m →Arbitary break: I then removing ??? |
Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) m Fic depercated paramter in cite tempalte (and GFs) using AWB |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
== Citations for news broadcasts == |
== Citations for news broadcasts == |
||
I have a lot of transcripts from news broadcasts that I would like to add to articles but there is no template for news broadcasts! |
I have a lot of transcripts from news broadcasts that I would like to add to articles but there is no template for news broadcasts! |
||
Could someone make one? Please? |
Could someone make one? Please? |
||
(P.s. Not sure if this is the right place to put this, sorry if it isn't)[[User:Panyd|Panyd]]<sup>[[User talk:Panyd|The muffin is not subtle]]</sup> 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC) |
(P.s. Not sure if this is the right place to put this, sorry if it isn't)[[User:Panyd|Panyd]]<sup>[[User talk:Panyd|The muffin is not subtle]]</sup> 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:As far as I'm aware, none of these templates are deprecated. I also believe that {{ |
:As far as I'm aware, none of these templates are deprecated. I also believe that {{User|Citation bot 1}} is buggy; see my posts [[User:Citation bot/bugs/Archive 1#Unified citation types|here]], one of which refers directly to the link provided above by EdJogg. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 17:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
I concur -- other editors too may wish to look at [[User:Citation bot/bugs/Archive 1#Unified citation types|the bot's talk page]]. -- [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) |
I concur -- other editors too may wish to look at [[User:Citation bot/bugs/Archive 1#Unified citation types|the bot's talk page]]. -- [[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
| website || {{tl|cite web}} || {{tl|vancite web}}<br />{{tl|vcite web}} || |
| website || {{tl|cite web}} || {{tl|vancite web}}<br />{{tl|vcite web}} || |
||
|} |
|} |
||
{{ |
{{Reflist|refs= |
||
<ref name=cc>These templates are based on {{tl|citation/core}}, thus they have a similar look and feel</ref> |
<ref name=cc>These templates are based on {{tl|citation/core}}, thus they have a similar look and feel</ref> |
||
<ref name=comic>These templates are formatted per {{cite book |last=Ellis |first=Allen |title=Comic Art in Scholarly Writing: A Citation Guide |year=1999 |url=http://www.english.ufl.edu/comics/scholars/guide.html}}</ref> |
<ref name=comic>These templates are formatted per {{cite book |last=Ellis |first=Allen |title=Comic Art in Scholarly Writing: A Citation Guide |year=1999 |url=http://www.english.ufl.edu/comics/scholars/guide.html}}</ref> |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
IBM Foo |
IBM Foo |
||
Bar |
Bar |
||
Administration |
Administration |
||
be keyed in as "IBM Foo, Bar, Administration", "IBM Foo: Bar: Administration" or perhaps in some format I haven't thought of? |
be keyed in as "IBM Foo, Bar, Administration", "IBM Foo: Bar: Administration" or perhaps in some format I haven't thought of? |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
::Also, I don't see how it matters that "cite news" doesn't contain an "editor" parameter. If the item has no named author, you just don't put a name, exactly as with news items from newspapers that don't have a byline. As for dates, I have never had a problem with putting month and year in to the "date" parameter. [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
::Also, I don't see how it matters that "cite news" doesn't contain an "editor" parameter. If the item has no named author, you just don't put a name, exactly as with news items from newspapers that don't have a byline. As for dates, I have never had a problem with putting month and year in to the "date" parameter. [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::That really is completely irrelevant to the use of the template. The template is called cite journal simply as a matter of symantic. The community consensus agreed that magazines ARE a form of journal, even if you disagree as to their worthiness and value, hence the {{tl|cite magazine}} template being merged to THIS template and not to cite news or any other one. Whether you are citing a magazine or some academic journal, you still cite the exact same bits of data and in the exact same format. This is the consensus of the project, as reflected in its guidelines, MoS, in general usage, and in looking at high quality, community reviewed FA articles. Magazines are not "news items" and should not use the news template. Of course, if you don't want to follow that consensus, you are free to just not use templates, but you would still be expected to properly source a magazine in the same format as any other form of journal.-- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
:::That really is completely irrelevant to the use of the template. The template is called cite journal simply as a matter of symantic. The community consensus agreed that magazines ARE a form of journal, even if you disagree as to their worthiness and value, hence the {{tl|cite magazine}} template being merged to THIS template and not to cite news or any other one. Whether you are citing a magazine or some academic journal, you still cite the exact same bits of data and in the exact same format. This is the consensus of the project, as reflected in its guidelines, MoS, in general usage, and in looking at high quality, community reviewed FA articles. Magazines are not "news items" and should not use the news template. Of course, if you don't want to follow that consensus, you are free to just not use templates, but you would still be expected to properly source a magazine in the same format as any other form of journal.-- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Nowhere have I said, of magazines, that I "disagree as to their worthiness and value". The fact that you think I have said this rather suggests to me that you aren't actually reading what I am writing. On the contrary, I have readily agreed that ''The Railway Magazine'' (to stick with that example) is a respected and reliable source on railway matters. It is absurd to say that "magazines are not news items". Magazines CONTAIN (often among other things) news items, just as newspapers do. Both are "news sources", and should use the "cite news" template. For instance, I happen to have in front of me the following: "Lord Eccles, Paymaster-General responsble for the Arts, is considering a scheme to keep together in the capital the transport collection now housed at the Museum of British Transport at Clapham...." (There is no byline, so it was presumably written in the office by a staffer.) Are you telling me that is not a news item? It could perfectly well have appeared in a nwespaper, but in fact it is the opening sentence of an article in ''Railway Magazine'' for February 1971. If cited in WP, all it needs is: |
::::Nowhere have I said, of magazines, that I "disagree as to their worthiness and value". The fact that you think I have said this rather suggests to me that you aren't actually reading what I am writing. On the contrary, I have readily agreed that ''The Railway Magazine'' (to stick with that example) is a respected and reliable source on railway matters. It is absurd to say that "magazines are not news items". Magazines CONTAIN (often among other things) news items, just as newspapers do. Both are "news sources", and should use the "cite news" template. For instance, I happen to have in front of me the following: "Lord Eccles, Paymaster-General responsble for the Arts, is considering a scheme to keep together in the capital the transport collection now housed at the Museum of British Transport at Clapham...." (There is no byline, so it was presumably written in the office by a staffer.) Are you telling me that is not a news item? It could perfectly well have appeared in a nwespaper, but in fact it is the opening sentence of an article in ''Railway Magazine'' for February 1971. If cited in WP, all it needs is: |
||
::::"Keeping Clapham in the capital". ''Railway Magazine'' (London). February 1971, p.68. |
::::"Keeping Clapham in the capital". ''Railway Magazine'' (London). February 1971, p.68. |
||
Line 228: | Line 228: | ||
