Template talk:Cite news/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Work vs. Publisher

Resolved

 – Question answered clearly, and well covered in updated template doc; template code fix issue moved to #Publisher italics.

Can you add a usage note clarifying the difference between work and publisher? It appears that both parameters were formerly covered by org. --Muchness 11:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Param work has nothing to do with param publisher. The old org param of news reference has been renamed to publisher in cite news. The param work is a new param that was not present on {{news reference}}. Just don't specify it when converting news references to cite news. --Ligulem 12:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Muchness 12:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the examples help. The only example for "work" doesn't really fit for a news reference. I wonder how many people used "org" for the name of the magazine or newspaper (as I did on List of people with epilepsy) and find that this probably fits better with "work" rather than "publisher". I do agree that org==publisher but I thought it worth pointing out that when converting the template-usage, it might need more than an automatic change in order to do the best job. For example:

work=The Observer | publisher=Guardian Newspapers Limited

work=The Sunday Times | publisher=Times Newspapers Limited

Another thing that is not clear is whether to use the newspaper name or the online name. For example: A story may be published in The Guardian but the online media source is Guardian Unlimited, which has its own editorial staff and may well have a slightly different article to the printed one. Perhaps guidance should be given in this template-talk as to what to use. My guess is that the online "work" should be used. Colin°^Talk 12:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably the most sensible way to look at it is that publisher is the organisation which published the news item, whereas work would be the forum in which it was published. For on-line news sources work is likely to be most appropriate; for newspapers and the like, both might be useful. For example, if you take a look at my edit on TUPE, it enables me to specify exactly which publication the items appeared in: I changed it from {{cite journal}} because it comes from the news section of a weekly gazette and {{cite news}} seemed more appropriate. Always bear in mind that information can be adjusted later, but only if it is actually there to be adjusted. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Difference between "work" and "publisher"?

Can you explain more clearly the difference between "work" and "publisher" fields? (And put some real life examples in the examples section.) I added a COinS tag to the article and matched up the "work" field with Dublin Core's "source" field ("A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived. The present resource may be derived from the Source resource in whole or in part"), and the "publisher" field with the "publisher" field ("An entity responsbile for making the resource available. Examples of Publisher include a person, an organization, or a service. Typically, the name of a Publisher should be used to indicate the entity."). But in many places I see this template being used, the "publisher" field contains the name of the greater work the article is included in ("New York Times", etc.) Is this the way it's meant to be used? — Omegatron 04:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And as a sort of followup to this, why is "publisher" italicized? If I'm interpreting this example correctly:

{{cite news | first=John | last=Doe | title=News | url=http://www.url.com/ | work=Encyclopedia of Things | publisher=News co. | pages= 37–39 | date=[[2005-11-21]] | id={{ISSN|0028-0836}} | accessdate=2005-12-11}}

→ Doe, John (2005-11-21). "News". Encyclopedia of Things. News co. pp. 37–39. ISSN 0028-0836. Retrieved 2005-12-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

then the "publisher" is the entity responsible for publishing the greater "work"; i.e., this "News co." publishes the Encyclopedia of Things. If that's the case, then "publisher" doesn't need italics. It should be listed in plain text, as one wouldn't, for example, italicize New York Times Company when referring to the group that publishes The New York Times. I usually omit "publisher" entirely when referencing news periodicals, but there are times when it's useful information to have. Esrever 20:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If I am right about the fields, then yes, only the work should be italicized. — Omegatron 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of work

Don't worry, this is not a physics problem. I am using this Cite_news template to cite news sources such as USA Today and Austin American-Statesman. In reading the discussion above, it seems as though we are to use the "work" parameter for the name of the magazine.

If that is the case then I think the instructions for this template are deficient. The currennt explanation is:

work: Such as a column, sub part of issue, multi-part work.

