Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 5

This is an current talk page .

Resolution of problems

Hi, I'm spending a sunny afternoon sorting out problems with the new version of the template. Please list any other problems you have found, with an example, at

ok, thanks Martin, and noted. Will need a couple of days or thereabouts to give it a go. Will try to get back to you in that timeframe. Regards--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation

Thanks to Martin for the test page and the improvements to the proposed code. The biggest open question seems to be what to do about punctuation. {{Citation}} uses commas to separate fields and has no terminal punctuation. {{Cite journal}}, like other {{Cite XXX}} templates, uses periods to separate fields and also closes with a full stop. Martin has added parameters to control both field separators and terminal punctuation. Now the question remains what to do with them:

1. Default to using {{Citation}}'s punctuation.
   1. Let {{Cite journal}} match {{Citation}} and not match {{Cite XXX}} by default.
   2. Convert the other {{Cite XXX}} templates over simultaneously with {{Cite journal}}
   3. Have a bot update pre-existing uses of {{Cite journal}} so that old references will look the same (matching {{Cite XXX}}, but not {{Citation}}.
2. Default to using {{Cite XXX}}'s punctuation.
   1. Leave {{Citation}} unchanged, meaning that all old uses of the templates will look the same, but {{Citation}} and {{Cite journal}} could be used in the same articles if appropriate parameters were passed (though without other {{Cite XXX}}).
   2. Change {{Citation}}'s default to also match {{Cite XXX}}.

1.1 elicited complaints; 1.2 is a big job; I don't know the feasibility of 1.3 & we might want to try getting most pages converted before implementing the template change if we go that route. 2.1 is essentially what we have now. 2.2 hasn't garnered much support on Citation's talk page. Citation has 25,805 links; Cite journal has 86,051. Cite book and cite web trump them both (over 100K and 300K, respectively). Strictly because of these numbers, I'm leaning to one of the two options under '2.' But numbers aren't the full story, so please raise pros and cons or propose an option that I am missing. --Karnesky (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

cite book and cite web would be the major ones, but there are also others like {{cite conference}}, {{cite press release}}, {{cite news}}, etc etc that are either all or mostly formatted like the original cite journal, ie with periods instead of commas as element separators. To me this would argue for bringing citation's formatting into line with the cite XXX's, instead of the other way around. If a new template core used for both is being proposed here, with a |separator= parameter to switch between periods or commas, I'd suggest that "period" ought to be the default value.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As the "cite xxx" and variants thereof are far more popular and used than citation, going for #2 or props along those lines seems the only feasible way to do anything. And please, let's not add a seperator field and allow people to screw up visual uniformity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that {{Cite journal}} should continue to match the {{Cite xxx}} family. I see no reason to convert to the {{Citation}} style. If editors are interested in converting Citation over to this format, that's another discussion for another day. David's right that we should not have a "destroy uniform appearance" parameter. If editors don't like the Cite xxx style or the Citation style, they may use free text. Pagrashtak 13:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not take numbers into consideration. Programming a bot to perform a task such as the above would be relatively simple. And if uniformity between templates is our goal, the best way to achieve this is for all "cite xxx" to use the same core template. I'm sure some mug^[1] can be duped into doing that... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If a bot is used, I have a criterion to suggest. If the cite is inside <ref></ref> tags, use comma as a separator, because that is the standard outside of Wikipedia for footnotes. Otherwise, use periods, because, outside of Wikipedia, that is the standard for bibliographies and lists of works cited. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The WP style is not consistent with any particular style manual. <ref></ref> tags are often used as endnotes, not foot notes (though both happen). However, what style are you referring to? AMA, APSA, MLA, and NLM use full stops as separators exclusively. APA, ASA, Chicago, MHRA use both full stops and commas (often using the latter for "related" fields, such as between parent publication and date). There are multiple versions of Harvard in common usage, but most use full stops as a separator. The most popular style I can think of that uses commas exclusively is IEEE. I will further note that all above styles use a terminal full stop in reference lists. --Karnesky (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kartensky: Since every Wikipedia article is one page long, endnotes and footnotes are the same thing. I'm familar with two style manuals, APA and Chicago. APA only uses Harvard referencing, so does not apply to footnotes/endnotes. Chicago lets the writer choose between Harvard referencing, which again does not apply to footnotes/endnotes, or footnote/endnote references, which do use commas as the separator. Chicago allows, but does not require, the footnotes/endnotes to be supplemented by a bibliography or list of works cited, which uses full stops as the separator. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some articles that have several reference sections (e.g. one per section), which I would consider "footnote-like." In contrast, the majority of articles that have a single reference section are "endnote-like." Regardless of author-date ("Harvard") vs. numeric citations of the styles listed, my descriptions were how reference lists (as opposed to footnotes) are generated. Because we typically list each reference only once and have a single reference section ordered by first appearance in the article (reusing references by passing the 'name' parameter to <ref></ref>), I think we are generating endnote-like reference lists & should therefore use full stops, as is common practice. --Karnesky (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, numbers aren't the only important thing, but I do think they are of practical importance. The only reasons to ignore them entirely would be if one preferred a less popular style or if that less popular style had some compelling logic behind it. I agree that the other "cite xxx" templates can be migrated over to use the same core (particularly if the "cite journal" migration is successful), but I do not see why the default style of that core should be the one that is used on fewer and less utilized templates. Why change half a million plus uses of templates with a bot, when you can change 26K? I've read no real arguments as to the choice of inter-field commas vs. periods. Unless some are generated, it'd be more expedient to continue using full stops on all Cite XXX templates (

WP:SNOW). There are reasonable arguments on both sides as to whether to end with a trailing full stop or not. This latter issue might have the greatest chance of building consensus to depart from the current style of "Cite XXX." Even this seems like it might be a "hard sell," though. --Karnesky (talk

) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing is an acronym for "Author date" referencing (Example et al 2008) is confusingly not the same as the the Harvard style for formatting references. CiteULike has a reference formatting tool which makes it easy to explore the differences. Anyhow, how about we use a period in "Cite journal" by default for the time being, so we can get the changes in use; if there is a convincing case to switch to commas by default at a later date we can discuss the role of a bot at that juncture. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Final call for grumbles

No-one's commented in over a week; I'm assuming that if the "period" parameter defaults to the current value, we'll be ready to go. I'll re-issue the "speak now or forever hold your silence" ultimatum; if no-one responds in the next day or two we'll make the following edits:

• Replace Template:Cite journal with Template:Cite journal/sandbox
• Replace Template:Citation/core with Template:Citation/core/sandbox (this is the core template used by Citation which the new Cite Journal calls)
• Replace
  template talk:citation
  ; this is necessary to maintain compatibility with the "internal separator" and "trailing punctuation" fixes implemented.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we axe the separator and ending punctuation parameters? Reference templates are designed to create a uniform reference style, and allowing the editor to override consistency on one call seems like a bad idea. Pagrashtak 14:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the overriding view above is that overriding consistency is sometimes a good thing - see the arguments refuted above. I suspect that this debate may drag out; it would be very easy to discontinue the parameters if they did prove to be detrimental, but I suspect that a consensus will only emerge after they have been in use for some time. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is the effect of these code changes? Is {{Citation}} matching the cite XX templates including cite journal, or the other way around? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation would continue not to match by default, but it could be tweaked to match on a page-by-page basis (assuming the punctuation parameters are kept.

I think the punctuation parameters are good because of this, but I'd want to eventually deprecate them. Proposal:

1. Switch to new templates that still default to current punctuation behavior for "cite journal."
2. Make a new proposal on "Citation" (pointing out the volume of references already formatted with full stops & also the massive number of formal citation styles that prefer full stops over commas) to change the punctuation to match all of the "Cite XXX" templates.

