Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Citing using ISBN or key only 2 How should an editor be listed in Book reference 3 URL link but no author link for Book reference 4 Delete Catholic Encyclopedia template 5 Foreign language websites 6 Error near the top? 7 Wookieepedia 8 Suggested additional Templates to list 9 Requesting sources - {{cleanup-verify}} also deprecated? 10 Automation of template contents 11 Request quote - new template 12 Secondary source template 13 Citepaper-related templates up for deletion 14 Placement of Source Template Tag 15 New template idea 16 PD sources 17 another new template idea 18 Bullshit

[edit] Citing using ISBN or key only

Is there a standard way I should cite a book giving the ISBN or a key only, something like {{cite isbn=1234}}, and then modifying a single entry for this book somewhere? Do you have to create a template yourself? (As here: Template:Cite isbn=0-521-58519-8) Will this template be deleted? (Sorry I didn't notice the template sandbox before I made this.) -- Nils Grimsmo 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I don't think there is a way to specify a book by the isbn and have all the details come up. If you want to cite a single book, just use {{cite book}}, if you need to do the same book several times, you could create a page in your userspace, which contains the specific use of {{cite book}} you need for that book, and then wherever you need to use it, use subst:, eg {{subst:User:Nils Grimsmo/mybook1}}. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Keeping something like this in my user space strikes me as a bit odd. Would not others hesitate to change it then? I think it would be great if there was a standard "built-in" way of doing this, as some books are cited many hundred times, as for example Introduction to Algorithms. Assume that somebody would want to make a page about a specific author. Instead of finding all references by searching, and updating them by hand, she could just update the template. Having one instance of the {{cite book}} would also minimise the number of unfixed errors. Citing by ISBN avoids misunderstandings with mismatching page numbers in different versions and such things. Considering the amount of trafic on this page, I assume it was not the right place to ask. What would be? Village pump (technical)? -- Nils Grimsmo 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Village pump (technical) -- Nils Grimsmo 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been proposed a few times, but so far hasn't been implemented. I agree wholeheartedly. References should be an identifier for a book; not the citation itself. The citation information should be stored and cataloged elsewhere, and referenced from the book's id when needed. This is the basic idea behind m:Wikicite, which seems to be far, far in the future. — Omegatron 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How should an editor be listed in Book reference

If the referenced book has an editor, show should that be indicated in any of the Book reference style of references? Nereocystis 15:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess I have the same question, i.e. what about edited volumes. The "Harvard references template" seem to introduce the possibility of referencing chapters in edited volumes. But what about just edited volumes as such? This would be exactly the same as "cite book", but the possibility of identifying the book as an edited volume so as to have "(ed.)" after authors' names. Any idea about this with current templates? Typewritten 15:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URL link but no author link for Book reference

How do I put a reference which for a book which has a URL, but no author link? Nereocystis 16:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Catholic Encyclopedia template

Can an adminstrator delete the {{CatholicEncyclopedia}} template? It has been deprecated in favor of the {{Catholic}} template, all articles using the template have been removed. Thanks Reflex Reaction 16:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language websites

Can someone add a list of the symbols used to indicate foreign language websites? The only ones I know are {{svenska}} (giving ) for Swedish and {{de icon}} (giving ) for German. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error near the top?

Brian Ryans 01:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
In the very top table, wouldn't it need a "Where it goes" section for consistency with the other sections? I'd add it myself but I'm still working on learning Wiki.

[edit] Wookieepedia

A number of Star Wars related articles have begun using content from Wookieepedia, which as a part of WikiCities, is distributed under the GFDL. Would it be appropriate to create {{Wookieepedia}} to mark those articles, link back to the original work and the edit history? --SparqMan 08:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additional Templates to list

Do you feel that the following templates should be added to the list?

• {{Citation needed}} with reference to the deprecated → {{Fact}} and {{Citeneeded}} and {{Citationneeded}} and {{Cite needed}} in a table note
• {{Cite}}
• {{Primarysources}}

Thanks for considering this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• {{Citenews}} should be listed too, since it's getting used. --Jdlh | Talk 06:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting sources - {{cleanup-verify}} also deprecated?