That does not sound to me like it is the place to put the name of a magazine or newspaper. Is this where one should put New York Times when referencing a story from that paper? If so, then I suggest we change the description to say:

work: Such as a magazine or newspaper name

That seems to me to get more to the heart of how this template would generally be used. Johntex\^talk 01:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The "publisher" field, despite its name, has always been intended to be used for the publication. It answers the question "Who ran the story we are citing/linking to?" Also, metadata for the publication was linked to this fields when COinS tags were added to the templates months ago. Circeus 04:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is what I used to believe too, but there are two discussion sections here on this page: Template_talk:Cite_news#.22work.22_or_.22publisher.22.3F and Template_talk:Cite_news#Publisher_italics that contradict that. If you read the second section, you will see that within the past couple of months we actually changed the template to no longer italicize "publisher". So, if one wants the name of the publication to be correctly italicized, one now has to put it in the "work" field. Johntex\^talk 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; the consensus appears to be strongly against Circeus's interpretation (and not just here, but at talk pages of related templates). I've updated the wording of the documentation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Publisher italics

Resolved

 – Requested changes made to template

{{editprotected}}

The "Publisher" is italicized. It shouldn't be. Only "Work" should be in italics (unless I'm misunderstanding the fields). You would italicize "Detroit Free Press" but not "Gannett Newspapers".—Chowbok ☠ 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed them, but if someone adds them again I won't argue about it. CMummert · talk 16:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. — Omegatron 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah! This change just broke a LOT of citations! Editors (such as myself) often put the publication title in publisher and omit work, its very rare to see something that includes both the newspaper and the owner of the paper. The previous implementation, if I understood it correctly, italicized the publisher if the "work" was omitted, but did NOT italicize the publisher if it wasn't. See for example, the cite web template used at Walter Mossberg - WSJ is italicized, Dow Jones is not. The two newspaper citations, where work was omitted, no longer italicize the publication. GabrielF 18:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the previous implementation italicized the publisher always, no matter if the work was present. I think it is possible to add italics to the work, or the publisher if the work is not present, but such change may confuse everyone (in some citations the italics would mean work, in others it would mean publisher). -- ReyBrujo 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

GabrielF, why did you "put the publication title in publisher and omit work"? Why not use the correct fields? Colin°^Talk 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please understand, a LOT of editors have done this. I recognize that it was incorrect and I'm not sure where I picked up the habit, perhaps the documentation was unclear at the time, I apologize for the mistake.

The more important issue is that a lot of citations have been broken. To demonstrate, take the first 5 articles linked to The New York Times (What Links Here) that use this template: Allen Ginsberg, Apple Inc., Aung San Suu Kyi, Adrian Lamo, Atlanta, Georgia -- all of them have at least one citation that put the newspaper title in the publisher field. I know that this change was completely well-intentioned, but unfortunately its caused inconsistencies due to errors in the use of the template.

The solution is simply to italicize the publisher field if and only if the work field is blank. GabrielF 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the solution is to fix the template usage in all the instances that it is broken. Could probably be done easily with AWB. —Chowbok ☠ 23:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting the work in the publisher field is doubly wrong because the whole point of these templates is to generate machine readable metadata, and that metadata will be wrong if you put the work title in the publisher field. This is independent of the appearance of the citation that the template generates - it's no big deal if "New York Times" ends up unitalicized for a while. CMummert · talk 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not "the whole point of these templates", for the record.  :-) Just another benefit. — Omegatron 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that fixing this "broke" some citations that were misusing the template, but they should simply be fixed to use the template properly. The template should not continue doing something incorrect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Stale

 – No discussion in over a year.

A bot is changing old "deprecate" "Citenews" with this new template "Cite news", supposedly better. The only change I've noticed is a negative one: "org=" is replaced by "publisher=" (all right), but while it was a wikilink before, now it's just plain text. So the whole process of making entries about common sources ("org" or "publisher") in order to be able with one little click to know where the info comes from has been cancelled. CAn somebody knowledgeable put this wikilink back? If not, why declare the old template deprecated if it's, for the time being, better than the new one? Lapaz 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lapaz. I've changed inclusions of {{citenews}} to {{cite news}} (note the space in the latter). The reason is, that it is better to have a smaller number of citation templates than several nearly equal templates for the same purpose. If you want to have the publisher linked, you can do that by specifying [[..]] on the call. Example (found in Cycling):

• "Bicycle Seat Neuropathy, follow up". eMedicine. February 8, 2006. Retrieved 2006-03-20. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

All the other citation templates do not link the publisher. BTW it is not a bot that changed the calls. I'm doing that manually by using the specialized browser WP:AWB. I check each diff before saving, exactly as when done with a normal browser. --Ligulem 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How can we get WikiBib updated to reflect this change? Or can we make our own version of this wonderfully convenient automated reference-maker? Harro5 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

qwikly.com is offline, but from what I've read it shouldn't be too hard to do. If you can cite a known good and online version of WikiBib, I'd be happy to take a crack at it. RossPatterson 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Authors?