::To be honest: while I feel that multiple templates have many advantages, I don't feel strongly that this is a "MUST DO" or that the improvements would be "spectacular" (it only impacts ~1,000 articles). However, I object greatly to your characterization that (1) there is consensus that {{tlx|cite journal}} should be used for magazines and the implication that this consensus shuts down any argument that [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] might make. Again, ZERO discussion has been shown in support of this consensus, and all discussion has actually been to object to the status quo (another example being that {{tlx|cite magazine article}} redirected to {{tlx|cite news}} for [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_magazine_article&diff=275434104&oldid=107579158 over two years]). Per [[WP:CONSENSUS]]: "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" (I admit we might debate whether exposure is adequate here) and, more importantly, "consensus can change" (I hope we would not debate this point!). Alarics points are valid and have been raised before & discussion should not be halted just because you think there is consensus on the issue. |
::To be honest: while I feel that multiple templates have many advantages, I don't feel strongly that this is a "MUST DO" or that the improvements would be "spectacular" (it only impacts ~1,000 articles). However, I object greatly to your characterization that (1) there is consensus that {{tlx|cite journal}} should be used for magazines and the implication that this consensus shuts down any argument that [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] might make. Again, ZERO discussion has been shown in support of this consensus, and all discussion has actually been to object to the status quo (another example being that {{tlx|cite magazine article}} redirected to {{tlx|cite news}} for [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_magazine_article&diff=275434104&oldid=107579158 over two years]). Per [[WP:CONSENSUS]]: "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" (I admit we might debate whether exposure is adequate here) and, more importantly, "consensus can change" (I hope we would not debate this point!). Alarics points are valid and have been raised before & discussion should not be halted just because you think there is consensus on the issue. |
||
::A forked {{tlx|cite magazine}} could have the following advantages: |
::A forked {{tlx|cite magazine}} could have the following advantages: |
||
::* Parameter simplification: I think pmid, pmc, and bibcode are completely useless for magazine content (though they are included in {{tlx|cite news}} for some reason). DOIs, laysummary, laysource, laydate, and others MIGHT exist for magazines, but at frequencies that are much lower than for academic articles. |
::* Parameter simplification: I think pmid, pmc, and bibcode are completely useless for magazine content (though they are included in {{tlx|cite news}} for some reason). DOIs, laysummary, laysource, laydate, and others MIGHT exist for magazines, but at frequencies that are much lower than for academic articles. |
||
::* Magazines often re-publish wire articles, so the 'agency' parameter from {{tlx|cite news}} might be useful (it is useless for scholarly articles) |
::* Magazines often re-publish wire articles, so the 'agency' parameter from {{tlx|cite news}} might be useful (it is useless for scholarly articles) |
||
::* Meta-analysis can be performed based on citation types. |
::* Meta-analysis can be performed based on citation types. |
||
Line 243: | Line 243: | ||
Of course it is true that one can always just leave some paramaters blank if they are not relevant. The trouble is, people often don't. This all arose because I was surprised to see [[User:Redrose64]], in the article [[Varsity Line]], putting the following as a citation: |
Of course it is true that one can always just leave some paramaters blank if they are not relevant. The trouble is, people often don't. This all arose because I was surprised to see [[User:Redrose64]], in the article [[Varsity Line]], putting the following as a citation: |
||
{{ |
{{Cite journal |journal=[[The Railway Magazine]] |date=March 2009|last=Marsh |first=Phil |editor-first=Nick |editor-last=Pigott |editor-link=Nick Pigott |title=Headline News: East-West Rail Link work gets underway |volume=155 |issue=1295 |page=10 |publisher=IPC Media |location=London |issn=0033-8923 }} |
||
This seems to me to be altogether too elaborate a citation for two short sentences-worth of news, just cluttering up the encyclopaedia for no good reason. The information that Nick Pigott is the editor of ''The Railway Magazine'' is quite superfluous. Since it is a reliably regular monthly periodical, I don't see that the volume number and issue number add anything useful that is not conveyed by the month and year, and anyway it may not be clear to the lay reader that that is what "'''155''' (1295): 10." means, whereas in academia people are probably familiar with such notation for a scholarly journal that may not appear regularly. Above all, "publisher" information in such a case as this is pure clutter. If the reader really wants to know that the magazine is published by IPC Media, they can go to the article about the magazine itself. (I realise that "publisher" occurs in "cite news" as well, but fortunately people usually realise that it's not needed in the great majority of cases.) |
This seems to me to be altogether too elaborate a citation for two short sentences-worth of news, just cluttering up the encyclopaedia for no good reason. The information that Nick Pigott is the editor of ''The Railway Magazine'' is quite superfluous. Since it is a reliably regular monthly periodical, I don't see that the volume number and issue number add anything useful that is not conveyed by the month and year, and anyway it may not be clear to the lay reader that that is what "'''155''' (1295): 10." means, whereas in academia people are probably familiar with such notation for a scholarly journal that may not appear regularly. Above all, "publisher" information in such a case as this is pure clutter. If the reader really wants to know that the magazine is published by IPC Media, they can go to the article about the magazine itself. (I realise that "publisher" occurs in "cite news" as well, but fortunately people usually realise that it's not needed in the great majority of cases.) |
||
Line 269: | Line 269: | ||
:::Finally, while it is essential to have reliable sources in an article, not every source in that article needs to be reliable ([[WP:SOURCES]]). --[[User:Karnesky|Karnesky]] ([[User talk:Karnesky|talk]]) 15:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
:::Finally, while it is essential to have reliable sources in an article, not every source in that article needs to be reliable ([[WP:SOURCES]]). --[[User:Karnesky|Karnesky]] ([[User talk:Karnesky|talk]]) 15:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
"..... took the cut-and-paste template .... pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could ....." -- Therein lies our difficulty in a nutshell. If people filled in only what was appropriate in a particular case, it probably wouldn't much matter which template they used. [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
"..... took the cut-and-paste template .... pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could ....." -- Therein lies our difficulty in a nutshell. If people filled in only what was appropriate in a particular case, it probably wouldn't much matter which template they used. [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Um, so your complaint is that you felt his citation included "too many" details? The only thing I'd have left off the same citation is location. Otherwise it seems fully and wholly appropriate to me. The version you felt was better, is missing important details re the source (i.e. volume/issue) at minimum, and is one that if I came across in a GAN or FAC, I'd oppose as being aa badly formatted source in in need of fixing. -- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
:Um, so your complaint is that you felt his citation included "too many" details? The only thing I'd have left off the same citation is location. Otherwise it seems fully and wholly appropriate to me. The version you felt was better, is missing important details re the source (i.e. volume/issue) at minimum, and is one that if I came across in a GAN or FAC, I'd oppose as being aa badly formatted source in in need of fixing. -- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]] ([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|contribs]]) 13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Um, yes, not that I am mounting any sort of attack on [[User:Redrose64]], that instance just happens to be the example that started all this off. Have you actually read what I wrote above? About why volume/issue and, above all, publisher and editor are not needed in this instance? Again, why quote the volume and issue number for this popular monthly magazine when you would not do so for a newspaper -- newspapers also have issue numbers, but nobody refers to them. |
