This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Can an adminstrator delete the ((CatholicEncyclopedia)) template? It has been deprecated in favor of the ((Catholic)) template, all articles using the template have been removed. Thanks Reflex Reaction 16:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Can someone add a list of the symbols used to indicate foreign language websites? The only ones I know are ((svenska)) (giving ) for Swedish and ((de icon)) (giving ) for German. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Brian Ryans 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
In the very top table, wouldn't it need a "Where it goes" section for consistency with the other sections? I'd add it myself but I'm still working on learning Wiki.
A number of Star Wars related articles have begun using content from Wookieepedia, which as a part of WikiCities, is distributed under the GFDL[citation needed]. Would it be appropriate to create ((Wookieepedia)) to mark those articles, link back to the original work and the edit history? [citation needed] --SparqMan 08:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you feel that the following templates should be added to the list?
Thanks for considering this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
There may be a better forum to ask this sort of thing, but maybe someone here can at least point me in the right direction. I'm curious whether the citation templates lend themselves to programmatic aggregation. I suppose this has something to do with the backend database design, but it might conceivably be accessible via some of the robot libraries available for Python, Perl, Java, etc.
The sort of thing I have in mind is, e.g.:
Obviously, all this could only work inasmuch as editors use the citation templates, and use them relatively consistently. But this sort of robot-ish stuff could be very useful in obtaining citation consistency across articles, and on indexing/navigating sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I just created the {request quote} template. Anyone who has been involved in articles engaged in heavy edit warring and POV pushing knows that sometimes people --let's just say "misinterpret" sources. When someone makes an assertion about what a source says, and doesn't provide a quote, and the source is not available online or it is very obscure, checking the editor's interpretation can be very challenging or impossible. The template requests that a quote from the source being interpreted is provided on the Talk page so that we can see that the editor has interpreted the source correctly, and also whether he just made something up. Sure, he can make up a quote, but it's much more unlikely. I think this is crucial if we are to have a somewhat reliable encyclopedia. RJII 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that four templates have been nominated for deletion:
This Wiki page indicates that the source placement tag is to be placed at the bottom of the page. Is it appropriate to put it up at the top of the page? Is that a variance acceptable from the source policy? Just want to check, for we have a page where the placement of the source template has become a point of some discussion. Thanks. Ptmccain 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If the referenced book has an editor, show should that be indicated in any of the Book reference style of references? Nereocystis 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess I have the same question, i.e. what about edited volumes. The "Harvard references template" seem to introduce the possibility of referencing chapters in edited volumes. But what about just edited volumes as such? This would be exactly the same as "cite book", but the possibility of identifying the book as an edited volume so as to have "(ed.)" after authors' names. Any idea about this with current templates? Typewritten 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I often need to tag external links section with ((External links)). However, sometimes I see links that could be used as references instead of plainly external links, and somehow using that template isn't right, as users may just delete them instead of adding the information found in them to the article. I suggest creating a new template, one that informs that some external links could be used as references, suggesting editors to move the links there. What do you think? -- ReyBrujo 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
For the templates for use of the now out of copyright PD sources, shouldnt the wording be not " some of this article ..." but rather "some or all of this article" ? The current wording implies quotations; in reality it is likely to be sections or the entirety. Perhaps a template saying "some or all of this article... The part(s) copied have not been indicated", as most of the people doing this do not indicate what part, which is legal but midleading. ? DGG 04:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I see too many long articles that have plenty of references, but no (or very few) inline citations. How about a template marking such articles? (Although I'd like to see such a template, I'm not sure how many others will consider refs-but-not-inline articles to be a serious enough problem to warrant a template.) --Allen 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a standard way I should cite a book giving the ISBN or a key only, something like ((cite isbn=1234)), and then modifying a single entry for this book somewhere? Do you have to create a template yourself? (As here: ((cite isbn=0-521-58519-8|chapter=|pages=4))
) Will this template be deleted? (Sorry I didn't notice the template sandbox before I made this.) -- Nils Grimsmo 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I made up some copy and paste named reference stubs for my own convenience. Just fill in a unique "refname", (or use the short tag for already-defined refs) and fill in the blanks. Feel free to use them, or even incorporate them on this project page. They save me a lot of time not having to add the ref tags to the existing templates. See: User:Crockspot#Often used templates. - Crockspot 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Are there tags which could be used for sources such as
Thanks. I could have used all of these. Notinasnaid 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is all that crap over here? People need to stop pushing these templates forward, there's already a page for them. Aaron Bowen 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Drawing the attention of citation interested editors to this discussion at Village pump (proposals). --HailFire 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
These template message lists are getting too long. They should be split up into even more subpages. See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#subpages for main discussion -Eep² 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to citate the page on D.C. Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_C._Lee) on the part where she was featured on Jazzmatazz vol. 1. I have the CD and would like to citate the source. It only tells you have to citate books and documents.
