Template talk:Cite journal: Difference between revisions
Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
:::Thanks for that - of course it doen't help when the source magazine separates the two groups of four with a space! [[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
:::Thanks for that - of course it doen't help when the source magazine separates the two groups of four with a space! [[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::: The {{tl|cite journal}} documentation says that only a hyphen is allowed as a separator, and that a space is not allowed. The ''[[ISSN]]'' article also says that hyphens must be used. It appears that the source magazine is in error, and that you'll have to fix this by hand (I know of no easy way to fix it in the template). [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 21:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
:::: The {{tl|cite journal}} documentation says that only a hyphen is allowed as a separator, and that a space is not allowed. The ''[[ISSN]]'' article also says that hyphens must be used. It appears that the source magazine is in error, and that you'll have to fix this by hand (I know of no easy way to fix it in the template). [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 21:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Due to the vaguries of the template environment I don;t think it is possible, however it would be possible too suppress and warn - {{Tl|Check ISSN}} will do this for you . ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC). 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Page=/Pages= == |
== Page=/Pages= == |
Revision as of 19:15, 30 November 2009
![]() | Template:Cite journal is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit protected}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | Archives of this discussion page |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Academic Journals Template‑class | ||||||
|
Usage of "language="
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)
laysource= is broken
{{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)
Replacement for quotes=no for reprints, errata, etc.?
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 Autism:
- {{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:
- Kanner L (1943). "Autistic disturbances of affective contact". Nerv Child. 2: 217–50. "Reprint". Acta Paedopsychiatr. 35 (4): 100–36. 1968. PMID 4880460.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|quotes=
ignored (help)
But the word "Reprint" should not be quoted: it's not a source whose title is "Reprint", it's merely a reprint. Here's another example, also from Autism:
- {{cite journal |author= Filipek PA, Accardo PJ, Baranek GT ''et al.'' |title= The screening and diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorders |journal= J Autism Dev Disord |year=1999 |volume=29 |issue=6 |pages=439–84 |doi=10.1023/A:1021943802493}} {{cite journal |title=Erratum |quotes=no |year=2000 |journal= J Autism Dev Disord |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=81 |doi=10.1023/A:1017256313409 |pmid=10638459}}
This currently formats as:
- 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. doi:10.1023/A:1021943802493.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) "Erratum". J Autism Dev Disord. 30 (1): 81. 2000. doi:10.1023/A:1017256313409. 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., OCLC 16651194. Republished as Ruiz de Burton, María Amparo (1995), Sánchez, Rosaura; Pita, Beatrice (eds.), Who Would Have Thought It?, Houston: Arte Público, pp. vii–lxv, ISBN 978-1558850811.
- So in the example you give, you'd put something like:
- 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 Template talk:Citation, in its section 'Restoring support for "quotes=no" to {{Cite journal}}'. Comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Reprints and errata should not subvert the title field: one should either
- Use the real title of the work
- 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)
- Reprints and errata should not subvert the title field: one should either
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}}
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
Can we add archiveurl= before Werdnabot archives the discussion for the fourth time?
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.
{{editprotected}}
Can some administrator please insert the following lines after "|amp = {{{use ampersand before last author|}}}":
|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)
- 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 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)
PMC to embargoed article?
In User:Citation bot/bugs #Problems with new bot on autism article I complained about the Citation bot's adding |pmc=2677584
in the following citation:
- 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. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0326. PMC 2677584. 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. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – 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)
- How about
- 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)
- That makes perfect sense to me too.
- 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)
- 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)
- Thanks. However,
- 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)
Spacing in template?
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)
- 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
- Agreeing with both above. {{cite journal |param=value |param=value }} wins. KellenT 16:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. - Samwb123 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreeing with both above. {{cite journal |param=value |param=value }} wins. KellenT 16:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Capitalised documentation page
See Template_talk:Cite_web#Upper_case_form_of_template_name. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Target linking for harv
The {{harv}} series of templates expect citations to include html code of the form <span class="citation" id="CITEREFErd.C5.91sSimonovits1973"> ... </span>, as produced by the {{citation}} template. This template, on the other hand, does not produce these spans; it just produces <span class="citation"> ... </span> without the id. And {{cite book}} is even worse in this respect: it produces <span class="citation book"> ... </span>. If we are serious about making these templates interchangeable, this should be fixed: otherwise the links produced by {{harv}} will not work in articles formatted with {{cite journal}}. Compare, for instance, the citation links in the cirrent version of the Grötzsch graph article (edited to use {{citation}}) vs the links in an older version using cite journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- In an article like Autism
- 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)
- The easiest way is to use
- When we have User:Citation bot automatically switching {{citation}} and {{cite}} to make things more consistent in appearance, we shouldn't need "extra" parameters that are easily forgotten to make them consistent in other ways. What is the justification for {{cite journal}} and {{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)
- 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)
Quotes=no
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 (Cadence Magazine) doesn't really use an actual title for its interviews. It has the name of the interview subject, perhaps that should be the title, but then it seems more like an article about the subject e.g. "Jane Smith". I had been putting e.g. Interview with Jane Smith, New York, 1990 using quotes=no. If MOS suggests that I should, indeed, be using double-quotes for something like this, then I guess I don't have a problem. Otherwise, is it possible to restore "quotes=no"? Thanx, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Italics in title not recursive
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). Bethesda: David Taylor Research Center. Retrieved 13 November 2009. {{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help) (cite used in USS Constellation (1854)).