::Um, yes, not that I am mounting any sort of attack on [[User:Redrose64]], that instance just happens to be the example that started all this off. Have you actually read what I wrote above? About why volume/issue and, above all, publisher and editor are not needed in this instance? Again, why quote the volume and issue number for this popular monthly magazine when you would not do so for a newspaper -- newspapers also have issue numbers, but nobody refers to them. |
||
::And by the way, I would '''not''' leave out location, which is an important parameter in a news source, except where the location is included in the title of the publication. There might be other ''Railway Magazine''s in other countries, for all we know, so saying that we are talking about the one published in London identifies it uniquely. If you really think "location" unnecessary, and yet apparently believe that it matters what is the name of the editor, I give up. We shall just have to agree to differ. Fortunately I have no involvement with GANs or FACs, whatever they may be. [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
::And by the way, I would '''not''' leave out location, which is an important parameter in a news source, except where the location is included in the title of the publication. There might be other ''Railway Magazine''s in other countries, for all we know, so saying that we are talking about the one published in London identifies it uniquely. If you really think "location" unnecessary, and yet apparently believe that it matters what is the name of the editor, I give up. We shall just have to agree to differ. Fortunately I have no involvement with GANs or FACs, whatever they may be. [[User:Alarics|Alarics]] ([[User talk:Alarics|talk]]) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
To respond to both [[User:Redrose64]] and [[User:AnmaFinotera]], {{tlx|cite news}} has volume, issue, month, and year as undocumented parameters, e.g.: |
To respond to both [[User:Redrose64]] and [[User:AnmaFinotera]], {{tlx|cite news}} has volume, issue, month, and year as undocumented parameters, e.g.: |
||
*{{ |
*{{Cite news|volume=1|issue=1|newspaper=New-York Daily Times|date=18 September 1851}} |
||
I agree the editor is not essential for the reference in question. Thus, RR64's initial list of four reasons for using {{tlx|cite journal}} instead of {{tlx|cite news}} is whittled down to only one: it is not a newspaper. It is a magazine, which is distinct from a newspaper and from an academic journal. --[[User:Karnesky|Karnesky]] ([[User talk:Karnesky|talk]]) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
I agree the editor is not essential for the reference in question. Thus, RR64's initial list of four reasons for using {{tlx|cite journal}} instead of {{tlx|cite news}} is whittled down to only one: it is not a newspaper. It is a magazine, which is distinct from a newspaper and from an academic journal. --[[User:Karnesky|Karnesky]] ([[User talk:Karnesky|talk]]) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:{{ec}} Well thanks for that guys! Whilst I don't consider myself capable of getting an article to GA/FA I do try to provide a foundation for others to build on; so that when the article ''does'' get to [[WP:FAC]], there are fewer problems dating back to the article's early life which might hold up the process. |
:{{ec}} Well thanks for that guys! Whilst I don't consider myself capable of getting an article to GA/FA I do try to provide a foundation for others to build on; so that when the article ''does'' get to [[WP:FAC]], there are fewer problems dating back to the article's early life which might hold up the process. |
Revision as of 20:22, 24 June 2010
Reliability | ||||
|
Wikipedia Help Project‑class | |||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Why not permit upper or lower case keywords?
Some citation templates are picky about upper or lower case in the keywords. The "cite book" template is an example:
- Title=
- title=
- TITLE=
Only the lowercase "title" is accepted. Given that many WP editors are newcomers, shouldn't the templates be more forgiving? I could not find a good explanation why some are so strict, although there is a brief mention at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates/Archive 4 it does not explain the reason. Case sensitivity is usually reserved for sensitive situations like passwords. Unless there is some compelling reason, I would suggest that the templates be more forgiving. --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, all templates exhibit case-sensitivity where parameter names are concerned - it's not confined to citation templates. This is consistent with the template names - for example
{{CITE BOOK}}
will not work as a substitute for{{cite book}}
. A few templates do allow a small degree of freedom with some of the parameter names (for example,{{cite book}}
permits|isbn=
or|ISBN=
), but each possible variant needs to be catered for separately (for example,{{cite book}}
does not permit|Isbn=
or|iSBN=
, nor any of the other twelve permutations), and to do so would mean an awful lot of extra coding, and would also make the templates larger and slower. Go with whatever form the documentation specifies - alternative case forms are unlikely to work, unless explicitly mentioned. If you know of instances where the documentation specifies a form which turns out not to work, bring it up at the talk page of the template concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)- See also Help:Template#Templates with named parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the info. What language/software is used to expand the templates? I take it there is no "to lowercase" function available? --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's the MediaWiki software.
- There is a lowercase function (it's called
{{lc: }}
), but that deals with data strings (such as parameter values), and not wikicode (such as parameter names). So{{lc:Thursday February 25, 2010}}
- produces
- thursday february 25, 2010
- You occasionally see it in template source code; for example,
{{Page numbers}}
includes the line{{#ifeq:{{str index|{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|1}}|p
- which basically says "take the value of the first parameter; lowercase it; take the first character of that, discarding the rest; is it the letter 'p'"?
- The
{{lc: }}
function is documented at Help:Magic words#Formatting. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the info. What language/software is used to expand the templates? I take it there is no "to lowercase" function available? --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- See also Help:Template#Templates with named parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- ...with MediaWiki itself being written in php. It isn't that string functions aren't available in php, but rather that MediaWiki's markup and ParserFunctions were never really intended to be a general purpose programming language. It is quite limited in many respects, but even considering all the limitations it is still capable of quite a lot. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Citations for news broadcasts
I have a lot of transcripts from news broadcasts that I would like to add to articles but there is no template for news broadcasts! Could someone make one? Please? (P.s. Not sure if this is the right place to put this, sorry if it isn't)PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is
{{cite news}}
unsuitable? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)- It doesn't cover what channel it's on, who the anchors are, what time it was broadcast etc. etc. The tv show template almost works but again there's nothing to say what time it broadcast, so there's no way for other people to check the reference. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- {{Cite video}}? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! My bad. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Bot standardisation?