Resolved

 – Requested changes made; use coauthors=.

How would one cite a news story written by muliple authors? Is it as easy as:

{{cite news
| author=John Doe, Jane Doe, Moe Dough
| url=http://www.url.com/
| title=News
| work=Encyclopedia of Things
| publisher=News corp.
| pages= 37–39
| date=[[2005-11-21]]
| accessdate=2005-12-11
}}

Which would look like: John Doe, Jane Doe, Moe Doe (2005-11-21). "News". Encyclopedia of Things. News corp. pp. 37–39. Retrieved 2005-12-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

-- Joebeone (Talk) 16:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's ok. As a side note: see {{cite book}}) for a more complicated mechanism to handle multiple authors. There the authors are usually written as last, first. But doing as you wrote above is ok. --Ligulem 16:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The coauthors= field of {{cite book}} has long since been added to this template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Date vs. accessdate

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

Is there a reason that there are no wikilinks in the date-parameter, while there are some in the accessdate-parameter? So "date=July 2006" becomes "July 2006", while "accessdate=July 2006" becomes "[[July 2006]]". If no one objects, I'll remove the linkage in the accessdate-parameter, because currently it produces redlinks like "[[July 22, 2006]]". --Conti|✉ 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do object the removal of the link on accessdate. This would break existing calls. Specify the accessdate as YYY-MM-DD (as required by the docu above on this page here), then there is no redlink. This should be kept consistent with {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} (and others). Also, "date" must not be linked in the template code. Otherwise calls would break too, because some editors want that linked and some not. See also the discussions on the other citation templates and on this talk page here. "date" can also be somewhat uncertain, that's why it cannot be linked in the template code. For example, if you know just the month and the year but don't know the date of the month. This shouldn't happen on accessdate, because this is always a full exact date, as we assume the editor does know when he accessed that link. --Ligulem 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, must've overlooked that we should the YYYY-MM-DD format, the link works with that format. I didn't knew that [[2006-05-31]] will become 2006-05-31, so nevermind, then. --Conti|✉ 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The publication date is not automatically wikilinking when using the "YYYY-MM-DD" format, as I understood it should from the template instruction. Please correct me if I'm wrong... RJASE1 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm a moron - found the original discussion. RJASE1 20:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

New template proposed: distinguishing news vs. abstract vs. full text

Resolved

 – Just an old FYI.

We're discussing what a more integrated template could look like: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced GA#New template proposed. Please comment if you wish. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Link accessdate

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

Can an admin please link accessdate - This needs to be a link so that the date preference of users will display the date the way they prefer. --Trödel 01:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thx - --Trödel 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested to know why this was unlinked, especially considering discussion a few sections up about whether or not it should be linked or not. Jude (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Was apparently a uniateral edit from User:Kaldari. He/She wasobviously not aware of the non-context reasons why this date is linked. Circeus 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Messy prose

Resolved

 – Wrong venue; take it up at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes (but use of templates like this already has broad consensus anyway.

The use of it in articles makes the code quite messy, especially when there are several citations in the same paragraph or sentence, and therefore harder to edit for those unfamiliar with templates and wikicode. I think the idea of inserting a huge block of template code right in the middle of article prose should be reconsidered.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please bring your issues regarding this to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, not here. Circeus 14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's this type of template and template-usage I'm objecting to, not the notion of having footnotes or the <ref>"citation"</ref>-method.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If <ref> were'nt used, tere wouldn't be a "huge block of template code right in the middle of article prose" in the first place. And if the template weren't used, you'd still have a "huge block of stuff right in the middle of article prose". The templates are highly useful to keep formatting consistent and push for inclusio of the proper informations, and their use is not going to stop anytime soon. Circeus 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacing one reasonably big blob of text right in the middle of prose with a downright gigantic blob of text just to make people use a very established and intuitive referencing format doesn't seem constructive. It's the end result with the least fuss that should be the focus, not the use of a certain template.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody requires you to use any of the citation templates. Some editors like them some not. They are used on a per article consensus. Just please don't go around and remove the calls from articles. There's no consensus for doing such a thing. --Ligulem 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for reference, Peter Isotalo reverted this (a "gigantic blob of text"?)

