WikiProject Library of Congress | (Rated Template-class) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Untitled
This template has two line-breaks after the end of the included text. This limits how it can be used in articles. For instance, in Constitution of Japan this template is included as an item in a bulleted list. The two end-of-lines mess up the formatting of the next bullet item. Would it be OK to cut at least one of the line-breaks? I don't much experience editing templates, so I don't want to be too bold in messing up something I don't understand. If the two line-breaks are important, could there be some documentation on how to format it? --Jdlh | Talk 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. It does not appear to have any reasonable purpose for being there. If editors want a newline they can definately put one there, and that newline does make for some nasty editing. I say we remove the newline between the end of the template and the tag. Int21h 08:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps LOC?
Since this template's name as a proper noun abbreviated, perhaps it should be "LoC" or "LOC".
As "loc", it looks like "location".
Varlaam (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Inline
Would love to see this template support a wording for inline citations with attribution. See e.g. {{Catholic Encyclopedia}}, {{EB1911}}, {{Gray's}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Cleanup effort
If anyone wants to help out replacing these templates with more precise footnotes, here is a way to do so fairly easily. I have created properly formatted footnotes for most of the country studies here, and will continue to make more. At this link, I have a list of articles that use the {{Loc}} template and a linked comparison to LOC country studies and/or country profiles that their content may be drawn from. With this information, you can add footnotes to the article. Here is an example of one I did.[1] Particularly for country studies (as opposed to the short PDF country profiles), it is a good idea to add page numbers to the footnote supplied at the link. The page numbers can be determined by looking at the earwig comparison report itself. (The number follows the text of the page.) Occasionally it is necessary to revise the article so that it matches what the LOC source says, in case there have been intervening unsourced revisions. Once you have added the footnotes, you may remove the {{Loc}} template. If the earwig report does not find any copying, please note the issue on the cleanup page and don't simply remove the {{Loc}} template. For some of these, there may be a different country study the content is coming from (e.g. Vietnam for Japan-Vietnam relations), or some other uncommon situation. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)