Citation bot has been changing templates from, eg 'cite web' to 'cite news', or (as here), from 'cite book' to 'Citation'.
Is this policy? Are the 'cite book' etc templates now deprecated? (And if not, why is the bot changing them?)
EdJogg (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, none of these templates are deprecated. I also believe that Citation bot 1 (talk · contribs) is buggy; see my posts here, one of which refers directly to the link provided above by EdJogg. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur -- other editors too may wish to look at the bot's talk page. -- EdJogg (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Citing message boards
Didn't there used to be a cite message board template? I thought I recalled using one once which asked for "post #" and "date of posting" and all that. I ask because I need to cite message board postings from a band member who really only posts updates on his band (Wintersun) via message board. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- {{Cite newsgroup}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Templates by source
The above question comes up fairly frequently, so I created this table that should help. Collapsed here for space. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Citing vendor manuals?
I'd like to see some examples of citing vendor manuals. Typically these have an identifier, e.g., form #, order #, a title and a date. Sometimes the edition number is part of the identifier and sometimes it is external.
Ideally the examples would show how to render multi-line subjects, e.g., should
IBM Foo Bar Administration
be keyed in as "IBM Foo, Bar, Administration", "IBM Foo: Bar: Administration" or perhaps in some format I haven't thought of?
I've been using ref tags with vendor, title lines and identifier separating by commas or in some cases run together, but if there's a recommended style I'd like to adhere to it, especially if there are citation templates to automate it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- See section above. Expand the box by clicking the [show] link in the first column header. There's bound to be something about manuals there. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was waiting for comments before I added that table to the page. I cite a lot of technical manuals and use {{cite book}} which supports
|id=
. There is a {{cite manual}}, but I have it at TfD as no one can define the difference between a book and a manual. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I was waiting for comments before I added that table to the page. I cite a lot of technical manuals and use {{cite book}} which supports
Linear Notes?
I'm trying to cite a source from the Mother's Milk linear notes for the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members. What citation template should I use? Thank you! WereWolf (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- See table above (click "[show]" to expand); row beginning "music album notes". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- {{cite album-notes}} is closer to APA style and supports Harvard and shortened footnotes styles; {{cite music release notes}} varies quite a bit from APA and does not support Harvard or shortened footnotes. I am working on an annotated update to the table; since it seems useful, I am going to add it to the Wikipedia page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Need to standardise citations
We seem to have 2 mains tools for creating citations:
- refToolbar, with various versions, by Mr.Z-man and Apoc2400:
- refToolbar 2.0, by Mr.Z-man, supports the new WP UI.
- refTool, also by Mr.Z-man, supports the old UI but not the new one.
- makeref. I've been working on this but it's a laborious job, as there seems to be nothing like a function / subroutine for common code.
Whichever tool(s) we use, I think we need to standardise the parameters in citations. For example Wikipedia:Citation_templates shows separate {{cite comic}} and {{comic strip reference}}, with different parameters for what appears the same information. In academic works (journals, books, etc.) they are all just authors (last1, first1, etc.), whatever their speciality (morphology, molecular phylogeny, fossils, etc.). I suggest that tools should support only the standard params such as last1, first1, etc. I suspect the separate parameters for {{cite comic}} and {{comic strip reference}} are at best the result of enthusiasms for some writers and artists. --Philcha (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Gadget850/Citation templates— anchors will give you an idea of the parameters used. As noted, anchor support for Harvard and shortened footnotes is spotty. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Magazines
Regarding magazines which are not academic journals, but are nevertheless generally WP:RS, such as The Railway Magazine.
If I use {{cite magazine}}
(which to me is the obvious template to use because of its name), this redirects to {{cite journal}}
, to which an editor objects on the grounds that RM is not a "scholarly academic paper"; he suggests that I should use {{cite news}}
. I don't wish to do this, because: (a) it's not a newspaper; (b) {{cite news}}
has no provision for the magazine's editor (articles may have no credited author); (c) {{cite news}}
has |date=
, but not separate |month=
or |year=
; (d) {{cite news}}
also lacks volume and issue, but this is a minor point. My objection to putting month and year into |date=
is based on the observation that Harvard reference linking doesn't always work in such cases, but always works when either (a) |date=
has a full 3-element date or (b) separate |month=
and |year=
are used.
Opinions please, on whether I should use {{cite news}}
or {{cite magazine}}
? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Magazines are "journals" hence the redirects, even if they are not "academic" journals, so {{cite magazine}} is the appropriate one to use. As the template doc states (emphasis mine) "Cite journal is for formatting references to articles in magazines and academic journals and for academic papers in a consistent and legible manner.". I'd recommend your objector become a little more familiar with the citation templates, though I do see someone added a non-consensus based change to the cite news doc claiming it was also for magazines, which has been reverted. Perhaps that caused his confusion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think it ought to depend entirely on what kind of magazine we are talking about. The Railway Magazine is a respected, long-standing mass-market popular monthly for railway enthusiasts. As Redrose64 notes, it is a "reliable source" for information about railways in Britain. There are very many similar magazines in other spheres of interest. But it is nothing like a peer-reviewed academic or scholarly journal, and I think that it is for the latter that "cite journal" should be reserved. It seems to me that saying you shouldn't use "cite news" because it isn't a newspaper is just playing with words. It contains "news items", and the sort of factual information that one might usefully extract from it for a WP article is wholly commensurable, in my view, with the factual information contained in newspapers. Alarics (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I don't see how it matters that "cite news" doesn't contain an "editor" parameter. If the item has no named author, you just don't put a name, exactly as with news items from newspapers that don't have a byline. As for dates, I have never had a problem with putting month and year in to the "date" parameter. Alarics (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- That really is completely irrelevant to the use of the template. The template is called cite journal simply as a matter of symantic. The community consensus agreed that magazines ARE a form of journal, even if you disagree as to their worthiness and value, hence the {{cite magazine}} template being merged to THIS template and not to cite news or any other one. Whether you are citing a magazine or some academic journal, you still cite the exact same bits of data and in the exact same format. This is the consensus of the project, as reflected in its guidelines, MoS, in general usage, and in looking at high quality, community reviewed FA articles. Magazines are not "news items" and should not use the news template. Of course, if you don't want to follow that consensus, you are free to just not use templates, but you would still be expected to properly source a magazine in the same format as any other form of journal.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere have I said, of magazines, that I "disagree as to their worthiness and value". The fact that you think I have said this rather suggests to me that you aren't actually reading what I am writing. On the contrary, I have readily agreed that The Railway Magazine (to stick with that example) is a respected and reliable source on railway matters. It is absurd to say that "magazines are not news items". Magazines CONTAIN (often among other things) news items, just as newspapers do. Both are "news sources", and should use the "cite news" template. For instance, I happen to have in front of me the following: "Lord Eccles, Paymaster-General responsble for the Arts, is considering a scheme to keep together in the capital the transport collection now housed at the Museum of British Transport at Clapham...." (There is no byline, so it was presumably written in the office by a staffer.) Are you telling me that is not a news item? It could perfectly well have appeared in a nwespaper, but in fact it is the opening sentence of an article in Railway Magazine for February 1971. If cited in WP, all it needs is:
- That really is completely irrelevant to the use of the template. The template is called cite journal simply as a matter of symantic. The community consensus agreed that magazines ARE a form of journal, even if you disagree as to their worthiness and value, hence the {{cite magazine}} template being merged to THIS template and not to cite news or any other one. Whether you are citing a magazine or some academic journal, you still cite the exact same bits of data and in the exact same format. This is the consensus of the project, as reflected in its guidelines, MoS, in general usage, and in looking at high quality, community reviewed FA articles. Magazines are not "news items" and should not use the news template. Of course, if you don't want to follow that consensus, you are free to just not use templates, but you would still be expected to properly source a magazine in the same format as any other form of journal.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Keeping Clapham in the capital". Railway Magazine (London). February 1971, p.68.