In the "Requesting sources" section, the word article missing throughout the display of template results. This is obviously some tech issue, but how to fix it is beyond me. Finell (Talk) 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The usage guide for ((Unreferenced)) in this article says 'Where it goes' is 'Articles, in a "References" section' whereas the main article on Unreferenced says, "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page".
I have found that common usage is to place this tag at the top of an article.
I sampled 32 articles with the ((Unreferenced)) tag (all ((Unreferenced)) articles in "Category:Articles lacking sources" from June 2006 through Dec 2006 containing the string "comput") and found that 26 of them had the tag at the top of the article, 4 of them contained the tag in an empty References section, 1 had the tag at the end, and 1 had the tag in a Notes section. Not one was placed in the corresponding article Talk instead.
Can we change the guide for this tag to match ((Unreferenced)), common usage, and other, similar tags?
i.e. "Articles: at the Top, in an empty "References" section, or on top of the talk page."
(I don't like the "talk page" since I believe that that location should be reserved for adding references for a discussion, if then. It is not the talk page that needs references and I don't like removing anything from a talk page. A comment about adding or deleting tags seems to me to be appropriate for a talk page.)
Softtest123 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a template like ((fact)) that says something like "better quality citation needed" or "cited source is not reliable" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've answered my own question there are some in the ((fact)) template:
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
How do I tag a source that leads to a non-English document which is not translated. The reference is completely inaccessible tot he English reader!--mrg3105mrg3105 09:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I often find myself wanting to add one of these templates with the suffix "...and my well be utter made-up bullshit". Is there something like that already, or can one be added? --Dtcdthingy 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be little consistency on guidelines/suggestions for placement of article-level tags:
Given that these templates are closely related, wouldn't it make more sense to have consistent guidelines for their placement, to save confusion? Also, would it be possible to have the guidance on Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles rather than on the individual template pages, for greater visibility? The current convention seems to be to place them at the top of the article, though I've come across at least one activist who seems to be determined to unilaterally change this. HrafnTalkStalk 16:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Absent the option of putting tags on the talk page, the next best place for them is at the bottom of the article. This is especially the case with tags that have to do with references and citations, since the bottom is where the references and citations are. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 16:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Tags are, essentially, opinions not facts, and worse, they are opinions disguised as innocuous adminstrative reminders, which cloaks their true nature. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The question is not whether there are articles which are under-referenced -- there certainly are. (In fact, I would say that the majority of articles on Wikipedia do not have enough references.) There are also articles that are very badly written, articles that need to be expanded, articles that are biased, and articles that need to be "Wikified", and articles that fill the objections of every other of the myriad number of tags that exist. That is not the point. The point is that there is no process in place which regulates the use of these tags, it's left up to the individual judgment of the individual editor, and because of this, the tags do not represented a consensual effort to determine the faults of an article, but the opinion of one editor. Nowhere else on Wikipeia are unfiltered personal opinions given such prominence, and yet people want them to sit at the top of articles, boxed and apparently authoritative, telling people what to think about an article before they have even read it and had the opportunity to decide for themselves! That's just crazy!
If, however, you're able to adjust your perception of tags to see them not as authoritative markers representing the factual state of an article, but as messages from one editor to others about what (in their opinion) needs to be done to the article, then they make a heck of a lot more sense, and clearly the top of the article is not the right place for them. Instead, they belong on the Talk page, perhaps with a marker in the upper right hand corner of the article to indicate that there are clean-up tags associated with the article; and if not on the Talk page, then the next best place is at the bottom of the article. Certainly, putting these bits of opinion, internal memoranda between editors, at the top of the article makes no sense, not under the existing regimen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and attention, but I rather think this conversation has reached the end of its useful life, as we seem to be mostly talking past each other.
BTW, the only "axe" I am grinding is my desire to see Wikipedia be better. I happen to think that rigid dogmatism, in whatever form it takes, is not helpful and does not generally improve the project. As I put it on my user page, my basic philosophy is: Wikipedia exists for the people who use it, not for the people who edit it. Every edit should either improve the factual accuracy of Wikipedia or make it easier and more useful for the reader. Any edit which does not serve these goals is a waste of time and energy, and quite possibly counterproductive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For the template "unreferenced", under the heading "What it makes", it reads "This does not cite any references or sources." The template actually makes "This article does not cite any references or sources." Eleven even (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
note: crossposted from Template talk:Citations missing#Grand Unified Citations Complaint System (GUCCS) by Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account at 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC); signature/timestamp updated; please comment here and not there
Have a look at User:Thinboy00/Template editing#Make a new template, or retool an old one? (please read, title is counterintuitive). Why don't we do that? --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Note:Proposal now has a user sub page at User:Thinboy00/GUCCS (actually a redirect to save virtual ink and typing). --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 02:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Should the references templates identified at User:Thinboy00/GUCCS be merged as explained there? Failing that, should ((citations missing))
be deprecated?