• {{cite news |url=http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=500469 |title=Svenskan blir inte officiellt språk |publisher=[[Sveriges Television]] |date=2005-12-07 |accessdate=2006-07-23 |language=Swedish}}

and replaced it with

• http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=500469 Svenskan blir inte officiellt språk], ''[[Sveriges Television]]'', 2005-12-07. Retrieved on 2006-07-23. (in Swedish)

The article in question, Swedish language, didn't have any proper news references before, so I don't think I was breaking any article consensus. And Peter Isotalo, regarding "very established and intuitive referencing format": you realize of course that you forgot to link the dates, or perhaps you hate this template as much as you love ISO 8601.

In my opinion, the focus should be on creating the best encyclopedia possible, not nitpicking about the behind-the-screen style of other editors. At the very least one can try to compromise (such as keeping template, but without newlines). We can take the rest of the discussion elsewhere. -- Woseph 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We do not establish standards here, whether this template (or any of the citation templates) should be used or not. We can only provide templates that are requested and used per consensus on a set of articles. If you have a strong contributor on an article that refuses the use of this template, then don't use it. The only thing you can do is discuss the pros and cons on that article. But in the end, there will be no right solution. What's certainly not appropriate is, if someone would go around and do mass removals of these template calls without consensus. But if use of these templates is refused on an article, then please discuss it on that article. Not here. Specifically to Peter I would like to say that I see no point in noting your personal dislike about the citation templates here. If you don't like them, then don't use them. Please respect that others find them useful. For example {{cite book}} is used on more than 15'000 pages. So it can't be a complete failure. The basic idea of these templates is to encapsulate how a book or whatever is displayed in a single place, namely in the template code. Thanks to this, changes to a format can be done in one place.
The germans wrote the "code" (pseudo code) in instructions to be manually followed by humans [1]. Any change to that is pointless, so the first shot of these rules must be perfect. Most later changes are impossible to enact on existing references.
We already have enough bots going around and tweaking the same silly thing on thousands of pages. Another plus of the use of these templates is, that you have a description of the data in the wiki-source (this is called meta data). So there is no doubt about which info is the title and which is the author. Not even for computers reading it. Please consider that it might be worth to have a little more to type on articles in return for more ease of maintenance and overall quality of the encyclopedia. --Ligulem 22:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

URL & Format

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

Several other cite templates allow an additional parameter of format to indicate where a given URL links to something other than an html web page (see Template:cite press release). The explanation given in these other templates is:

**'''format''': Format, i.e. PDF. Don't specify for HTML (implied as default). 

Should/can this be added to this template - template is currently protected, but as a 1st attempt I think the following code would work: David Ruben ^Talk 01:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|“|"}}{{#if: {{{url|}}}
   |[{{{url}}} {{{title}}}] {{#if: {{{format|}}} | &#32 ;({{{format}}}) }}   (remove space between '32' & ';')
   |{{{title}}}

Arrows next to links

Resolved

 – Wrong venue; would have to be discussed WP-wide at WP:VPP, and would also require major alterations to WP:MOS, which are incredibly unlikely to happen.

I think the arrows should be removed from the links. Links to external sites appear as a different color, and I think it would look better in lists of references. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The arrows are what identify external links from wikilinks, e.g. the inline link this, from wikilinks UK. Whilst the citation templates will link to external sources, some of the citation details may stil be wikilinks (e.g. to author or publisher). Hence "News report X". BBC. 2006..

Overall cite-news should follow the same use of arrows as the other citation templates (whatever that might be). David Ruben ^Talk 12:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but on my browser, the links show up as two different colors and are easy to distinguish. I also think that a user wouldn't mistake a title like "Are Israel's Military Operations in Lebanon Proportional?Is Israel Guilty of War Crimes? What International Law Really Says" as an internal link. I think people would figure it out pretty quickly that links of article titles in references go to the articles. As for other templates, changing this one might lead to others being changed, I don't know. --MZMcBride 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The default Wikipedia skin (Monobook) colors both internal and external links in similar shades of blue. It can indeed be hard to distinguish them. In any case, this isn't a template issue. The Cascading Style Sheets used to build the skins insert the arrows on every external link. It's OK for you not to like it, but you'll have to complain about it on the skin pages, not here. RossPatterson 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as a matter of reference, external links can be "de-arrowed" using a <span> tag. Example. But, it seems consensus is against me, oh well.... --MZMcBride 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one is mid-blue and other is bluish-purple. Interesting to know where the arrow comes from. PS please comment on suggestion for format parameter above :-) David Ruben ^Talk 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This would need to be taken up at the Village Pump or some other place, as a consensus discussion on whether to keep using arrows for ext. links; there is absolutely no justification for making this one template out of thousands not go with the very long-standing Wikipedia consensus on this matter. Good luck. PS: The fact that some people's monitors and/or eyeballs fairly clearly distinguish between the two link types' shades of blue is irrlevant, since this is not true for all (esp. considering color-blind people; WP:MOS strongly deprecates using color alone as a distinguisher of anything in Wikipedia, for very well-known accessibilty reasons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New template limits