- It certainly isn't useful or sensible to add the information that the editor of that publication at the time was one J.N. Slater, or that that issue was Vol. 117 No. 838. With all due respect I think you have allowed yourself to be enslaved by arbitrary labels, trying to make the facts fit a scheme that has not been properly thought through, rather than designing a scheme to fit the facts: the tail is wagging the dog. If you want to play with words, what are you going to do about The Economist, a weekly that appears in magazine format but which has always described itself as a "newspaper"? Alarics (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not the one arguing that a "magazine" is not a "journal" just because it isn't academic. That is the essential argument you made above. Shojo Beat, for example, is a magazine - over 300 pages, with maybe 5 of "newsy" type items - it certainly should not (and does not) use the cite news template when cited. Your argument that a magazine is somehow news goes against the actual consensus shown in the project and by the merger of {{cite magazine}} here. If I misunderstood your argument, then my apologies, but after your remarks about the railroad magazine, you claimed "it is nothing like a peer-reviewed academic or scholarly journal". So what? That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what citation template to use. Just because it is not academic nor scholarly does not make it any less of a magazine, nor any less of a journal. Magazines ARE journals. There is little to no semantic difference in their meaning. This is not "cite academic journal" it is simply "cite journal" for a reason. Perhaps you would feel better about this templates use if it were renamed to cite periodical, which more clearly encompasses them, though that of course would then require merging in cite news which is also a form of periodical.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't useful or sensible to add the information that the editor of that publication at the time was one J.N. Slater, or that that issue was Vol. 117 No. 838. With all due respect I think you have allowed yourself to be enslaved by arbitrary labels, trying to make the facts fit a scheme that has not been properly thought through, rather than designing a scheme to fit the facts: the tail is wagging the dog. If you want to play with words, what are you going to do about The Economist, a weekly that appears in magazine format but which has always described itself as a "newspaper"? Alarics (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that editors should use the obvious and existing {{cite magazine}}
. However, I have not found any discussion on where (or if) that template should redirect. The fact that the redirection target has been unchanged for ~3.5 years is not enough to claim "consensus" if there has been no discussion on the subject.
The little discussion I have found suggests there have been several contributors who do not find {{cite journal}}
adequate to cite magazines. A comment in the archives for cite journal talk indicates that some people are using {{cite news}}
due to limitations of {{cite journal}}
in describing some magazine content and another describes a few using {{cite web}}
. One post in the cite news talk archives agrees that {{cite magazine}}
should redirect to {{cite news}}
. Other discussion shows that many authors agree that a separate cite magazine template would be useful. Further, there are well-established citation styles that treat magazines closer to newspapers than to academic articles. Less than 1,000 articles use {{cite magazine}}
& I would imagine that forking either {{cite journal}}
or {{cite news}}
to cater more specifically to the needs of magazine citations would be possible. --Karnesky (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stating that less than 1000 articles are using cite magazine really doesn't give much indication on the use of cite journal for magazines, however. Cite journal is the one listed in the citation guidelines and many editors are likely to have just used it rather than having an unnecessary redirect. Also, I'd say that there has been no serious objection nor discussion about it in 3.5 years is a valid affirmation of community consensus. It isn't as if it is some obscure topic. Actually, looking at the history now, there never WAS a cite magazine template. One person just created it as a redirect because he kept forgetting cite journal's name. {{cite magazine article}} was apparently made as a strange editing test and redirected as well. So it seems like there was never a community-backed separate magazine template, unless I'm missing one. That cite magazine's alias is used on only 1000 articles, out of over tens of thousands of uses of cite journal seems to me to be a good indication as well as the community has embraced cite journal for both. I'd certainly hope no one really thinks all of those are only "academic journals" (know for a fact they are not). I really can see no need or reason to fork of cite magazine. What, exactly, is missing from cite journal that one would cite for a magazine? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- And that is the exact point I would make: what is missing from cite journal? Per Journal "In academic use, a journal refers to a serious, scholarly publication." But that has nothing to do with the name of the template, the key is the output. {{Cite paper}} also redirects here, because all of the fields needed were added to the template. If it were called Cite publication, it would do the same thing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's not always a question of what's missing from "cite journal" that one would cite for a magazine, it may be, to the contrary (as I have already explained) that there is TOO MUCH in "cite journal" (I mean, too many unnecessary parameters) and much of it is irrelevant and pointless if all you are citing is a piece of news taken from a popular magazine. You haven't answered my question above, which is what on earth purpose would be served, in the example I quoted, by the reader knowing the name of the editor of The Railway Magazine at a particular date. Is it not obvious that somebody has just unthinkingly lumped "cite magazine" into "cite journal" without considering the different kinds of organ that can be meant by "magazine" and "journal"? As I said a long way back in this discussion, it all depends what kind of magazine you are talking about. We are looking down the wrong of the telescope here. The question that matters is, what information do our readers need to know? In the case of a piece of news found in The Railway Magazine or any one of thousands of similar publications, they certainly don't need to know who the editor was at the time, just because that happens to be a parameter in "cite journal", which might be apppropriate for a learned academic work. Alarics (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I often use {{Cite journal}} for magazines that are not scholarly journals. I don't see anything special about the "journal" designation; I just use it because it has fields (month, year, volume, issue) that are useful for certain types of publications. {{Cite news}} has some other fields, but mostly stuff that I would not expect to use for monthly/bi-monthly/etc. magazines that mostly publish analysis/opinion pieces rather than straight news ('agency', for example, would be of no use for most magazine articles). For a newsweekly, I could see potentially using either template. Non-relevant fields from either can be ignored as long as there isn't an overwhelming number of them, which I don't think is the case here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just because the fields are in the template is no requirement that they be used on every citation, anymore than you'd be expected to use all of the options on an infobox or the like. If you are citing the editor of the magazine, might be important to know, but otherwise why do you need to know the editor of ANY magazine or journal? You don't most of the time. All of the citation fields have "too many" fields if you are just going to look at the random typical citation. I don't use half the options in cite news when citing most news papers. If you're going to argue that it has "too many fields" then we'd have to pretty much have separate templates for every last possible source, or just drop them all together. Templates are made to be flexible for different, but similar sources, while offering options to handle common special situations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- But most of the 1000 articles that use