-Karnesky (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for coming in so late, but I've noticed something else I think should be fixed. No citation templates put "page" / "pages" before page numbers in their output - brought to my attention in the GA review of

Mollusc, where the reviewer complained that a page num was missing but it was there, just not labelled as such (this case was {{cite book}}, but {{cite journal}} is the same). -- Philcha (talk

) 14:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an editorial decision; the use of the word "page" is not the norm, and should an editor require it, he can set the parameter to "pages = pages 12-20" or "pages = pp. 12-20". If the template used the word by default then editors would be unable to choose the standard format Volume(issue):12-20. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, another one (or maybe two):

• The template should always present output that can be built into prose. I've come across situations like multi-part articles, news releases that summarise academic papers in accessible terms and are available for free, etc.
• A specific case of this - the "Retrieved on" output of the "accessdate" param should appear in parentheses, not as a separate "mini-sentence". -- Philcha (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed "retrieved on" put into brackets. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why was this done? None of the other Cite xxx templates do that, as far as I'm aware. Pagrashtak 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

<Quote name=Philcha>The template should always present output that can be built into prose</quote> Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. It doesn't answer my question of why it was implemented, since it breaks consistency with all other Cite xxx templates. Philcha, if you want that changed you'll need to bring it up at a higher level and get it changed consistently across all Cite xxx templates that use it. Pagrashtak 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Undone until consensus reached. (Position should default to "no change"). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to go

{{

• Replace Template:Cite journal with Template:Cite journal/sandbox
• Replace Template:Citation/core with Template:Citation/core/sandbox (this is the core template used by Citation which the new Cite Journal calls)
• Replace
  template talk:citation
  ; this is necessary to maintain compatibility with the "internal separator" and "trailing punctuation" fixes implemented.

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done

 Done previous edit was reverted as a bug was found, sandbox is now live again. --Salix (talk): 02:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Not done reverted Template:Cite journal kept Template:Citation, Template:Citation/core per comments below. --Salix (talk): 07:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems

New version not that well tested:

• fails to include doi_broken parameter handling
• fails display PMC value when a url is given (title is correctly linked to url in preference to pmc if both are given, but where links to the url, then the pmc should be shown after the PMID value - needed in case journal's access changes when the PMC will still be freely accessible). David Ruben ^Talk 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a space between the volume and issue? right now it prints X(y) instead of X (Y). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please revert. A lot of monkeying with the core template has meant that the cite journal sanboxed code was not tested. Punctuation runs entirely counter to what we had previously agreed to. --Karnesky (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Now reverted, could folks add suitable testcases to Template:Cite journal/testcases. --Salix (talk): 08:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Above bugs now seem to be fixed. --Salix (talk): 11:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The approved version originally had a terminal full stop. The current version does not. --Karnesky (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--Salix (talk): 17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Might have been present in the past sandbox, but I just noticed that the current version does not use 'rft_id=info:doi' in COinS. --Karnesky (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. Fixed. --Salix (talk): 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the edit request, since it seems to have been handled. If I missed something, please accept my apologies and go ahead and re-activate it. --Elonka 03:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Salix has fixed all the bugs (thank you Salix!), so I can't see why the sandbox isn't live. Can we get this up and running now, sooner rather than later? Lots of little changes keep being requested to the old template which are gradually both driving Citation and Cite journal further apart for no cause, and making it more work for us to keep up to speed with the new template. Let's activate the new template, and if there are still bugs with it, let's fix them while it's live - people have had several months to spot them; if they can't be bothered to test the template then in my opinion they don't have much ground to moan if it doesn't work. The more we keep reverting back to the old template the longer this frustrating process drags out. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of those who called for reverting to the original after last minute changes to citation/core failed to address several key points, I agree with Martin. It is time to migrate to the sandboxed code. --Karnesky (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checking, are we talking about Template:Cite journal/sandbox? It appears to be substantially different from Template:Cite journal, so I want to be sure. --Elonka 04:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It will be very different as the sandbox now uses the the Citation/Core backend. The output from the two should however be the same, or improved. Template:Cite journal/testcases contains a number of testcases. More would be good.--Salix (talk): 10:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the sandbox page starts off "{{Citation/core/sandbox". So again, I just want to make sure, should the entire thing from the sandbox page be copied into the live template, verbatim? Or should the "sandbox" word be omitted? I'm not familiar enough with the code to tell if the word "sandbox" is related to the page name, or if it's something different. --Elonka 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you need to copy Template:Citation/core/sandbox to Template:Citation/core, copy Template:cite journal/sandbox to Template:cite journal, and fix the link in to point to Template:Citation/core. --Salix (talk): 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I checked the talkpage for Citation/core, but I'm not seeing any request for an update. I've posted a note there to see if anyone objects to the change. If everyone's okay on it, I'll proceed. --Elonka 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit I have not been following all the details, but the copying procedure described by Salix does not mention copying the documentation. Does this mean that there is no change in function and thus no need to change the documentation? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd better note that a couple of very minor changes (essentially correcting typos) to the sandbox template have been made since the editrequest was first enabled. The current diff is here. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Declining request, since per the thread below, there does not seem to be a solid consensus for one of the preliminary changes. It sounds like first there needs to be a request at citation/core, and then once that's squared away, a request at cite journal. --Elonka 22:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{

Here's where I"m confused: It sounds like you are asking that

Template talk:Citation. As for the journal template, normally what would be done here would be to put all necessary changes in Template:Cite journal/sandbox first, and then just request that the code be copied to the live template from there. If I'm not understanding the complexities here, I apologize, but I guess that's part of my job, is to challenge edits to protected pages.  :) So if necessary, lay things out in a step by step "cookbook" fashion? Thanks, --Elonka

22:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposed changes can be applied independently. I've moved the change request for {{citation/core}} to that talk page. The proposed {{cite journal/sandbox}} would seem to work with either the current {{citation/core}} or with {{citation/core/sandbox}} (better with the latter, but not horrendous with the former). I have not reactivated the edit request on this page in case people disagree with this assessment. --Karnesky (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{

Done --Elonka 23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary and effects on Citation template

So I've been directed here from

Tell me I'm wrong, please. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize it that way. Several have agreed that the {{Citation}} and {{Cite XXX}} should use the same backend. There was no consensus for citations to resembles the less-used {t1|Citation}} template, though. Furthermore, multiple notices about the changes and links to the sandboxed code are on the talk page for {{Citation}}. --Karnesky (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion about where changes should be discussed moved to new section below as it's a separate issue and may get missed up here. Martin (Smith609 – Talk))

Meanwhile, I think I've figured out what the problem is. Again, correct me if I'm wrong...

• "cite x" users tend to employ "author=" and "coauthor=" fields; the latter adds "and" to the output
• hence when hacking around with "citation," which automatically adds "and" (in fact, and amperand) to references where there are multiple authors, the "cite x" coders had to get rid of this functionality

Per the discussion above, however, the use of the "author=" field is one of the biggest weaknesses of the "cite x" templates. Indeed, it's one of the main reasons why I, at least, use {{citation}} instead. Why should the latter template have to be messed around with on account of the weaknesses of the former? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So that we eliminate the weaknesses of the former. How will this solution deal with people specifying "et al" as the final author? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is to me? Um, my understanding is that {{citation}} automatically formats "et. al.s" after a certain number of authors. Don't tell me you've got rid of that, too? (People who manually format "et. al." as though it were an author should be taken out and shot, of course.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you guys: please change things back. I'm happy for you to be improving "cite x". But please, not at the expense of "citation."

And yes, "citation" accepts "author=", but it's not part of the documentation; as such, people who use that template tend to use last=. Vice versa with "cite x". This is, again, one of the major weaknesses of "cite x." It's problematic that such weaknesses now be exported to "citation." Please change things back. Thanks.

Meanwhile, if you could point to one positive change here for {{citation}}, I'd be interested to know what you see it as being. I see none. Perhaps there's something I'm missing, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• This change can be enacted without any change to the output from Citation. (See below)
• A message was posted on citation which generated no response.
• The main benefit, as posted above, is that template developers can make any changes once, rather than having to write them multiple times; in the past changes have not been made to both templates, causing drift. Benefits include:

1. Easier maintenance and improvement of COinS functionality
2. Easier for bot operators to automate maintenance and reference improvement tasks (e.g. User:Citation bot)
3. Ability to use {citation} in articles where {cite x} already exists without introducing inconsistent reference styles
4. Up-to-date display of citation information such as DOIs
5. Standard terminology so editors don't need to learn two sets of parameter names

The Template:Cite journal/testcases page has been up and running for people to post any instances where output changes undesirably; all testcases that people have provided so far appear to be working; I've added a couple that address your concerns. If you have any more, then please consider this an invitation to post them there so a developer can address them. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You say that "This change can be enacted without any change to the output from Citation." But this was not how it was enacted. (Why not, then?)