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

May I kindly ask an empowered soul to change the template according to what I wrote at User:Ligulem/tlim? Example what should be done here [2]. --Ligulem 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Conti|✉ 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation language

Resolved

 – No interest in this proposal shown at all in well over a year; conflicts with WP:V and WP:NOR.

I note there is a language field to denote the language an article is in. What about a field for the orginal / translated language title? Intangible 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just use the original; even if you are a fluent speaker of both languages, Wikipedians have no way of knowing whether your translation was accurate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Indicating news stories from paid archives

Resolved

 – "Format" parameter now handles this.

Many newspapers now put articles into archives which are accessible only through paid subscriptions or per-article fees. Editors often add a citation when a news story is fresh and freely available, and then the article moves to the paid archive. What is the best way to indicate, in footnotes referencing those articles, that an article is available online only for a fee? The information is still available, but the reader has to either pay the fee or find it the old-fashioned way, at a library with newspaper archives (microfische, or whatever). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This was recently discussed elsewhere and the concensus seemed to be use the site to the fee locaiton but warn payment required or fee so some poor dialup person doesn't wait 30 sec only to find out they have to pay. --Trödel 04:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I was wondering whether there was a way to include this in the template. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question - I can't do it since they locked these down - but a "format" parameter is included in other cite templates and it is a good place to put fee required or something. --Trödel 04:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a sufficient understanding of template syntax to add that parameter myself, but if you want I could temporarily unlock the template so you could make the change (assuming that you can do it without affecting the existing usages). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message - went to bed - I would want to test it on Template:X2 or in my userspace to make sure it worked - so that the change would be one edit - because of the number of articles that use this template - we don't want to be experimenting on it. --Trödel 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already made suggestion & request to add 'format' parameter above with a (?good) guess at the markup required - but no one obliged - see Template talk:Cite news#URL & Format. David Ruben ^Talk 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks User:Josiah Rowe for letting me add the format parameter. Please note that the format parameter is not conditional on there having been a defined url. Now clearly this would be silly if the parameter is just to be used to describe non-html formats of an external link (e.g. PDF, Word's DOC, Excel's XLS etc), but it does make sense if format covers wider aspects of the nature of a link - such as for an item moved from original free-view to payment archive (see altered template usage description and the examples at top of this talk page).

• I suggest a short standard phrase is used for such payment links - fee required vs 'payment required'
• Other uses of the format parameter might include Reprint - i.e. the original is not available direct from the original publisher online (includes much of pre-internet material) but some other website has a reprinted version online.

Let me know if any problems with the coding or additional standards we might add to the template's explanation. David Ruben ^Talk 01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the news article is not on the official site, but can be found on http://web.archive.org? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving cats and interwikis to doc subpage

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

Please do save the content I prepared at [3] (in my sandbox) to template:cite news. Please use an edit summary "cats and interwikis moved to {{/doc}}". Thanks. --Ligulem 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --cesarb 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The authorlink option

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

Can someone add "authorlink" option to this template? I'm trying to add a link to Pam Shriver in refs of Justine Henin-Hardenne article. It seems to be available in some cites like book and conference but not on some... —Jared Hunt September 6, 2006, 09:28 (UTC)

Have you tried author=[[Pam Shriver]]? That'd make the author name a link. --Bobblehead 12:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess [[Pam Shriver|Shriver, Pam]] works. Authorlink wouldn't be a bad idea either though. Thanks for the tip. —Jared Hunt September 6, 2006, 14:24 (UTC)

Done. --Ligulem 09:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Resolved

 – Apparently resolved by doing what {{Cite web}} does.

Could someone change the languages so that they are in the format of Template:Languageicon? – Zntrip 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed on Template_talk:Cite_web#Language_icon (rejected) and Template_talk:Cite_web#Language (done, on a trial basis). Per the latter, no complaints received so far. --Ligulem 08:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What about using | <span style="font-size: 0.95em; font-weight: bold; color:#555; position: relative;">({{{language}}})</span> directly in this template as it's been done in cite web.