{{cite magazine}}
are citing magazines and not journal articles. These can be improved. Yes, it is slightly harder to treat the citations that use{{cite journal}}
(or{{cite news}}
or{{cite web}}
) for magazine content. But these could be processed manually and by using a bot to make changes that are based on the magazine title/information. You've really offered no concrete arguments as to why we should leave things the way they are other than the supposed tacit consensus. - To be honest: while I feel that multiple templates have many advantages, I don't feel strongly that this is a "MUST DO" or that the improvements would be "spectacular" (it only impacts ~1,000 articles). However, I object greatly to your characterization that (1) there is consensus that
{{cite journal}}
should be used for magazines and the implication that this consensus shuts down any argument that Alarics might make. Again, ZERO discussion has been shown in support of this consensus, and all discussion has actually been to object to the status quo (another example being that{{cite magazine article}}
redirected to{{cite news}}
for over two years). Per WP:CONSENSUS: "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" (I admit we might debate whether exposure is adequate here) and, more importantly, "consensus can change" (I hope we would not debate this point!). Alarics points are valid and have been raised before & discussion should not be halted just because you think there is consensus on the issue. - A forked
{{cite magazine}}
could have the following advantages:- Parameter simplification: I think pmid, pmc, and bibcode are completely useless for magazine content (though they are included in
{{cite news}}
for some reason). DOIs, laysummary, laysource, laydate, and others MIGHT exist for magazines, but at frequencies that are much lower than for academic articles. - Magazines often re-publish wire articles, so the 'agency' parameter from
{{cite news}}
might be useful (it is useless for scholarly articles) - Meta-analysis can be performed based on citation types.
- While COinS does not have a magazine article type, other proposed microformats do. Having finer-grained types on WP would help improve data that is imported into Zotero and will help with inter-library loan requests and catalog lookups.
- Parameter simplification: I think pmid, pmc, and bibcode are completely useless for magazine content (though they are included in
- --Karnesky (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- How does it "only" affect 1,000 articles? There are tens of thousands (I got tired of clicking after 50,000) articles using cite journal. There is absolutely no good way at all to know how many of those are "magazines" versus "scholarly journal" but I'd feel pretty comfortable betting that a significant number of those ARE magazines (Time citations are common, for example). I don't see how any bot can "fix" the cite journal usage to some new forked template unless a list was made of all the journals listed in cite journal and someone manually went through and decided which was a "magazine" and which was a "journal". And yes, with that many uses, that certainly is "adequate" exposure to the community. Yes, consensus can change and if there is a proper community wide discussion that decides that the status quo is no longer the consensus, then that's fine. But to argue that there is no consensus at all because there was no discussion, to me, is just a red herring in the discussion. Nor have I attempted to halt the discussion, I am simply noting that yes there is consensus, by silence and usage, and I suspect if we widened the search, by discussion across the Wikipedia spaces regarding which template to use in X situation (i.e. the original question) versus a few brief statements that were never followed through with any significant discussion, RfCs, etc to change things. A discussion includes people voicing opposing views. I personally don't think his points are valid, but that is why I have voiced my opinion as part of the discussion. I also disagreed with his telling another editor something that is not correct, as far as I can tell, versus what the community seems to follow and believe - use cite magazine/journal for a magazine article. That was the original question I answered. That it became a debate as to whether cite magazine should now be some kind of fork is where things went off on another topic. I don't really see the advantages as being much of one, beyond the minor advantage of allowing more analysis. Parameter simplification really isn't a good reason to fork a template - there are many many citations for "journals" that don't use specific fields either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- There are only 1,000 articles that now use
{{cite magazine}}
. Changing that from a redirect to a new template would not impact any citation that used{{cite journal}}
or{{cite news}}
or{{cite web}}
. If we do send a bot to modify citations to use{{cite magazine}}
, that would be another (significant) advantage for having the separate template:- Coherency of citations to magazine articles, as they are now split across at least three cite templates.
- --Karnesky (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- There are only 1,000 articles that now use
- How does it "only" affect 1,000 articles? There are tens of thousands (I got tired of clicking after 50,000) articles using cite journal. There is absolutely no good way at all to know how many of those are "magazines" versus "scholarly journal" but I'd feel pretty comfortable betting that a significant number of those ARE magazines (Time citations are common, for example). I don't see how any bot can "fix" the cite journal usage to some new forked template unless a list was made of all the journals listed in cite journal and someone manually went through and decided which was a "magazine" and which was a "journal". And yes, with that many uses, that certainly is "adequate" exposure to the community. Yes, consensus can change and if there is a proper community wide discussion that decides that the status quo is no longer the consensus, then that's fine. But to argue that there is no consensus at all because there was no discussion, to me, is just a red herring in the discussion. Nor have I attempted to halt the discussion, I am simply noting that yes there is consensus, by silence and usage, and I suspect if we widened the search, by discussion across the Wikipedia spaces regarding which template to use in X situation (i.e. the original question) versus a few brief statements that were never followed through with any significant discussion, RfCs, etc to change things. A discussion includes people voicing opposing views. I personally don't think his points are valid, but that is why I have voiced my opinion as part of the discussion. I also disagreed with his telling another editor something that is not correct, as far as I can tell, versus what the community seems to follow and believe - use cite magazine/journal for a magazine article. That was the original question I answered. That it became a debate as to whether cite magazine should now be some kind of fork is where things went off on another topic. I don't really see the advantages as being much of one, beyond the minor advantage of allowing more analysis. Parameter simplification really isn't a good reason to fork a template - there are many many citations for "journals" that don't use specific fields either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Arbitary break
I still feel that if the material in the publication concerned, whatever its format happens to be, is clearly "journalism", then I will use "cite news". Time is plainly journalism just as much as The Observer is. Both publications appear weekly. Why give Time a different status just because it happens to use quarto size pages that are stapled together? Nobody needs to know who its editor happens to be in order to judge whether a piece of information cited in it is reliable or not. The name of its current editor is not what Time's reputation is based on. Whereas with an obscure scholarly academic journal, the reputation of the editor in the academic discipline concerned might be of some relevance.