((refimprove))
, you would type ((citations missing|zone=references|level=few|date=(date)|article/section))
. The categories would not be tampered with at all. The advantage is that you don't need to memorise/know about four ref templates (((unreferenced))
, ((refimprove))
, ((nofootnotes))
, ((morefootnotes))
) and you are encouraged to be specific when using this template. Instead, you use one and give it parameters to specify the type of problem. Ideally, the old templates (((refimprove))
etc.) could be set up to transclude this one so the wikitext isn't duplicated and the old names continue to work. --Thinboy00's I am at a loss for how to cite a chapter of a book. Both the book and the chapter will have titles, the book will have editors, the chapter will have authors, and the chapter number should be cited. This seems like a gaping hole that needs to be plugged. Please notice that this question was asked in 2006 (see under "How should an editor be listed in Book reference"). DiagonalArg (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
((cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others= |title= |origdate= |origyear= |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year= |month= |publisher= |location= |language= |isbn= |oclc= |doi= |id= |pages= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= )). The chapter # and title go in the chapter field the author (first, last fields) should be the chapter author and the editors go in the editor field. Then just stick it between <ref> and </ref> and Bob's your uncle, the template will deal with all the formatting and order. (However, don't forget to put a page # in as well). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to request that Dictionary of National Biography be added to the third party listings. | ((tl|DNB)) <br> [[Template talk:DNB|Talk]] | ((DNB)) | Articles <br> near bottom |- Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The template text mentions "Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate" but it doesn't mention how to do this. I think it would help the editor to include a link within the template text to "Wikilinks to full references" (or WP:CITEX) which shows the editor a quick and easy way how to create inline citations from the existing list of full references. Maybe something along the lines of.. "For help on how to do this, see WP:CITEX" or something like that. OlEnglish (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see here for my proposal of a new template, that would be put on articles that need to have their sources globalized - i.e. on articles that rely on a very similar set of sources likely representing one and the same POV.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
What template/tag would be most appropriate to tag an article (or inline) if the source for a portion of an article is from a webpage that requires a password to get into? For example, if a wikipedia page for the American Red Cross included a list of its local Blood Regions which is referenced to a page on the American Red Cross website, however to get to that page, an account and password are required.Naraht (talk)
((Registration required))
, but you can also use ((Verify source))
or ((Dead link))
. It's also possible to create a custom inline message using ((Fix))
, eg. [Password required] -- Ϫ 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)How do I put a reference which for a book which has a URL, but no author link? Nereocystis 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
(( Cite book | last = Anonymous | title = My First Book | publisher = Samizdat | date = 2013 | location = Ghanaian Antarctic Base | pages = 24 | url = http://YouSawItHere1.st ))
How about ((cleanup-verify))? Is it also deprecated?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by gracefool (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Should this template be added to this page? I don't see a location for it. Maybe this article needs a section for "Disputes" over sources? Or just leave it on the templates for disputes page?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJII (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
This may be a matter of British, versus American, usage; if somebody tells me so, I won't persist.
I think that the sections headed:
6 Using the same footnote multiple times
and
7 Using multiple pages from the same source
would be even easier to understand if headed instead:
6 Using the same footnote many times
and
7 Using many pages from the same source
Not a big deal, but I'd like to make this change if nobody objects any time soon.
yoyo (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please find an appropriate place for ((rr)) aka ((PAYWALL))? Thanks, Paradoctor (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Which template should be used for corporate (or other orgs for that matter) annual reports? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a template stating that a citation is broken or expired? I thought so, but I didn't see it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Under the "inline" section the row for ((reference necessary)) displays badly in the "what it makes" column. It displays as [[|[]]] on two different browsers. I suspect that it is because the template needs a parameter but there is no way through the ((tlrow)) template to pass a parameter to the ((reference necessary)) template. Perhaps some template guru can find a way to fix it. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
At User:Noiratsi/sandbox/transclude I have drafted a maintenance tag for articles with circular sources, such as this newly created page. Does such a template already exist? If so I wasn't able to find it. If it doesn't, I'd welcome comments and contributions to my proposed template. Thanks very much! —Noiratsi (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
((circular))
. —Noiratsi (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Is there an inline template for "Too many references" where they include a bunch for some simple point or other in total overkill? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)