Shouldn't we try to remain consistent, so the different styles of (in English) and (in English) don't need to appear next to each other? Delta Tango • Talk 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a bit odd. The consensus finding over multiple templates could be improved. Last problem was on Template_talk:Cite_book#Language_parameter (Ruud objected changing cite book to match cite web). I'm a bit unsure how to proceed now. --Ligulem 10:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the language icons, like those used on cite web are not used? I’ve brought this up before, but no one has given an objection and nothing has been done. – Zntrip 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

cite web does not have any language icons, it only shows the original language as free text of the parameter value and encloses this in brackets. Or am I missing something here ? David Ruben ^Talk 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I ment. The template isn't used, but the same style is. – Zntrip 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur that the two templates should do the same thing. We can almost certainly just borrow the code directly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I think it would look much nicer if the language parameter was in grey and parentheses like of Template:Cite web. There is no reason why it cannot or should not be done on this template. It clearly shows the language or the source making it easier for a reader to find or disregard references of a certain language. – Zntrip 21:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the language parameter of {{Cite web}} is currently under discussion at Template talk:Cite web#Parameter language. RossPatterson 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears language is still bold in Template:Cite web. There should be consensus for a change like this. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but seeing that this issue has been brought to attention previously several times and on all occasions was met with no opposition and few or no comments, I will insist that the edit be made or reasonable objections be brought forth. – Zntrip 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, but I think I forgot to mention that it also needs to be in bold face to match Template:Cite web. – Zntrip 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The code was copied directly from Template:Cite web. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that Template:Cite web had been changed, thank you. – Zntrip 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd behaviour

Resolved

 – Formatting issue explored, and template doc updated to account for it.

Anyone have a guess where I'm going wrong with this footnote? I've rewritten the note repeatedly, but can't seem to get it to display right. Never seen this happen before. --Rrburke 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What's wrong with that? Seems to look fine for me (just did a quick look). --Ligulem 19:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Maybe it's my side -- not sure. This is what I'm seeing: note number, period, space, carat, double quote, left square bracket, the article URL, the external link icon, the article title, right square bracket, double quote, comma. Does my screen capture not match what you see? --Rrburke 20:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I see too. It's wrong, though. It appears to be getting confused by the end-of-line in the middle of the title= value (i.e., between "'Borat," and "Der lustigste"). When I replace that with a space, it works. Here is the original:

"Ali G. ist 'Borat', Der lustigste Mann der Welt". Süddeutsche.de (website of Süddeutsche Zeitung). 2006-10-31. Retrieved 2006-11-04. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 20 (help)

and here is the version without the line-break:

"Ali G. ist 'Borat', Der lustigste Mann der Welt". Süddeutsche.de (website of Süddeutsche Zeitung). 2006-10-31. Retrieved 2006-11-04. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

I can't figure out why it breaks, but that's clearly the problem. RossPatterson 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Old Silver Nails. :) There was a break in the original I copied-and-pasted the title from, right at that spot. --Rrburke 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Well. Rrburke was actually asking about footnote #1 and the error was on footnote #2 :). I didn't look at note #2... (funny :-). Per the line break: Problem is, the MediaWiki parser wants links on a single line of the wiki source. So everything inside [...] must be on the same line (the external link is built by the template using url and title parameter values, so don't add a line break to either of these). No line breaks in between --Ligulem 23:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on which numbering system is being referred to. Going by the note URL, the note which displays as "1" under "References" is actually "note-0," while note 2, which I was asking about, is "note-1" --Rrburke 00:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Whatever. I looked at the wrong note. Sorry. --Ligulem 00:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

International Standard Serial Number

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

Any thoughts on adding an ISSN field to the cite news template, I often see them on news search sites and apparently they identify the source.Alan.ca 08:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. We could copy over the "id" tag from "cite book", actually, that would work fine. I just tried adding the {{ISSN}} to "cite book" and this is what it gave me, it looks good:

Bloggs, Joe. 1000 Acres (2nd Edition ed.). ISSN 0028-0836. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

— coelacan talk — 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we get an "id" paramter here? — coelacan talk — 22:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added an "id" parameter [4]. --Ligulem 23:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. — coelacan talk — 04:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

ISSN

Any interest in adding the International Standard Serial Number to this template? It seems to be a ISO standardized index number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs)

I was just going to suggest the same thing. issn= would be better than id={{issn.... — Omegatron 03:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already in there; see older thread on same topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Resolved

 – Requested changes made. Interwikis now go in the /doc page anyway.

