2 . Retrieved 2009-08-09 .

It happens with "pages =" as well. Sorry if this is already known about the problem. - Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, August 9, 2009 (UTC)

- KieferSkunk (talk) - 18:37, August 10, 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not sure why {{cite journal}} omits "p." or "pp." prefix in some cases. I left a message on the talk page and suggested adding {{Page Number}} to {{cite journal}} . {{page number}} is designed for use in other templates. This attempts to detect whether the prefix has been provided by the user. Otherwise, this will supply the prefix. - John Cardinal (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

{{editprotected}} Can someone update this to the current date? It's still reading December 2nd at all date parameters. thanks. Copana2002 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning the page is enough to do this, no need to change the template. You can do it yourself later. Svick (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Work and publisher

There is a rather lengthy discussion below, but the disagreements here seem to revolve around different interpretations of the names for some parameters. One possible solution is to add the "Website" parameter, or rename any of the existing "Work" or "Publisher" parameters to become "Website". Another solution is (again) returning the documentation page back to its original state, before th

Source of the article : Wikipedia