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)
- Agree that's what I've seen done elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is a fault directly with the template. It looks like either the MediaWiki parser or HTML Tidy does not allow markup that starts outside the link to be terminated by markup inside the link:
''[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]
Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered
Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered
Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered
Fouled Anchors: The Constellation Question Answered
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- 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
- --Redrose64 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly a bug in {{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 MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Italics of italics not working inside a link where we have discovered that HTML Tidy is at fault. I was rather pessimistic that this was going to be a simple template fix. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- This bug should be fixed now; see Template talk:Citation/core #Italicized title containing italics. The fix doesn't address the deeper problems with HTML Tidy, but it should work around this particular instance of them. Eubulides (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Citation of Journals with named issues
I've come across a number of 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). Model Rail (137). Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
- Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail (137). Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
- Earlier this year we had, in succession:
- Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail (132). Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail (133). Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail (134). Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
- Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail (132). Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
- 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). Model Rail. Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail (Summer). Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail. Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
- Jones, Ben, ed. (2009). Model Rail. Peterborough: Bauer Consumer Magazines. ISSN 1369-5118.
- 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)
- The
- 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). Record Collector (356). London: Diamond Publishing Ltd. ISSN 0261-250X.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Lewis, Alan, ed. (2008). Record Collector (357). London: Diamond Publishing Ltd. ISSN 0261-250X.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - Lewis, Alan, ed. (2009). Record Collector (358). London: Diamond Publishing Ltd. ISSN 0261-250X.
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)
- Lewis, Alan, ed. (2008). Record Collector (356). London: Diamond Publishing Ltd. ISSN 0261-250X.
- 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)
- 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:
- You've not used the
- 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
- 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)
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|dateformat= dmy}}
- {{cite journal|title= Monteverdi: L'incoronazione di Poppea|journal= Gramophone|pages= p. 123|publisher= Haymarket|location= London|date= May 1990|accessdate= 19 November 2009|dateformat= dmy}}
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); Unknown parameter|dateformat=
ignored (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); Unknown parameter|dateformat=
ignored (help)
- Arnold, Denis (April 1982). "Monteverdi:L'incoronazione di Poppea ed. Curtis". Gramophone. London: Haymarket: p. 88.
- (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 Template talk:Citation/core. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Normally I suggest "Staff" or "[Staff]" or "[Editorial]" or possibly "[Anonymous]". In this case though, its worth bringing forward as an escalated item. The accessdates were present because I stripped the (four line) url fields. I'll reduce to minimal problem when escalating to Template talk:Citation/core Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Breaking ISSNs
The template appears to be occasionaly breaking ISSN numbers - turning them into a twelve digit number by adding the last four digits to the start of the number - thus:
- Lowe, Malcolm V. (1994). "Island Hopper: The Spartan Aircraft Cruiser tri-motor". Air Enthusiast (No.56, Winter 1994). Stamford, UK: Key Publishing: 52–55. ISSN 0143-5450.
{{cite journal}}
:|issue=
has extra text (help)
Any idea what's going on, and can someone fix it?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not expecting the space (which is used to separate the URL from linkable text). Either leave that out, or use a hyphen (nb not an en-dash, because it's not recognised by WorldCat) instead. The template documentation states:
- --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Technical explanation: when the template has fully expanded, what you get is this:
[[International Standard Serial Number|ISSN]] [http://worldcat.org/issn/0143 5450 0143 5450]
- which shows as ISSN 5450 0143 5450. However, use a hyphen instead, and you get:
[[International Standard Serial Number|ISSN]] [http://worldcat.org/issn/0143-5450 0143-5450]
- which shows as ISSN 0143-5450. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - of course it doen't help when the source magazine separates the two groups of four with a space! Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The {{cite journal}} documentation says that only a hyphen is allowed as a separator, and that a space is not allowed. The ISSN article also says that hyphens must be used. It appears that the source magazine is in error, and that you'll have to fix this by hand (I know of no easy way to fix it in the template). Eubulides (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - of course it doen't help when the source magazine separates the two groups of four with a space! Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- which shows as ISSN 0143-5450. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Due to the vaguries of the template environment I don;t think it is possible, however it would be possible too suppress and warn - {{Check ISSN}} will do this for you . Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC). 19:15, 30 November 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 Template talk:Cite web#"page=" parameter issue. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update - I updated the sandbox version to use the {{Page numbers}} template. It is working as I would expect, but I am not sure if it is doing the right thing: in all cases, it includes the "p." or "pp." prefix if the user does not specify it. Is that the proper output, or are the prefixes not part of the citation style in certain circumstances? — John Cardinal (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
AWB gone wild, and screwed up template
{{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).