• no:Template talk:Cite news

--Lipothymia 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done

• sl:Predloga:Navedi novice
  • Done—Phil | Talk 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer necessary to post such requests here; just put the interwikis in the /doc subpage with the rest of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Error in footnote numbering

Resolved

 – Wrong venue.

Can anyone explain what seems to be an error in the auto footnote numbering using <ref> blah </ref>. When I highlight the superscript 1 it says "Go to #_note-0 on this page" instead of note-1. Any reason? --mervyn 14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like the page you're looking for is WP:VPT or WP:FN. Circeus 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Function?

Resolved

 – Question clearly answered, and template doc explains it well now.

Other than allowing the order of the source details to be rearranged, what does the template do that the ref-tags don't?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is often used with the ref tags. It standardizes the order of the elements and the punctuation between them, and (I've read) other sites can more easily "read" the elements if they're discrete and separately identified. --zenohockey 01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is "curly" a parameter

Resolved

 – WP:MOS is very clear on this matter; no longer any such parameter

Shouldn't this either be always on or always off? Is there a style guide on use of curly quotes? --Random832 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Quotations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Resolved

 – No consensus to change quoting behavior.

The quotation marks ("") around the title attribute should be removed. There are many news articles that begin with citation marks, and in those cases it will be displayed twice (see for example the reference section in the article Sverker Åström). /Slarre 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, though, if there are more articles with the quotation marks (you mean quotation marks, right?) or more without? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, quotation marks (sorry for my bad English). There are probobly more articles without quotation marks in the header, but still there are many that contain it. The template should work in all cases IMO. /Slarre 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}. I don't think the just deleting the quotation marks is worthwhile, because most of the time they ought to be there, and most of the time they should not be typed as if they were part of the title. This template has to add them.

It would be ideal for these templates to work in all cases, but for now they only work for the most common cases, and less common things have to tbe done by hand.

Have you looked into any style guides to see how they recommend formatting these citations? My guess is that you should use a single quote for the newspaper's quotes and a double quote from the template. CMummert · talk 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the Harvard system recommends using single quotation marks (' ') instead of double (" ") around the title in a reference list. /Slarre 22:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're hitting software limitation. It's simpler to just leave it as is (it's not like the reference becomes misleading or incorrect) than to work in a fix that will hardly, if ever be used.Circeus 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not use single quotation marks? That's what the Harvard system recommends, and would make the difference between the template and the actual article title more legible. /Slarre 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well-intentioned people may have used single quotation marks in the title field to avoid the double-double problem... --zenohockey 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

URL in authorlink replaces author surname (last parameter) with first name

Resolved

 – Just a misunderstanding; template doc clarified.

Can this be fixed? When URL entered for "authorlink" parameter, displays as [Firstname]. I think it should show [Lastname]

authorlink with first and last

My main concern is when entering first and last parameters, template displays first as authorlink. I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

Fox, Michael J. "Iron without irony". {{cite web}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help)

{{cite web
 | url = http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/08/05/bird/index.html
 | title = Iron without irony
 | last = Fox
 | first = Michael J.
 | authorlink = http://www.salon.com/archives/1999/col_srag.html
 }}

authorlink with author = "Firstname Lastname"

Given just author parameter, the template seems to snip the first name. This works pretty well if in "Firstname Lastname" order, as long as there is no middle name or initial.

Michael von Braun. "Iron without irony". {{cite web}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help)

{{cite web
 | url = http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/08/05/bird/index.html
 | title = Iron without irony
 | author = Michael von Braun
 | authorlink = http://www.salon.com/archives/1999/col_srag.html
 }}

authorlink with author = "Lastname, Firstname"

But template doesn't guess (from the comma) author name is in "Lastname, Firstname" order.

Sragow, Michael. "Iron without irony". {{cite web}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help)

{{cite web
 | url = http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/08/05/bird/index.html
 | title = Iron without irony
 | author = Sragow, Michael
 | authorlink = http://www.salon.com/archives/1999/col_srag.html
 }}

authorlink with author, first & last parameters

Entering an additional parameter for author does not fix the problem (regardless of author order relative to first and last). If last were displaying correctly, author probably should not override it anyway.