What benefit there is, it seems, is a future one for developers. Again, I see no advantage, and if anything a step backwards, for those using {{citation}}.

Again, I do agree with the notion that ideally these various templates should be coordinated. It's a great disadvantage of the "cite xxx" family that it should have proliferated so ("cite journal," "cite book," "cite web," etc. etc.). This is simply one more reason why I used {{citation}}. But please, let's not be dragged down to the lowest common denominator here!

Meanwhile, I have indeed posted where you asked me to. There's been no responde. Please change things back. Thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If both templates accept either form of author parameter, I fail to see any technical deficiency in {{t1|cite xxx} that keeps you from using it. You are not being forced to use the singe 'author=' parameter in {{citation}} now, so I see no technical deficiency there either. This diff shows only improvements to {{citation}} (summarized by Martin, above: better metadata, and ability to use {{citation}} on the same page as any {{cite xxx}} template (including those that don't use the same backend yet). --Karnesky (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Two minor points: (one moved to separate area Martin (Smith609 – Talk))

• I hope there isn't any move to remove the (hidden) "author" parameter from {{Citation}}. I've been advised during FA reviews that footnotes should state authors' names in the ordinary order (necessitating the use of "author"), and that the surname-first format (which uses the "last" and "first" parameters) should only be used in the "References" and "Further reading" sections at the end of the article.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If FA is calling for "firstname lastname" for all but the first author, then something (either the templates or FA) needs to be fixed. Alhough there are legitimate uses of author= (e.g. when last/first splitting is inappropriate, as for "Bede"), working around FA restrictions is not what the author= field is for. And it also breaks COinS. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed here, too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop has raised a good point. There are many naming systems in the world that do not use last names, in which case the use of the "author" parameter is also appropriate. Anyway, if there is a move to somehow eliminate this parameter the good reviewers at FA should be asked about it so accommodation can be worked out. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not unusual to list an organization as an author. For the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated, which is the first name and which is the last name? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My four-and-a-half cents: The basic idea to have a common code base for all citation formats is a good one. However,...

• the plethora of {cite xyz} templates are inconsistent among themselves, and its (IMO) back-assward to try to 'redirect' one {cite} at a time to {citation}. The various cites (most of which might as well be straight-up redirects to other {cite}s) need to be brought in line with one another first. Then, when the problems that can be expected have been identified, we can try merging the cite/core with citation/core.
  The sheer multitude of {cite xyz} templates (and, within them, the practice of willy-nilly adding "features") is a perfect reflection how different the paradigms are. {citation} demands discipline and a basic respect for citations and what citations are for. {cite xyz} is a veritable madhouse (well ... a madhouse at least has a sane director), made by/for editors who think citations are for their own benefit or to fulfill (token) WP:RS/WP:V requirements. {cite xyz} users are led to think that there is a difference between a
  paper" [on/off the web]. More often than not they will cite everything using cite web anyway. This sort of nonsense is by no means limited to periodicals: An an encyclopedia, a chapter in any other book, and conference proceedings are (allegedly) cited differently. And a manual
  is apparently something altogether different. This sort of absurd inconsistency within the {cite xyz}s needs to be hashed out first.
• further, squeezing things into citation/core to deal with cite's "issues" is an inacceptable modus operandi. Its not socially acceptable to visit your neighbors house and take your furniture and baggage with you just so that you feel comfortable there. Either lose the baggage, or redesign your house to look more like your neighbors'.
  Similarly, peculiarities in/with {cite xyz} need to be resolved as cite peculiarities. Forwarding those peculiarities to {citation/core} is to disregard the needs of users of {citation}, and the craziness of sticking a bazillion options into citation is also overboard. Instead, any and all peculiarities need to handled as cite peculiarities, which means telling /core that -- when called from cite -- it needs to change its behavior to suit cite. The question then begging to be asked is: why on earth doesn't {cite} call its own /core (first)? Which brings me back to the first point: Consolidate the {{cite xyz}s first.
• I'm not fundamentally opposed to consistency, but anything that requires a change of syntax to citation/core (e.g. & to "and", comma to period, 'retrieved' to 'Retrieved') is a strong indication that the two are fundamentally incompatible. If not by design, then in practice. The notion that {citation} needs to follow {cite xyz} is pure arrogance; neither of the templates adheres completely to any known standard, and there is no technical reason why one has to follow the other.
• There is at present also no technical reason why the two need to be merged. All those points raised by Martin above are just as easily taken care of in a fork off of citation/core. When that fork works to everyone's satisfaction ("everyone" meaning all {cite xyz}), then we can discuss what needs changing to _both_ to bring the two in line with one another.

There would still need to be good arguments to do such a thing: {cite xyz} and {citation} address different audiences, and -- given the screwed-up notions that come about from using {cite} -- the two groups are practically incapable of communication. From craziness posted at Talk:Citation it would seem that {cite xyz} users seem to think that {citation} is, or should be, like {cite xyz}. What they fail to realize is that {citation} users are quite content in the knowledge that it isn't. They have the better deal and they know it. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to reach the essence of your problem with this proposal. Maybe you have misunderstood what is being proposed. This change should not affect the function of the Citation template. If you spot any cases where the output of the citation template is changed, please list them in the test cases page linked to above so that they can be resolved. The main technical reason for the two to use the same core template, as detailed above, is to simplify maintenance. If the output of Template:Citation is unchanged, then I don't see that any of your concerns have substance. If they do, please give a concrete example so that they can be addressed. Also, I think I must have misunderstood you (unless you have contradicted yourself) - if you believe that the purpose of a citation is to convey information about how to find a source (my personal opinion), and that style should be a secondary issue, I find it strange that you should make such a large point about e.g. the capitalisaion of retrieved. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the ampersand issue is solved. The ". Retreived" verses ", retrieved" is actually a new problem as Citation has in the past always had ". Retreived". As far as I'm aware the sandbox version of Citation displays the same as Citation, the sandbox version of cite journal displays as cite journal. Unifying the backend has resulting in some improvements to both, CoiNS results output is better and a few undiscovered bug have identified and resolved. --Salix (talk): 08:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the "Retrieved" issue; if a comma separator is used the r will be lowercase; if a period is used it will be uppercase. Again; examples of any more "steps backward" should be listed at Template:Cite journal/testcases, because it makes it much easier to fix a bug if it can be seen in action. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

@Martin (up) to clarify:

Don't work on Citation/core directly. There are too many cogs and wheels that you need to keep track of, and the more mistakes that happen the less enthusiastic everyone will become. And the number of mistakes is probably not going to get less; the inconsistencies between the various {cite xyz}s are a virtual guarantee that there will be lots of future "issues" too.

So, instead....

1. first fork Citation/core to (say) Cite/core.
2. then integrate the various {cite xyz}s into Cite/core
   (optionally try to consolidate "bunches" of {cite xyz}s first).
3. then try to merge functionality between Cite/core and Citation/core.

And if step #3 doesn't pan out then at least each suite will still be coherent in itself. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

He isn't working on {{citation/core}} directly—he is working on {{citation/core/sandbox}}. This seems reasonable, and issues can be tested for both {{citation}} and {{cite journal}} using this approach. --Karnesky (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um. As I understand it, even though a sandbox is being used now during testing, the next step (when testing is complete) is to fold the sandbox back as citation/core, and to call citation/core from cite journal. As such citation/core is still directly the "target" for each individual {cite xyz} merge-in. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. But I see no downsides in this approach if both {{citation}} and {{cite journal}} are being tested with the sandboxed code. --Karnesky (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other. With "directly on /core" I didn't mean "live". And I mean forking in the sense of version control forking; you know, like "trunk" and "branch". Testing happens on the "branch", which is eventually (and a long time maybe) merged back into "trunk". Whether or not there are sandbox phases (I sure would hope so!) while testing is irrelevant to the point of using a fork.

On the "branch" *all* the various {cite}s would be integrated, and doing whatever was necessary to deal with cite xyzs and only with cite xyzs. At this stage {citation} is to be ignored. On the "branch" Martin will have enough on his hands getting the cites to work; he does not have to have additional hassle of trying to keep citation working too. Then (after a long time maybe), when all the cite xyzs are running off of a cite/core, then we try to consolidate the two cores.