Of course it is true that one can always just leave some paramaters blank if they are not relevant. The trouble is, people often don't. This all arose because I was surprised to see User:Redrose64, in the article Varsity Line, putting the following as a citation:
Marsh, Phil (March 2009). Pigott, Nick (ed.). "Headline News: East-West Rail Link work gets underway". The Railway Magazine. 155 (1295). London: IPC Media: 10. ISSN 0033-8923.
This seems to me to be altogether too elaborate a citation for two short sentences-worth of news, just cluttering up the encyclopaedia for no good reason. The information that Nick Pigott is the editor of The Railway Magazine is quite superfluous. Since it is a reliably regular monthly periodical, I don't see that the volume number and issue number add anything useful that is not conveyed by the month and year, and anyway it may not be clear to the lay reader that that is what "155 (1295): 10." means, whereas in academia people are probably familiar with such notation for a scholarly journal that may not appear regularly. Above all, "publisher" information in such a case as this is pure clutter. If the reader really wants to know that the magazine is published by IPC Media, they can go to the article about the magazine itself. (I realise that "publisher" occurs in "cite news" as well, but fortunately people usually realise that it's not needed in the great majority of cases.)
If I were putting in the above citation, I would do it thus:
Marsh, Phil (March 2009). "East-West Rail Link work gets underway". The Railway Magazine. London. p. 10.
I was unaware of the consensus in this matter to which User:AnmaFinotera refers. I simply proceed on the basis of common sense.
Alarics (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, when I added that citation, it was in the way of a requested improvement to an existing citation, which an editor had (rightly) complained about since it had only given the name of the magazine together with month and year. Spotting this, I went for my stack of back issues (which BTW is very tall) with the intent of locating the relevant article, and providing the missing information. Having done this, I went to
{{cite magazine}}
, took the cut-and-paste template from the doc page, pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could. I then removed all unused parameters, but as often happens, I omitted to change the word "journal" to "magazine", so despite my intent, it shows as{{cite journal}}
. Now, if{{cite magazine}}
had been a template in its own right, doubtless I would have cut-and-pasted a version beginning{{cite magazine
. - I suspect that many of the instances of
{{cite journal}}
being used by others for common-or-garden newsstand magazines are for the same reason - somebody took the cut-and-paste template and used it as it stood. Yes, it does have an awful lot of parameters, and I normally ignore all those after|issn=
mainly because I don't have anything sensible to put in them: I can easily find out what pmid/pmc/doi/etc. mean, but I'm darned if I know how to obtain the specific values for the article being cited. On the occasions that I locate a magazine article on the web (such as here), I'll fill in the|url=
and|accessdate=
too.|ref=
does get used if the article has Harvard-style ref linking as here, but those are the only three after|issn=
that I bother with. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that we have no guidelines on how to actually cite sources. Do we need to include location if other elements include it (i.e. New York Times)? How do you cite a news article sourced to a news agency? How do you cite a reference you haven't read but is used as a reference in a book you have read? Can you stack multiple citations into one set of
<ref>...</ref>
tags? I don't want answers to these questions here, but it illustrates a big part of the problem. Wikipedia:Citing sources is completely silent on these subjects; it mainly rehashes reference presentation styles that are better covered elsewhere.
- Part of the problem is that we have no guidelines on how to actually cite sources. Do we need to include location if other elements include it (i.e. New York Times)? How do you cite a news article sourced to a news agency? How do you cite a reference you haven't read but is used as a reference in a book you have read? Can you stack multiple citations into one set of
- More to the point: I think elements such as magazine editor, publisher or ISSN are relevant when citing a magazine in general, but not when citing a particular article within a magazine.
- As to the difference between {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}}: The output should be the same, the main difference is convince in parameters names. Both should be used for reliable sources, whether it is a daily newspaper or a scientific journal.
- ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just because we do not have "one, true citation style" does not mean we lack guidelines for citing sources. I know you say you don't want answers, but some of your questions are topical & do have "easy answers".
{{cite news}}
includes an 'agency' parameter (but, as I mentioned,{{cite journal}}
is not an identical template with slightly different parameter names: magazine articles cannot have the news agency information if you use that template). You should only cite references you have actually read (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). - Information like publisher and ISSN can be essential to locate a particular article (as some publications have the same or very similar names & because interlibrary loan request forms often use these identifiers to ensure the correct resource is found quickly.
- Finally, while it is essential to have reliable sources in an article, not every source in that article needs to be reliable (WP:SOURCES). --Karnesky (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just because we do not have "one, true citation style" does not mean we lack guidelines for citing sources. I know you say you don't want answers, but some of your questions are topical & do have "easy answers".
"..... took the cut-and-paste template .... pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could ....." -- Therein lies our difficulty in a nutshell. If people filled in only what was appropriate in a particular case, it probably wouldn't much matter which template they used. Alarics (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Um, so your complaint is that you felt his citation included "too many" details? The only thing I'd have left off the same citation is location. Otherwise it seems fully and wholly appropriate to me. The version you felt was better, is missing important details re the source (i.e. volume/issue) at minimum, and is one that if I came across in a GAN or FAC, I'd oppose as being aa badly formatted source in in need of fixing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Um, yes, not that I am mounting any sort of attack on User:Redrose64, that instance just happens to be the example that started all this off. Have you actually read what I wrote above? About why volume/issue and, above all, publisher and editor are not needed in this instance? Again, why quote the volume and issue number for this popular monthly magazine when you would not do so for a newspaper -- newspapers also have issue numbers, but nobody refers to them.