How about {{cleanup-verify}}? Is it also deprecated?

[edit] Automation of template contents

There may be a better forum to ask this sort of thing, but maybe someone here can at least point me in the right direction. I'm curious whether the citation templates lend themselves to programmatic aggregation. I suppose this has something to do with the backend database design, but it might conceivably be accessible via some of the robot libraries available for Python, Perl, Java, etc.

The sort of thing I have in mind is, e.g.:

1. Create a list of articles that reference Journal of Philosophy.
2. Find all the web references that point to the same URL in order to check if other citation information is consistent.
3. Find every journal article that "Sally Chou" has written (that WP thinks is worth mentioning).

Obviously, all this could only work inasmuch as editors use the citation templates, and use them relatively consistently. But this sort of robot-ish stuff could be very useful in obtaining citation consistency across articles, and on indexing/navigating sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request quote - new template

I just created the {request quote} template. Anyone who has been involved in articles engaged in heavy edit warring and POV pushing knows that sometimes people --let's just say "misinterpret" sources. When someone makes an assertion about what a source says, and doesn't provide a quote, and the source is not available online or it is very obscure, checking the editor's interpretation can be very challenging or impossible. The template requests that a quote from the source being interpreted is provided on the Talk page so that we can see that the editor has interpreted the source correctly, and also whether he just made something up. Sure, he can make up a quote, but it's much more unlikely. I think this is crucial if we are to have a somewhat reliable encyclopedia. RJII 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not just ask the editor on the talk page, and instead, comment out the disputed quote, instead of loading down the article with tags? -- infinity0 13:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Test successful. RJII 15:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist, Mr "I see conspiracies everywhere". -- infinity0 15:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary source template

Should this template be added to this page? I don't see a location for it. Maybe this article needs a section for "Disputes" over sources? Or just leave it on the templates for disputes page?

[edit] Citepaper-related templates up for deletion

I just noticed that four templates have been nominated for deletion:

• {{Citepaper}}
• {{Citepaper version}}
• {{Citepaper publisher}}
• {{Citepaper publisher version}}

Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of Source Template Tag

This Wiki page indicates that the source placement tag is to be placed at the bottom of the page. Is it appropriate to put it up at the top of the page? Is that a variance acceptable from the source policy? Just want to check, for we have a page where the placement of the source template has become a point of some discussion. Thanks. Ptmccain 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template idea

I often need to tag external links section with {{External links}}. However, sometimes I see links that could be used as references instead of plainly external links, and somehow using that template isn't right, as users may just delete them instead of adding the information found in them to the article. I suggest creating a new template, one that informs that some external links could be used as references, suggesting editors to move the links there. What do you think? -- ReyBrujo 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD sources

For the templates for use of the now out of copyright PD sources, shouldnt the wording be not " some of this article ..." but rather "some or all of this article"  ? The current wording implies quotations; in reality it is likely to be sections or the entirety. Perhaps a template saying "some or all of this article... The part(s) copied have not been indicated", as most of the people doing this do not indicate what part, which is legal but midleading.  ? DGG 04:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another new template idea

I see too many long articles that have plenty of references, but no (or very few) inline citations. How about a template marking such articles? (Although I'd like to see such a template, I'm not sure how many others will consider refs-but-not-inline articles to be a serious enough problem to warrant a template.) --Allen 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit

I often find myself wanting to add one of these templates with the suffix "...and my well be utter made-up bullshit". Is there something like that already, or can one be added? --Dtcdthingy 22:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hoax is the strongest I can think of. You can also subst the template, save, and modify it afterwards. But if you think it's bullshit, you should have it deleted, so I'd go for Template:Prod (or AfD, if you're not so sure). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. There's a big category of articles where someone's written from what they know, and it's impossible to know whether they've got it right or not. The current templates imply the article is correct and just needs confirmation. I want one more like "This article contains unverified statements and should be read with caution". --Dtcdthingy 09:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Template:Not verified? However, please be careful. Editors might not take it kindly if you say that an article might be incorrect just because there are unreferenced statements while you don't know anything about the subject. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)