Is that clearer now? -- Fullstop (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but {{citation/core/sandbox}} is a branch of {{citation/core}}! Given the minor complaints about the change, I think that slightly better testing and commenting by impacted templates is all that is needed. In short, there seems to be little reason to complicate matters by having MULTIPLE branches (a cite/core and citation/core) when the single branch approach is so close to working. --Karnesky (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So what if sandbox is a branch of core? 'Sandbox' is also just a name like any other. Copy-paste to "foo" and voila! new branch of core and "core/sandbox" remains merely a sandbox as it always was.

Ok, if cite journal is close to done, then it makes perfect sense to finish that first. :::::::::Also: don't work with multiple branches. And "freeze" the trunk (except for minor bug fixes that can be independently added to the working branch).

But the other cite xyzs should really all integrated/aggregated on a branch (unicite?) Think of it this way: there are some {cite}s (like cite media) that are currently unsupported by citation/core. When all the cites are integrated in a new cite/core, citation/core will become functionally superfluous. And then citation can potentially be rewired to use the "new" evolved core too. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the name of code that is being tested is not the issue. I just think we are capable of testing the impact on two templates at once (making for one merge, instead of two).

I agree that the {{Cite XXX}} would benefit from having the same backend, but I see no reason why {t1|citation}} and {{cite journal}} shouldn't have the same backend immediately.

In any case, please discuss the current proposed changes to {{citation/core}} fix gripes with the last set of changes & could be applied regardless of what is done with {{Cite XXX}}. Please comment on these fixes that talk page; it sounds like there is consensus for some sort of "fix" soon. --Karnesky (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved these comments from above where they were out of place. Martin (Smith609 – Talk)

Um, was there any consensus at "talk: citation" for that template to resemble this one? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does suck that there are two different places to discuss changes to reference formatting, and that the same discussion has to be repeated at both. When both use the same core template, this will be less of an issue.

In response to your concern, nobody at the Template:Citation talk page raised any issues after

requested feedback. They were given the best part of a fortnight; I'd assumed that anybody who is that bothered about the output of the template would watchlist the talk page nd so come across it. Perhaps I should have sought a site-wide announcement? Martin (Smith609 – Talk

) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the chappie who came up with {{unicite}} managed to get the word out pretty well. (Perhaps too well!) I'm rather surprised that the discussion here didn't feed into that one, and vice versa. See here and here. I note that you did comment there once, in a comment in which you said the discussion had been "done to death." Clearly not! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We should move this discussion to {{citation}} if our remarks are confined to that template (as they are now) or to another common page. {{Citation}} does not resemble {{cite XXX}} directly, nor was that the immediate goal of the recent changes. Both {{cite XXX}} and {{citation}} have accepted 'authors' and 'author#' for a while. I would not say that either "tends to employ" one over the other & I see no reason not to keep both. Until somewhat recently, {{citation}} had a cap of four authors, so it was necessary to enter multiple authors in one parameter and/or to invoke 'et al.' manually. I think the {{citation}} changes are mostly positive & see no reason we can't address the minor gripes on the appropriate talk page. --Karnesky (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I only came over here because it turned out that discussion on what had happened to {{citation}} had almost all taken place over here. I was told that it had been discussed for months etc. etc. However, there was no real attempt to gain consensus over at the talk page for {{citation}}. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Let's address your first concern: please stop asking for changes to {{citation}} on {{cite journal}}'s talk page, as users of {{citation}} might not comment on the request. --Karnesky (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started by asking for changes on talk page for citation, only to be told there'd been "months" of discussion. I asked where, and was directed here. That's when I came, tried to summarize what had been going on (and I still welcome other summaries), and asked (once more, and repeatedly) for things to be put back. I've asked for things to be put back just about anywhere I can. No action as yet... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest that discussions that involve both families of citation templates should take place on a subpage of either {{Citation}} or {{Cite book}} (can that be regarded as the "main" {{Cite xxx}} template?), e.g., at "Template talk:Citation/discussion 1" or "Template talk:Cite book/discussion: Oct 2008", and be transcluded on to the other template's talk page, the way Good Article reviews now take place on a subpage and are transcluded on to the article's talk page.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

JBMurray, this is your final call. You have not provided any instances at Template:Cite journal/testcases of how the new format should be different, although you have been invited to. The new sandbox is about to go live, and unless you provide an example of how you want things to appear, the developers have no way of granting your wishes. Whether or not you recognise the long term advantages of the change for template:citation, you have not provided a concrete example of a disadvantage; if an edit provides huge advantages for Wikipedia without any disadvantages, then it is irrational not to make it. If you must continue to shout about a "step backwards", please substantiate your claims. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding this "discussion" rather disheartening, as in fact I receive little to no response to what I'm saying. But (once more!) in answer to your specific question: as I have repeatedly pointed out, in fact I have provided an instance right here on the page you're asking me to contribute to: i.e. in the very first section. How can you say I have "not provided a concrete example of a disadvantage"?!

Again, I understand completely your problem: people using "cite xxx" used the "author=" and "coauthors=" field; this leads to a "double and." So it is hard for you to upgrade the functionality of those templates by adding and automatic ampersand. Fair and fine enough.

Let me add that separating authors with semi-colons is likewise bizarred; but go ahead with that in "cite journal"; no problem.

But the point is more that you're pointing me to what you're doing to "cite journal." How many times do I have to repeat that the problem is the collateral damage that you're doing to "citation." Why downgrade the functionality of "citation." I don't understand it at all.

And I should note that I have no problems with improving the templates. Both the "cite xxx" family and "citation" could undoubtedly be improved. See for instance my contributions to the long discussion at MOS. But again, I'm surprised that these changes are going on without any attempt to coordinate with that discussion.

Is this clear enough for you? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see exactly where jb is coming from, and I agree. "Fixing" citation is back-asswards. Its the {cite xyz}s that need to be brought under an umbrella under their own terms *FIRST*.

Then, when all are integrated there, then try to merge two "umbrellas" together. By then Martin will know exactly what conflicts are going to arise, and will be able to plan ahead for them. Right now this merge process is ad-hoc, which is causing grief that could easily be avoided.

I'm telling you now that -- unless the process changes -- there will come a point when I will say I told you so. ;) But by then the merge project will be dead, dead, dead, and with so many fingers burned that it will never be resuscitated. If Martin keeps going the citation patch-in route, I predict that the project will die before the year is out. Nobody at citation feels any real need to merge. The citation folks are doing cite journal a favor; don't abuse their patience. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

While some {{citation}} fans are vocal about maintaining the status quo & are derogatory to {{Cite XXX}} templates, we should keep things in perspective. Commenters are few in number, perhaps because {{Citation}} is less used (by more than an order of magnitude) than {{Cite XXX}} and I don't think there is a consensus (some on citation's talk page are calling for some of the changes made by this process to be maintained. --Karnesky (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is a reference to me, let me be clear that I have no particular interest in "maintaining the status quo." I could think of plenty of ways in which {{citation}} (and for that matter, {{cite journal}} and others) could be improved. What concerns me, as I've said repeatedly, is that in an effort to repeat the latter, the former in fact goes backward, as some kind of collateral damage.

Commenters are few in number because this discussion hasn't been widely advertised. As you're aware, if a discussion is advertised it can draw lots of response, probably too much.

Regarding {{Cite XXX}}, I see two main problems: 1) the proliferation of this family of templates. I believe that the changes here are an attempt to fix that, and to make them consistent with each other, which is undoubtedly a good thing. If I have not applauded that, or applauded it enough, let me do so here. But 2), given that they favor the author= and co-authors= fields, not only do they make templates such as {{

harvnb}} impossible, but they encourage a whole series of kludges and stop-gap fixes, which makes the much more sophisticated syntax of {{citation}} impossible. Part of that syntax is automatically adding an ampersand. (For what it's worth, personally I'd prefer an "and" to an "ampersand".) As a result, {{Cite XXX}} dumbs down the display of multiple authors' names, using the bizarre (if understandable) semi-colon as a separator. OK, this is fair enough as a fix to the problems of {{Cite XXX}}; but let's not degrade {{citation

}} at the same time.

Again, is this clear enough? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think wider advertising would generate beneficial comments on this process, I don't think anybody would object to you soliciting feedback in the appropriate places.