- And by the way, I would not leave out location, which is an important parameter in a news source, except where the location is included in the title of the publication. There might be other Railway Magazines in other countries, for all we know, so saying that we are talking about the one published in London identifies it uniquely. If you really think "location" unnecessary, and yet apparently believe that it matters what is the name of the editor, I give up. We shall just have to agree to differ. Fortunately I have no involvement with GANs or FACs, whatever they may be. Alarics (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- GAN = good article nomination, FAC = featured article candidacy - i.e. the processes that indicate what the community consider to be high quality and the highest quality articles, respectively (short explanation, best to read the pages for longer, if you are interested). I indicated that I would leave off the location for that ref as it was local to the article topic. It is also, from my experience, rare that the location is relevant to the source as most periodicals are available in multiple places. If someone wants to include it, that of course is perfectly fine, I was just noting I myself would not. And yes, issue/volume are quite important, as it aids in identifying which exact magazine it was released in (which speaks some to the note above to cite sources you've read - if you have source in hand, you should know that information). I have, in fact, noted issue/volume for newspapers as well, and would have no objection to cite news being updated to include those parameters, for the same reason. Issue/volume are standard elements for periodical citations in almost all major citation styles (as is location, really, so I probably should include it :-) ). As for the editor issue, if the article has no attributed author, then the editor is appropriate to list, but as you can't say "he must be the author" it would be wrong to list him as the author. Hence Rose's citation being, to me, the correct handling of that particular article. If the author is known, then generally, no the editor shouldn't be included. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- And by the way, I would not leave out location, which is an important parameter in a news source, except where the location is included in the title of the publication. There might be other Railway Magazines in other countries, for all we know, so saying that we are talking about the one published in London identifies it uniquely. If you really think "location" unnecessary, and yet apparently believe that it matters what is the name of the editor, I give up. We shall just have to agree to differ. Fortunately I have no involvement with GANs or FACs, whatever they may be. Alarics (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
To respond to both User:Redrose64 and User:AnmaFinotera, {{cite news}}
has volume, issue, month, and year as undocumented parameters, e.g.:
- New-York Daily Times. Vol. 1, no. 1. 18 September 1851.
{{cite news}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
I agree the editor is not essential for the reference in question. Thus, RR64's initial list of four reasons for using {{cite journal}}
instead of {{cite news}}
is whittled down to only one: it is not a newspaper. It is a magazine, which is distinct from a newspaper and from an academic journal. --Karnesky (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well thanks for that guys! Whilst I don't consider myself capable of getting an article to GA/FA I do try to provide a foundation for others to build on; so that when the article does get to WP:FAC, there are fewer problems dating back to the article's early life which might hold up the process.
- I didn't expect this to get so heated. Sorry for all the bother... guess I'll carry on using
{{cite magazine}}
then. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- To response further to User:AnmaFinotera: "Standard elements for periodical citations in almost all major citation styles" -- yes, but those citation styles were designed for referring in academic papers to scientific and scholarly journals, not for referring in an encyclopaedia to popular magazines. That's been my whole point all along. Wikipedia is written for the general public, not academics. Quite apart from anything else, I am not sure why we expect the general public to understand what is meant by 155 (1295): 10.
- And I don't understand what you mean by "It is ..... rare that the location is relevant to the source as most periodicals are available in multiple places". "Location" isn't about where the thing is available, it's about where it is published, and for mainstream publications that is a crucial bit of information that uniquely defines which publication we are talking about, should there be any doubt. Alarics (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have never, ever, ever seen a citation style say or imply "this is only for what we consider an academic work and not for magazines". I also disagree with your argument read the volume/issue number and the general public. Some folks may not care, others will know what it means (at min, most folks who have taken college classes will). This is not "Simple" Wikipedia, which is the version written for just any person with simple, if any references, simple wording, etc. For Wikipedia, which purports to be an encyclopedia, a citation should provide all relevant details for all levels of readers, not be dumbed down to those who don't care. Wikipedia articles are, in the end, a summary of a bunch of sources. The citations should enable anyone who is actually interested in learning more to be able to relatively easily find said source. Volume and issue are relevant details to that end. Those who aren't interested can ignore. If we were writing purely for the general public, contractions and the use of "you" and "we" would be perfectly fine in articles. One of Wikipedia's guidelines is to have articles written from an "encyclopedic" and that includes using valid, complete citation styles. To me, where an item is published is rarely of importance. Its the same with books. So what if it is published in New York instead of New Jersey? Doesn't change much. I can see country of publication being somewhat important, but rarely do I see who knowing the city is relevant. Again, that's my personal opinion, and per the usual citation styles, it should be included. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- "To me, where an item is published is rarely of importance." I've already explained why it is important in the case in point, but I'll explain again: The Railway Magazine is a title that might be used by different publications in different countries. Identifying the location of the one we mean (London) ensures that there is no doubt about it. This is exactly the same as with newspapers, where the rule is to give as "location" the city of publication, if not already included in the title of the paper. There are at least ten newspapers calling themselves The Times in different parts of the world, so if we mean the one in London, we should say so. Books are a slightly different case: there, it is standard practice to state the location of the publisher, not because it matters in itself whether a book is published in New York or New Jersey, but in case (I presume) there are different publishers with similar names in different places. Alarics (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need for you to explain it again. I already got your point. I was simply noting that I disagreed. Having a similar title really doesn't change that, again in my personal opinion. Continuing to argue it is kinda beating a dead horse. Note I also said that you were correct, that location should be given either way per proper citation guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- "To me, where an item is published is rarely of importance." I've already explained why it is important in the case in point, but I'll explain again: The Railway Magazine is a title that might be used by different publications in different countries. Identifying the location of the one we mean (London) ensures that there is no doubt about it. This is exactly the same as with newspapers, where the rule is to give as "location" the city of publication, if not already included in the title of the paper. There are at least ten newspapers calling themselves The Times in different parts of the world, so if we mean the one in London, we should say so. Books are a slightly different case: there, it is standard practice to state the location of the publisher, not because it matters in itself whether a book is published in New York or New Jersey, but in case (I presume) there are different publishers with similar names in different places. Alarics (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have never, ever, ever seen a citation style say or imply "this is only for what we consider an academic work and not for magazines". I also disagree with your argument read the volume/issue number and the general public. Some folks may not care, others will know what it means (at min, most folks who have taken college classes will). This is not "Simple" Wikipedia, which is the version written for just any person with simple, if any references, simple wording, etc. For Wikipedia, which purports to be an encyclopedia, a citation should provide all relevant details for all levels of readers, not be dumbed down to those who don't care. Wikipedia articles are, in the end, a summary of a bunch of sources. The citations should enable anyone who is actually interested in learning more to be able to relatively easily find said source. Volume and issue are relevant details to that end. Those who aren't interested can ignore. If we were writing purely for the general public, contractions and the use of "you" and "we" would be perfectly fine in articles. One of Wikipedia's guidelines is to have articles written from an "encyclopedic" and that includes using valid, complete citation styles. To me, where an item is published is rarely of importance. Its the same with books. So what if it is published in New York instead of New Jersey? Doesn't change much. I can see country of publication being somewhat important, but rarely do I see who knowing the city is relevant. Again, that's my personal opinion, and per the usual citation styles, it should be included. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- And I don't understand what you mean by "It is ..... rare that the location is relevant to the source as most periodicals are available in multiple places". "Location" isn't about where the thing is available, it's about where it is published, and for mainstream publications that is a crucial bit of information that uniquely defines which publication we are talking about, should there be any doubt. Alarics (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought it did work, but I didn't see it in the docs so I presumed I was misremembering. That should be updated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)