Sragow, Michael. "Iron without irony". {{cite web}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

{{cite web
 | url = http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/08/05/bird/index.html
 | title = Iron without irony
 | author = Michael Sragow
 | last = Sragow
 | first = Michael
 | authorlink = http://www.salon.com/archives/1999/col_srag.html
 }}

/ edgarde 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The authorlink= parameter is for Wiki-links, not URLs, like the documentation says. It builds a link a la either [[authorlink|last, first]] or [[authorlink|author]] depending on how the author is specified. The template language doesn't make it possible to add the two alternatives you need: [authorlink last, first] or [authorlink author]. RossPatterson 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks. / edgarde 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird

Resolved

 – Question clearly answered.

Why does the date part need 2007-05-12 while access date only need 2007-05-12 (to become 2007-05-12). Shouldn't they be the same. I request a change! SpecialWindler 07:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The accessdate will always have day, month and year, so it is automatically wikilinked to allow user date preferences to work. The date part might only have a month and year (for instance) and so is wikilinked by hand when there is sufficient info. Trebor 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Error in the COinS tag?

Resolved

 – Requested changes made to template.

Towards the end of the COinS tag:

{{#if: {{{page|}}}      | &rft.spage={{urlencode:{{{pages}}}}}         }}<!-- Start page for parts (of a book), i.e. "124"

Shouldn't that be {{{page}}} the second time too? --Tgr 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Fixed. — Omegatron 02:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Subst

Resolved

 – Question clearly answered.

Why can't this template be substituted? Savidan 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It can. But it shouldn't because then if the style is changed the substitted instances don't get updated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also because then the entirety of this monstrously messy template is included in the article, causing confusion and agony. --zenohockey 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Subst'ing this would be a terrible mistake! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Add archiveurl and archivedate parameters?

Resolved

 – Requested changes made.

{{editprotected}} From Template:Cite web:

• archiveurl: URL of the archive location of the item (requires archivedate)
• archivedate: Date when the item was archived (requires archiveurl), in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked; it will be linked automatically.

It would be useful to have these same parameters available with this template. News items often become dead links, and while sites like http://www.archive.org make the recovery of these articles possible, the original url should also be referenced to provide readers with complete source information. Template:Cite web seems to have done this one exactly right. Copy and paste, please? --HailFire 21:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If consensus develops to do this I'll edit the template. But first it needs to be discussed, implemented, and tested. Then add an editprotected tag; the point of that tag is for quick admin attention, which is not needed here yet. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the suggestion and strongly endorse it. I can't see how it would be particularly controversial, and and at the moment, I'm being forced to either misuse {{Cite web}} or not use citation templates at all in such cases, so I'd say that it would be extremely useful. I'll make an experimental sandbox version if nobody else jumps on this. Xtifr _tälk 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While a good idea, I haven't actually seen too many news sources that are in the Internet Archive. —Dispenser 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I coded up the version in cite web, I figured I'd do this one too. There is an updated template at User:RossPatterson/cite news that is a complete replacement for this template. The only changes are the archiveurl and archivedate additions. There is also an updated documentation page at User:RossPatterson/cite news/doc, which includes examples with archiveurl and archivedate. RossPatterson 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some minor changes to to the {{cite web}} archive support being discussed at Template talk:cite web#accessdate option. If and when it crystalizes, I'll port the changes over to this template as well. RossPatterson 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've applied your trial User:RossPatterson/cite news template to a few Internet Archive linked cites at Barack Obama. Looks to be working just as needed. Will switch to the regular template:cite news when the archiveurl and archivedate parameters are available there. Thanks. --HailFire 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of news stories ARE archived at Newsbank and Lexus Nexus, etc. But there's no good way to direct link, AFAIK. Also most of those databases charge. But I've noticed most newspapers prevent archival without permission, e.g. by the internet archive. --W.marsh 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the positive feedback from HailFire above and no negative feedback, I'm going to ask to have the current template contents replaced with those of my trial template. RossPatterson 19:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected|Please replace the entire contents of this template with the contents of User:RossPatterson/cite news as discussed above.}} RossPatterson 19:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace the entire contents of this template with the contents of User:RossPatterson/cite news. The changes at Template:Cite web that I mentioned above seem to be working well and this change will add them to this template. RossPatterson 02:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)