I thought I had debunked the anti-'author=' nonsense that you have spewed. Both {{cite journal}} and {{citation}} have support specifying individual contributors and groups of contributors since before this change. 'coauthors=' is actually necessary for good markup of references. An example of a massively multi-author paper is [1] (it is an ISI highly cited paper to boot, so is not a trivial example like the 2512 author paper that earned an Ig Nobel Prize). It is not possible to represent this accurately without having some way of manually adding either 'et al.' or (preferably, as the metadata would still be clean) multiple authors in a single field.

The ampersand issue has been addressed fairly easily, but again: I see no consensus for keeping it. A semicolon is not my preferred separator either, but I don't know why you say it is 'bizarre;' why should the separator preceding the last author necessarily be different from the separator used throughout the author list? Most popular referencing styles outside of Wikipedia do not use ';' and most do not have a 'special' separator before the last author.

Even if you think there is consensus to retain an ampersand, this is hardly a "major" degradation, is easily fixable, and could have been caught with more careful testing prior to the merge. Perhaps the process should be tweaked, but it is working fairly well & Martin is doing a great job (and I have hardly been uncritical of him). The ire voiced in many comments is just not called for. --Karnesky (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, talking about "ire," can we have less of this talk of "nonsense [. . .] spewed." Please remain civil. Thanks. As for me, if I have allowed frustration to affect the tone of my comments, it is because I find myself having to repeat myself, apparently to little avail. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry--I don't think either of us are being completely civil due to mutual frustration. I have stricken the comment out above, as I did not intend to be incivil.

You seem to be frustrated that the issue you see isn't fixed immediately. I can empathize, but I do see that people are taking the time to read, consider, and respond to most of your comments. I acknowledge that this may not feel like enough.

I am frustrated because I don't feel that you have always treated responses to your comments in the same regard. I have replied to many of your claims about this 'authors=' business, yet you repeat yourself with little refinements on multiple pages. You prefaced the first message with "correct me if I'm wrong." When I read that & read no statement that agrees with your assessment, I would expect you to actually address my disagreements. I made the poor choice of words because of the acknowledged vitriolic repetition. Once again, I apologize. --Karnesky (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Relax folks. NOW! :) The world is not about to end right this second.

To return to the issue at hand: like I made plain before, and that really needs to be taken into consideration (and this is completely independent of how many citation folks go along with it), there is no reason to be merging back into citation/core all the time (or at this time).

Move the sandbox to somewhere other than citation/core and continue to accumulate the fixes there. Then move on to the next {{cite xyz}} and so on. Or -- as I only just discovered -- integrate the imminently clever {{unicite}}.

When all the {{cite xyz}}s are done we'll get together again and tackle citation/core (perhaps even rewire citation to use the new core). In the meanwhile, don't touch citation[/core]. First complete the aggregation of {{cite xyz}} in one /core template. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What problems exist in {{citation/core/sandbox}} currently? The punctuation issues raised by the last migration have been addressed. It seems like we can make both {{cite journal}} and {{citation}} users as happy as they were before the last migration immediately. --Karnesky (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop, I appreciate that in an ideal world we would get all the "cite x" templates using one central core. However, I'm sure you appreciate the enormity of the task. It's taken since July to get just "cite journal" integrated, and we're still thrashing that out. Getting the cite journal to use the existing "citation" core would be a small step in the right direction, and while it might not be the best way of doing it, it is at least within reach. We are one just edit away from getting it done, and once it's done it will make my bug-fixing at User:Citation bot much easier. I don't see that the edit will be detrimental; indeed updating to the sandbox version will "fix back" the concerns that JBMurray had. I agree that there's a lot of work to do, but this small step will make my life a lot easier. As Karnesky says, making this edit will return the output to how it was before the editing began (with the exception of better metadata for both templates), and will simplify the lives of bot maintainers and maintainers of the two templates. It will also pave the way for other templates to use the same core without modification. Finally, having gone through this process, it will be much easier to avoid changes to citation/core in the future, and easier to avoid bugs. Let's make the edit, then think about whether it's worth fiddling with other {cite x} templates. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

JBM, I think we're misunderstanding one another. You state:

What I was looking for was an instance where the sandbox does not support the last= and first= fields (which are, as you state, far superior), and an instance where an ampersand is not inserted. As far as I can see both issues are fine in the sandbox version. As soon as the sandbox is copied into {Citation}, {citation} will function as it did "in the old days". Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

@Martin earlier: it is precisely because "it's taken since July to get just 'cite journal' integrated, and we're still thrashing that out" that I'm suggesting cite x templates go to one "meta cite" first (whether you call it cite/core or not, the idea is that they share a back end).

People are getting edgy (even if they don't all say it) and -- because there is no pressing need to do it to begin with -- wondering if the trouble is proportional to the payoff.

In contrast to the difference between cite journal and citation, the cite templates are not very different from one another. Many could in fact be redirected with no/minimal changes to the redirect target (e.g. encyclopedia & conference -> book; paper & news & online journal -> journal)

Then, instead of taking 4 months apiece to unify them with citation/core, you'd only have one unification to make.

You are doing a great job, but please be a little more circumspect. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Usage section does not include details of the language= parameter. This is simple, but includes the non-obvious instruction that English is assumed and need not be specified. The page is locked so I cannot add this. HairyWombat (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The documentation is not locked. Pagrashtak 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. HairyWombat (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Done again. Maybe this time it will not disappear. HairyWombat (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Somehow with all the recent patches the laysource= parameter, which is documented, got broken. Here is the obvious patch; can you please install it? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The deprecation of quotes=no has broken a use of {{cite journal}} when describing a source, such as an erratum or a reprint, which needs something that is like a title even though there is no title. What is the workaround for this? Here is an example taken from

• {{cite journal |author= [[Leo Kanner|Kanner L]] |title= Autistic disturbances of affective contact |journal= Nerv Child |volume=2 |pages=217–50 |year=1943}} {{cite journal |title=Reprint |quotes=no |year=1968 |journal= Acta Paedopsychiatr |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=100–36 |pmid=4880460}}

This currently formats as follows:

• PMID 4880460. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help
  )

• Filipek PA, Accardo PJ, Baranek GT; et al. (1999). "The screening and diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders". J Autism Dev Disord. 29 (6): 439–84.
  PMID 10638459. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help
  )

but the word "Erratum" should not be quoted. If "quotes=no" is no longer the right way to format these examples, then what is the right way? Eubulides (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit of a hack in the first place. I'd advise repeating the full information. After all, shouldn't what's enclosed within the template be the full details? Here's how I did something similar (using {{citation}}, but the principle's the same) in María Ruiz de Burton:

• {{citation|last= Burton |first= Mrs. H S |title= Who Would Have Thought It? A Novel ... |place= Philadelphia |publisher= J.B. Lippincott & Co. |year= 1872 |url= http://www.letrs.indiana.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=wright2;idno=wright2-0433 |oclc= 16651194 }}. Republished as {{citation|last=Ruiz de Burton |first= María Amparo |title= Who Would Have Thought It? |editor1-last= Sánchez |editor1-first= Rosaura |editor2-first= Beatrice |editor2-last= Pita |place= Houston |publisher= Arte Público |year= 1995 |pages= vii-lxv |isbn= 978-1558850811 }}.
• Burton, Mrs. H S (1872), Who Would Have Thought It? A Novel ..., Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.,
  ISBN 978-1558850811
  .

So in the example you give, you'd put something like:

• PMID 4880460
  .

Would that be a problem?

On the other hand, I guess there are times when such an option would be nice. Say for instance with:

• {{citation|last= Coetzee |first= J. M. |quotes= no |chapter= Introduction |title= The Confusions of Young Törless |others= By Robert Musil |others= Trans. Shaun Whiteside |place= New York |publisher= Penguin |year= 2001 |pages= v-xiii}}.
• Coetzee, J. M. (2001), "Introduction", The Confusions of Young Törless, Trans. Shaun Whiteside, New York: Penguin, pp. v–xiii {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help).

