| Revision as of 21:35, 16 May 2022 editLlywelynII (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions90,644 edits →Restore display command← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:29, 18 October 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,582,227 editsm Substing templates: {{WikiProject Reference works}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. |
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{oldtfdfull|date= 2019 April 18 |result=Move patent citations out of {{tl|Citation}} and into {{tl|Cite patent}}, deprecate the dedicated code in {{tl|Citation}} for patents |disc=separate patent cites from Template:Citation}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |1= |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Books|referencework=yes}} |
|
{{bots|deny=Citation bot}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Template talk:Citation/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
{{archives|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== revised-date? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is the best way to document a living document with a date of original publication and a date for the latest update (ignoring the update)? Does orig-date apply here (and if so, can we make that explicit in the documentation, please?)? Thanks for any advice! ] (]) 17:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Cite the date of the version that supports the in-text claim. You can add {{para|archive-url}} and {{para|archive-date}} if you want to link to a specific version of a page. – ] (]) 18:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I came to this Talk page to discuss just this, and a solution I have found for a source which states that it was published on a certain date, and updated on a different date. Linking to an archived version is not appropriate in this case. Most date parameters require a rigidly specified date format—"<code>|date=March 1, 2008, updated March 1, 2012</code>" is not allowed—but <code>orig-date</code> is free-format; it displays its contents in square brackets after the date, and documentation encourages that an explanation be included: <code>|date=1 December 2022|orig-date=originally published 31 November 2022</code>, rendering as "1 December 2022 ". When the original publication date is more important, e.g. to establish precedence, I use the parameter backwards: <code>|date=30 November 2022|orig-date=updated 1 December 2022</code>. '''Maybe the parameter orig-date should have an alternative, optional, name, possibly <code>alt-date</code> or <code>update-date</code>, or both?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
::I used this in ].<ref name="mirrorfirst">{{Cite news|last=Crerar|first=Pippa|date=30 November 2021|orig-date=updated 1 December 2021|title=Boris Johnson 'broke Covid lockdown rules' with Downing Street parties at Xmas|newspaper=Daily Mirror|url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-broke-covid-lockdown-25585238}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{Reply to|HLHJ}} This may be the solution you seek. |
|
|
::{{Reply to|Jonesey95}} Maybe also of interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Reflist-talk|title=}} |
|
|
:: Best wishes, ](]) 14:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thank you, ], ]! That's just what I needed to know, and I've updated it. ] (]) 01:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Feature request=== |
|
|
It would be useful to have (an) alias(es) for orig-date, to give update dates, translation dates, dates spanning multiple days or years, and other dates that do not fit the standard format. See above. ] (]) 16:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== {{para|archive-date}} feature request == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tl|Webarchive}} extracts the date from the URL if no date is supplied. Can the citation templates learn this trick too? ~] (]) 00:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
: Second that. It is a considerable waste of time to go back and extract the date, while the information is already present in archive-url field. -- ] (]) 13:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spurious error message? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The citation <code><nowiki><ref>{{Cite web |title=/e/OS - deGoogled unGoogled smartphone operating systems and online services |author= |website=e Foundation |date= |access-date=22 February 2022 |url=https://e.foundation/e-os}}</ref></nowiki></code> is correct (when clicked on it goes to a valid page), but displays <code><nowiki>{{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)</nowiki></code> in the {{tl|reflist}} when invoked in ].<ref>{{Cite web |title=/e/OS - deGoogled unGoogled smartphone operating systems and online services |author= |website=e Foundation |date= |access-date=22 February 2022 |url=https://e.foundation/e-os}}</ref> |
|
|
{{Reflist-talk|title=}} |
|
|
Best wishes, ] (]) 19:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== url-status=deviated?? == |
|
|
|
|
|
At the moment the documentation says "When the original URL is 'live' but no longer supports the article text, set |url-status=deviated." The documentation does not say what effect this is supposed to have, and I couldn't find any information elsewhere. In practice it seems to work exactly the same as "dead": it shows the archived link first, then "archived at". Personally I think it should act the same as "usurped" or "unfit", but my opinion doesn't matter. '''What it does need is documenting'''. At present it seems that there are 3 behaviours (and they seem to cover all possibilities): dead (default), with synonym deviated; live; and usurped, synonym unfit. Best wishes, ] (]) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Restore display command== |
|
|
Seems someone nixed or forgot to include |display-translators= along with the commands for authors and editors. Sure it's less important, but it still needs to be available when needed. — ] 22:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{para|display-translators}} is a valid, supported, and properly functioning parameter: |
|
|
::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |title=Title |translator=Black, AB |translator2=Brown, CD |display-translators=1}}</nowiki></code> |
|
|
:::{{cite book |title=Title |translator=Black, AB |translator2=Brown, CD |display-translators=1}} |
|
|
::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |title=Title |translator=Black, AB |display-translators=etal}}</nowiki></code> |
|
|
:::{{cite book |title=Title |translator=Black, AB |display-translators=etal}} |
|
|
:—] (]) 22:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I see the problem. It pops up as an invalid field error when the <code>|translator=</code> field has been left blank for future use. Instead of anything about a name being required, it tells editors that <code>|display-translators=</code> doesn't exist. — ] 21:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==New Work field== |
|
|
Personally, I find it entirely superfluous since <code>|contribution=</code> and <code>|title=</code> worked just fine. If people prefer to have <code>|url=</code> and <code>|title=</code> mean multiple things for different purposes... eh... seems ill considered to me but fine. The problem is that there seems to be no <code>|work-url=</code> field to allow the work as a whole to be linked. Ok... fine... I'll just format it the old way... but then <code>|issue=</code> doesn't display, apparently out of pure peevishness. What possible reason could there be to ''surpress'' the issue number if everything else is correct? |
|
|
|
|
|
That said, of course it might just be my own misunderstanding of the new code (as above) or a missing field in the documentation around the <code>|work=</code> parameter. — ] 21:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