This last example, by the way, is taken straight from the MLA Handbook (sixth edition, section 5.6.9). At least in MLA style, "Introduction" should not be in quotation marks. (Ugh, and the "others=" field doesn't seem to work. Grr Grr.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a fix for this problem in

Reprints and errata should not subvert the title field: one should either

1. Use the real title of the work
2. Omit it for brevity, but add explanatory text outside of the template.

Further, the template does not follow MLA & there is no reason to treat some chapters differently from others. I see no benefit of having a quotes parameter, as the reasons for it have mostly been that people want to put poor metadata into the template. --Karnesky (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; as can be seen in TT:Citation, I was convinced by the argument that we should not subvert the title= field. However, please see that discussion for a remaining problem: the reprint year (1968 in the Kanner example above) is formatted too confusingly in the current version. Eubulides (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reprinted as

Slightly divergent topic, but the "Reprinted as" usage introduces some ambiguity. Is the reference the reprint or the original? Better usage would be "As reprinted in" or "Also reprinted in" (or reissued) as applicable. This may only matter in cases of inaccurate or incomplete reprints, but they do happen.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - Wikipedia:Citing sources#Cite the place where you found the material clearly says "It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear." Based on that, if the reference used was the reprint, then the correct citation is to the reprint in its full form - the fact that it is a reprint from 25 years later is immaterial. For example:

• {{cite journal |author= [[Leo Kanner|Kanner L]] |title= Autistic disturbances of affective contact |journal= Acta Paedopsychiatr |volume=35 |pages=100–36 |year=1968 |issue=4 | pmid=4880460}}

• PMID 4880460
  .

RossPatterson (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No,

Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT doesn't say or imply that one cannot mention reprints. All it says is that one must say where you got it. It does not prohibit you from saying where else to get it from. It would be bizarre for Wikipedia to prohibit the common practice of listing multiple places where one can get the article from. Eubulides (talk

) 09:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we're all agreeing. The citation should make it clear which version the article was based on, but additional citation of another version is of incremental value. The other versions cited should not appear to have been checked unless they actually were checked. My 12 November post was about how to express which version was consulted and which was incremental.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, I'm not sure I agree that a citation should say which version was consulted. Please see the Posey et al. example in
  Template talk:Citation #Multiple instances of reference
  , a citation that points to four versions. This sort of thing is standard in medical articles. There's no real need for the citation to say which version was actually consulted, unless the versions differ significantly with respect to the claims being sourced.
• For more on this subject, please see
  Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #PubMed Central manuscripts vs final versions
  , where the consensus was that it's OK to also cite PubMed Central manuscripts, even though they often have minor editorial differences from the final versions.

Eubulides (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, that sounds slapdash to me. It would certainly be unacceptable in my discipline. You don't cite a work you haven't consulted: that's dishonest. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree it's sloppy, though perhaps not demonstrably dishonest. Still, the idea that we might base content on one version and cite another is something we should strive to avoid, just in case the divergences between versions pertain to the basis of statements in our articles. At

Template talk:Citation#Multiple instances of reference, it is clear that the differences are sometimes significant. We should not ignore this fact.LeadSongDog (talk

) 06:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support for |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters a la {{cite web}} has been requested several times in the last year, but hasn't been implemented, and then of course the discussion gets archived and forgotten. {{

  |OriginalURL = {{#if:{{{archiveurl|}}}|{{{url|}}}}}
  |ArchiveDate= {{{archivedate|}}}

RossPatterson (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable. Could we leave it a day in case anyone has any comments or suggestions. I have one comment, based on a quick skim of the code. In {{cite web}} the parameter IncludedWorkURL will equal archiveurl if defined. However your code doesn't do that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That code's not going to work properly - the archive URL won't be displayed. If I recall correctly, you'll also need to change the URL parameter - check Cite Journal to see how that template handles it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another stab at it tomorrow evening. RossPatterson (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I give up. The {{Citation/core}} parameters are too obtuse, I don't know what they mean (despite having documented some of them!). RossPatterson (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Still needed. I am currently adding the "archived from the original" manually when using the template. It would be great to have it in the template. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've set up the sandbox so that it ought to support the parameter. Please test it; if it works, I'll update the template. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I tested it on User:¢Spender1983. There are a couple of problems. It adds carriage returns between successive authors and too much text is now bold. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Still needed. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now - I didn't clean the sandbox before making my edits. Another request to ensure that it's fully tested in all situations; if it works, prod me until I activate the edits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox version appears to work to me. Can you activate the edits? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate having this functionality.  Skomorokh  16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - apologies for the delay. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In

• Treffert DA (2009). "The savant syndrome: an extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 364 (1522): 1351–7.
  PMID 19528017. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

on the grounds that this generates a citation whose title links to a publication that doesn't yet exist. If you try clicking on the article title, it'll send you to a web page that says "This article is currently under embargo and will be available in PMC on May 27, 2010." My feeling is that this is a disservice to the reader amd that the link shouldn't be added until after May 27, to avoid sending the reader off on wild goose chases. In reply the bot's maintainer said "It could be argued that the PMC parameter should state the PMC wherever it is available." and suggested I ask here for more opinions. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Eubulides (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PMC should be added whenever possible, yes. The problem is that it shouldn't title-link. It should really only be one of the other identifiers listed.

WP Physics

} 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember that there was a lengthy discussion resulting in a consensus that the PMC should title-link (although embargos did not feature in that discussion). To moot a possible solution for consideration, one could create a 'pmc-embargo-date' parameter, and only link the title to the PMC if the embargo date has passed. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. And I also recall with (and agree with) that lengthy discussion: if there's a PMC but no URL, just link the title to the PMC, as that produces output that's more useful to the reader. Eubulides (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me too. Can the archive-date parameter be used rather than creating another or does that conflate the date entered into the archive with the date available from it? LeadSongDog come howl 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll set about this, then (when I have time). Any better suggestions for the parameter name? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How about |pmcdate=? It would be the date that the PMC ref started to work (or is predicted to start working, if the date in the future). I prefer YYYY-MM-DD format for dates like this, though no doubt other editors will differ. Perhaps you can infer the date style by looking for other dates in this reference, or failing that, by taking a vote from the other dates in article references. (Amusingly enough, the embargo notice from PubMed Central contains dates in both "YYYY/MM/DD" and "Month DD, YYYY" styles.) Eubulides (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've implemented the parameter ( I think I went for pmc-embargo-date in the end) and it accepts any date format that the {{[[Template:#time:|#time:]]}} parser function recognises. It's not rendered in the output at the moment - it just stops the link from linking until after the embargo date. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. However, |pmc-embargo-date= is pretty long; could you please shorten that? It's no different from the ordinary |date= parameter: in both cases, it's the date of publication, and often publication is embargoed before the |date=. The only difference is that |date= is only rarely in the future, and |pmcdate= (or whatever) could be in the future, or could be in the past. Eubulides (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure this is a big deal as normally you have PMID too so the worst that happens is you click on one dead link. I just updated my tools to even include PMC since I just use the PMID link and click on full text once on the abstract. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the proper format for {{cite journal}} {{cite journal |foo |... }} or {{cite journal|foo|...}}? Does it matter? - Samwb123 (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I prefer to put the optional spaces before the "|" (but nowhere else) so that the edit buffer doesn't contain very long "words" and become hard to read. This is particularly an issue when looking at differences between versions. But this is just one style. Eubulides (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

By placing spaces at the points suggested by Eubulides, you will find that not only is it easier to spot where each parameter ends/begins, but when word-wrapping occurs, it's more likely to occur between parameters, than between a parameter name and its value. Of course, should there be spaces within the value (as in {{cite journal |journal=The New York Times |date=October 18, 2009 }}) then the wrapping might well occur there. But I do prefer that to either {{cite journal|journal=The New York Times|date=October 18, 2009}} or {{cite journal | journal = The New York Times | date = October 18, 2009 }} - which are both just as legal. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with both above. {{cite journal |param=value |param=value }} wins.

T

16:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. - Samwb123 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See

The default id was recently removed from the cite template series; see Template talk:Citation/core#HTML id. You can add an id with |ref=. I don't understand why the Harvard and cite templates should be interchangeable. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way is to use |ref=harv, as I did with this edit to the article in question. Please feel free to revert the edit if you prefer switching to {{citation}}. Eubulides (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so when would I ever not want to use ref=harv? What is the point of this sort of obfuscation? Because as far as I can see its only effect is to make the templates more difficult to learn and use. Why can't they just work out of the box? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In an article like

Autism |ref=harv would be counterproductive, as it would merely bloat the article and make its HTML invalid. The vast majority of articles that use {{cite journal}} citations do not use Harvard references for the citations, and for these articles the hassles of working around problems due to a feature they don't need outweigh the advantages of that feature. Things would be different if the feature could be fixed so that it didn't cause these problems in articles that do not use Harvard references. Eubulides (talk

) 07:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cause these problems" means that it didn't pass an HTML verifier, not that there was ever an actual problem for an actual human reader, right? And now there is an actual problem for readers of some 2100 articles that broke because of this change. Wouldn't it have made more sense to leave the default the way it was and use the ref=whatever workaround only for those specific articles where an actual person noticed the failure to verify and cared about it? This discussion is making me lean much more strongly to preferring {{citation}} to {{cite journal}}, when previously I thought they were mostly equivalent, mostly because {{citation}} doesn't seem to have yet been taken over by people who prefer something pure and broken to something impure that works; was that your intent? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One cannot separate the HTML-verifier from the human-reader problems so easily. The HTML verifier catches problems with invalid HTML, many of which are also visible to human readers. It is useful to check Wikipedia pages with an HTML verifier to make sure that these visible-to-human-reader errors are absent. But if we get lots of false alarms, we won't do the check. And when these false alarms are generated by a feature that almost nobody is using, it's better to turn off that feature. It is not true that 2100 articles are broken, by the way; the number is far smaller than that. We had to balance this breakage against the breakage of a much, much larger number (likely in the tens of thousands) of articles broken the other way. Please feel free to use {{Citation}}; it is the one recommended for Harvard citations anyway. Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

When we have

harv}} not cooperating out-of-the-box? And what is the justification for discussing changes to such essential functionality only in an obscure talk subpage? —David Eppstein (talk

) 04:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's news to me that the Citation bot was switching. I expect that it shouldn't be switching, not only for this reason, but also for others. The justification was that if {{cite journal}} by default generates IDs that almost nobody needs, and if these IDs cause Wikipedia to generate invalid HTML, then that was a harm that was most-easily repaired by not generating the IDs unless the caller asked for them. It was not a perfect solution, but it beat fixing tens of thousands of invalid pages. The change was discussed not only in Template talk:Citation/core: it was also discussed in Template talk:Harvard citation and Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets; these are the only templates affected by the change in functionality. Eubulides (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that citation bot will switch individual references from one style to the other to make the overall style of the references consistent: that it will change citation to cite journal if cite journal is the majority, and vice versa. But if that breaks some harv templates...—David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So, I take it from the earlier discussion that "quotes=no" is gone. I had been using this parameter, but for a different reason. I'm using this to cite interviews, but the publication (

It doesn't seem to be possible to supply a title that was partially italicized in the original and have it display correctly. Case in point is this citation: Wegner, Dana M. (1991). "Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered" (PDF).

Ship names are italicized, and in the actual paper the title is printed as: Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered. When italicizing the title for the citation, it is my understanding that any previously italicized portion should become unitalicized to retain its distinction from the rest of the title. If you look at the wikisource for the citation above, you will see that the word Constellation is provided with the wiki italic markup, so I would expect the citation title to be formatted as Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered. However, somewhere in the template process this distinction is lost. --J Clear (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

''[http://www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/docs/fouled_anchors.pdf Fouled Anchors: The ''Constellation'' Question Answered]''

''[http://www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/docs/fouled_anchors.pdf Fouled Anchors: The ''Constellation Question Answered]

[http://www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/docs/fouled_anchors.pdf Fouled Anchors: The ''Constellation Question Answered]''

[http://www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/docs/fouled_anchors.pdf Fouled Anchors: The ''Constellation'' Question Answered]

That makes sense in general. So, it sounds like the template needs to work within the limits of those and do the formatting entirely inside the link. --J Clear (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That makes sense, because it'd have to produce HTML like this:

<i><a href="http://www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/docs/fouled_anchors.pdf">Fouled Anchors: The </i>Constellation<i> Question Answered</a></i>

which is overlapping HTML tags, which are not allowed. A permitted method would be:

<a href="http://www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/docs/fouled_anchors.pdf"><i>Fouled Anchors: The </i>Constellation<i> Question Answered</i></a>

but I suspect that far too much MediaWiki work would be needed. However, try this:

[http://www.dt.navy.mil/cnsm/docs/fouled_anchors.pdf ''Fouled Anchors: The ''Constellation'' Question Answered'']

Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered

--

cite paper}}, and it is due to a bug in {{Citation/core}}. I have fixed the bug in the sandbox and expect the fix to be installed shortly. Please see Template talk:Citation/core #Italicized title containing italics. Eubulides (talk

) 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And it is now over at

Featured article candidates where authors have entered Named seasonal issues under the |month= tag. Could we improve documentation about where named seasonal issues go? Fifelfoo (talk

) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I use the 'month' field that way myself. If that's wrong I'd like to know. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be " |issue= n: Name " in my opinion. " Foo (Spring 1981). " appears perverse for someone from the Southern hemisphere, as Spring isn't a date. Similarly " Foo (Special Edition in Memory of Great Academic 1987). " is perverse, I'd expect " Foo (1987). "Ti" Jo Vol (3-4: Special Edition in Memory of Great Academic). " Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The |issue= field should really be for the issue number; some journals use both month and issue number. A number of journals now have four-weekly publication, ie 13 per year. One example that fits all three is Model Rail - the current issue states on the cover "No. 137 November 2009". To my mind that would be

• Jones, Ben, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 1369-5118. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )

Earlier this year we had, in succession:

• Jones, Ben, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 1369-5118. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )
• Jones, Ben, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 1369-5118. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )
• Jones, Ben, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 1369-5118. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )

If I were to omit the true issue number, and put the 13th issue name in the |issue= field, it would look rather odd:

• Jones, Ben, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 1369-5118. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )
• Jones, Ben, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 1369-5118. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help
  )
• Jones, Ben, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 1369-5118. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )

There are other cases too, with different journals placing the 13th issue either between December and January, or between June and July. The name of that extra issue seems to be up to the publisher. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In my field its rare that a Journal will issue under a month date line; and almost unthinkable that Volume and Issue numbers aren't used. Seasonal journals aren't month dated, its clearly an issue name. "Summer," or any other season, isn't a date identifier due to that pesky other bit of the world on the bottom. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at your user page and taken with the above, I'm guessing that your field is academic; such things are perfectly true for the majority of learned journals. However, please remember that {{cite magazine}} is a redirect to {{cite journal}}, so newsstand media will attract the use of this template, so we need to accomodate those too. I am aware that |month=Summer can cause problems for COinS, but Model Rail Summer 2009 isn't a seasonal issue, it's a regular 4-weekly issue just like June, July, August, September. Yes the seasons vary by south/north, but that's surely an issue [pun] for the magazine's publisher? It's irrelevant to us - our task is to provide sufficient information for the reader to locate the original article.

Borrower: I'd like "Madeupname Magazine", Summer 2009 please.

Librarian: Is that summer in the northern hemisphere or the southern?

Borrower: It's issue 123, if that helps.

I have found another magazine as a case in point:

• Lewis, Alan, ed. (2008).
  ISSN 0261-250X. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )
• Lewis, Alan, ed. (2008).
  ISSN 0261-250X. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )
• Lewis, Alan, ed. (2009).
  ISSN 0261-250X. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help
  )

Again, no. 357 is a regular issue, not a seasonal special. If the issue number were omitted, it would be unclear whether "Christmas 2008" succeeds December 2008, or precedes January 2008. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Issue numbers are _always_ better than relying on dates, unless the periodical is issued on a Day Month Year dateline (such as a newspaper). Perhaps we can work towards a style recommendation either by reference to the APA, which is the style model for wikipedia Cite styles, or by drawing out of this conversation (Where a journal names Months, and then names an issue in sequence Seasonally, treat the Season as a date identifier and use |month= ; Where a journal simply names seasons, and doesn't issue on a monthly basis, treat it as a special issue name and use |issue=) ? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Give me a day or so and I'll find something quarterly, with issues both numbered and given seasonal names. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Literary journals are notorious for issuing two a year either Spring / Autumn or Summer / Winter, and the date of issue doesn't correspond to the formal issue name. Similarly, three seasonals are common due to the structure of US academic employment (Fall, Winter, Spring). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And here's a psych cite using Season as issue number/name: ^ Goldsmith DF, Oppenheim D, Wanlass J (2004). "Separation and Reunification: Using Attachment Theory and Research to Inform Decisions Affecting the Placements of Children in Foster Care". Juvenile and Family Court Journal Spring: 1–14. Retrieved 2009–06–19.

You've not used the {{cite journal}} template for that, so I'm unsure what you've put into which fields. Alternatively, which WP article is that taken from? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Its from Attachment theory and its probably dodgy because the user used |volume= instead of |issue= for Spring, paste: {{citejournal|title=Separation and Reunification: Using Attachment Theory and Research to Inform Decisions Affecting the Placements of Children in Foster Care|author=Goldsmith DF, Oppenheim D, Wanlass J|journal=Juvenile and Family Court Journal|volume=Spring|year= 2004|page=1–14|url=http://www.zerotothree.org/site/DocServer/AttachmentandFosterCare.pdf?docID=2542|accessdate=2009–06–19}}

This whole thing seems to be about documentation and use, rather than automated rendering. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

With academic journals, the standard practice is to give the name of the journal, the year of publication, volume number, issue number, and page numbers. Hence I'd simply write the reference like this:

• {{cite journal | author=Goldsmith DF, Oppenheim D, Wanlass J | title=Separation and Reunification: Using Attachment Theory and Research to Inform Decisions Affecting the Placements of Children in Foster Care | journal=Juvenile and Family Court Journal | year=2004 | volume=55 | issue=2 | pages=1–13 | doi=10.1111/j.1755-6988.2004.tb00156.x}}
• Goldsmith DF, Oppenheim D, Wanlass J (2004). "Separation and Reunification: Using Attachment Theory and Research to Inform Decisions Affecting the Placements of Children in Foster Care". Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 55 (2): 1–13.
  doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2004.tb00156.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
  )

There is seldom any need to give any extra information (like "Spring" or "January") that only leads to confusion and inconsistencies. Journal name + volume number + issue number + page number are (almost always) enough to locate the article in a library. The year of publication is nice to know even if you aren't interested in finding the article. — Miym (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Again - this is fine if you are only referring to Academic journals - however, if you are using news-stand media, then you may not have an issue number, and even if you do it may not be obvious - I've seen some magazines where when although there is an issue number, it isn't on the front page - People will look for the August 2009 issue of Aeroplane magazine, not Vol 37 No 8 Issue 436.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Render inconsistent over authored and non authored works with dates

Compare ^ Arnold, Denis (April 1982). "Monteverdi:L'incoronazione di Poppea ed. Curtis". Gramophone (London: Haymarket): p. 88. Retrieved 8 November 2009. ^ "Monteverdi: L'incoronazione di Poppea". Gramophone (London: Haymarket): p. 123. May 1990. Retrieved 19 November 2009.

Generated from:

{{cite journal|last= Arnold|first= Denis|title= Monteverdi:L'incoronazione di Poppea ed. Curtis|journal= Gramophone|pages= p. 88|publisher= Haymarket|location= London|date= April 1982 |accessdate= 8 November 2009}}

{{cite journal|title= Monteverdi: L'incoronazione di Poppea|journal= Gramophone|pages= p. 123|publisher= Haymarket|location= London|date= May 1990|accessdate= 19 November 2009}}

Why does the title appear after the page reference without an author, when it appears behind the first major identifier of provenance (the title for authorless works) when there's an author present?

Arnold, Denis (April 1982). "Mont..." and

"Monteverdi: L'incoronazione di Poppea" (May 1990). Grama...

Makes much more stylistic sense. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the initial example output above, but this time expanded from the actual templates given as examples:

• Arnold, Denis (April 1982). "Monteverdi:L'incoronazione di Poppea ed. Curtis". Gramophone. London: Haymarket: p. 88. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |pages= has extra text (help)
• "Monteverdi: L'incoronazione di Poppea". Gramophone. London: Haymarket: p. 123. May 1990. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |pages= has extra text (help)

(i) It doesn't appear to be anything to do with page references, nor with the position of the title. It's the position of the date, which comes after author (if there is one), after editor (if there is one, but there is no author) or before all the numeric info (DOI, ISSN, etc.) if there is neither author nor editor.

(ii) It's not a problem with {{cite journal}} per se, but a feature of {{Citation/core}}.

(iii) [unrelated] the |accessdate= field is meaningless unless the |url= field is also specified. Printed journals don't change their meaning with time (or even disappear entirely), the way that web pages do: the date when you read the article in the printed magazine is immaterial.

Two ideas:

(i) if the article has no credited author, examine the contents page to see who the editor is, and fill in at least |editor1-last= and |editor1-first=.

(ii) if the editor is unobtainable, and you really want the order of output changed, you need to put your question at

editprotected

}} Please revert this edit, which incorrectly changed "|Ref={{{ref|}}} " to "|Ref={{{Ref|}}} ". The edit appears to have been installed by a semiautomated process that capitalizes template names, but it broke the |ref= parameter of {{cite journal}}. I will follow up on the talk page of the user who's running the process. Eubulides (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

That was so fast I didn't even get to your talk page. Thanks! Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Separators in parameter names

Posted here, for want of a specific most-relevant template:
Why is it that we can't have a single separator in compound parameter names? We have |archivedate= (with no separator), |editor-last= (with a hyphen, or is it a minus or an endash), |trans_title= (with an underscore), and {{cit journal}} seems to use |part title= (with a space). Can we pick one that will work in all cases and migrate to it, so new editors won't have to play the guessing game? LeadSongDog come howl 19:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I've searched Help:Template and Help:Advanced templates, and can't find a guide. I would prefer not to use a space (readability); and a hyphen is quicker to type than underscore. Unicode minus and en-dash should both be avoided - they're not normal keyboard characters. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget the space in the name "{{cite journal}}". Unless we want to change the name of the template, or to use a different convention in parameter names than in template names, space would seem to be the way to go. On the other hand the space makes the editing window a bit more confusing, as it can cause the parameter name to straddle lines. If we ignore the template name, the most common convention seems to be to not have a separator at all. How about if I changed {{cit journal}} to use no separator for its new parameters? I don't really care about the separator, but would prefer not to have to support lots of different spellings, as that slows things down. Eubulides (talk)

I notice there's a redirect from

Template:Citejournal to Template:Cite journal, so that's only a server load and performance issue, at "Save page" time. Errors in misremembered parameter names in most cases will result in information that is silently omitted from the displayed result. (Exception: {{cite web|titel=A neat webpage}} yields {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help), but that's rather OTT. I tend to think it would be simplest to use no separator, but really have no strong preference amongst the other choices. LeadSongDog come howl

20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. I got rid of the spaces in the new parameter names in {{cit book}} and {{cit journal}}. For the existing parameter |doi_brokendate= I left the underscore alone, even though I don't like it; it's not worth the hassle of changing. Eubulides (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PubMed identifier/PMID redirect

Hi,

Currently the template produces [[PubMed Identifier|PMID]] ######### when the PMID = parameter is filled out, but

_complex

20:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems better to have the link to the fully spelled out name since you can just hover the link rather than go to the page to see what PMID means. It's done the same way for [[International Standard Serial Number|ISSN]], for example.

WP Physics

} 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm...it creates problems for my popups (but someone with popups probably wouldn't have an issue either way), but is PubMed Identifier any more meaningful than PMID? If you know what PubMed is, you probably know what a PMID is. Is it worth moving the page?

_complex

21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Page=/Pages=

The documentation for |page= and |pages= says, "Manually prepend with p. or pp. if necessary." Other cite-family templates provide the prefix based on which of the two parameters the editor uses. Why is this template different?

If the template is different for backwards compatibility, i.e., because prior versions did not add the prefix and so changing {{cite journal}} would introduce duplicate prefixes, should we consider changing {{cite journal}} to use the {{Page numbers}} template? The {{Page numbers}} template inspects a page number value and adds the "p." or "pp." prefix if necessary. Using {{Page numbers}}, we could change this template to add a prefix if necessary without breaking existing uses that provide the prefix manually. We could also update the documentation to remove the note about manually prepending the prefix, and then {{cite journal}} would be more consistent with the other templates. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This is follow-up to

WP Physics} 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)