| Revision as of 03:00, 10 September 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,657 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Template talk:Cite newspaper The Times/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:25, 10 September 2016 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits →Temporary tracking categories: add noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| :The relevant discussion is ] (at the talk page for ]). Andy should have properly notified those using this template of the preparations he is making for his proposed changes. I do hope the temporary tracking categories are hidden ones, as otherwise they will be directly affecting article namespace. FFS! they are ''not'' hidden categories. Readers will be seeing these 'temporary' (over a day and a half now) categories popping up in many articles. That is not acceptable. ] (]) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC) | :The relevant discussion is ] (at the talk page for ]). Andy should have properly notified those using this template of the preparations he is making for his proposed changes. I do hope the temporary tracking categories are hidden ones, as otherwise they will be directly affecting article namespace. FFS! they are ''not'' hidden categories. Readers will be seeing these 'temporary' (over a day and a half now) categories popping up in many articles. That is not acceptable. ] (]) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::I think, to make the tracking categories hidden, someone needs to actually ''create'' them and add {{tl|Hidden category}} to them (see ]). ] (]) 21:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC) | ::I think, to make the tracking categories hidden, someone needs to actually ''create'' them and add {{tl|Hidden category}} to them (see ]). ] (]) 21:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
| Update: I have asked for advice at the technical village pump. I wouldn't normally do this, but I think the issue needs some wider attention and I'll not be around for the next day or so. ] (]) 03:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:25, 10 September 2016
 | United Kingdom Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Merge with {{cite news}}?
As far as I can see, the {{cite news}} template offers all of the parameters that this template does, except for day_of_week. The conversion between the two would be: The conversion between the two seems to be:
| Times template | News template |
|---|---|
| articlename | title |
| author | author |
| section | department |
| day_of_week | N/A |
| date | date |
| page_number | page |
| page_numbers | pages |
| issue | issue |
| column | at (giving col. N, and p. N or pp. N) |
| The Times | newspaper=The Times |
| London | location=London |
Cite news would display the contents in a different order, e.g.:
- This template: Author (1 January 2000). "Title". Section. The Times. No. 1. London. col 1, p. 1.
{{cite news}}:|author=has generic name (help) template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help) - Cite news: Author (1 January 2000). "Title". Section. The Times. No. 1. London. col. 1, p. 1, pp. 1-2.
{{cite news}}:|author=has generic name (help)
Would it be worth turning this into a redirect to the cite news template, with the newspaper and location auto-filled? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd Oppose a merger, this is a dedicated template for The Times and should stay that way. It handily handles columns and days of the week - the latter is deprecated by some with {{cite news}}. Also, location is automatically added with this template, rather than having to add it in manually. Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. What Mjroots said. The Times is unique among newspapers in that for much of its history it was published in chapbook format (that is, one enormous sheet of paper folded over to create four very large "pages") so the column letter has far more significance than for other periodicals; plus, the number of significant weekly features means it's one of the few newspapers for which the day of the week an article was published is significant. – iridescent 19:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Support. It makes no sense to have one format for a particular newspaper that is different from that used for all other newspapers. This non-standard template should never have been created. It simply creates inconsistency and looks weird when in the same article there are references from other newspapers. We don't need day of the week or column number. If you really want to include the column number you can do so in cite news, as Mike Peel demonstrates above. -- Alarics (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just to clarify / point out a few things:
- I'm suggesting that it might be worth turning this into an active redirect to the other template, not deleting it in favour of cite news. By that, I mean turning this template into a call to cite news, passing the relevant parameters, and the auto-defined newspaper and location values. That way, the template benefits from the extra features of cite news.
- I doubt that this is the only newspaper that columns and days of the week might actually be relevant for: perhaps it would be worth getting these specifically added to cite news.
- I'm not sure that this is an oppose/support situation (which is why I didn't take this to templates for discussion). Perhaps we could have a discussion about the differences rather than a !vote? I'm happy for no changes to be made, if that's what people that use this template prefer.
- Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I not only don't use this template, I actively disapprove of it and I would like it to be abolished. -- Alarics (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- To reiterate, I would not support anything that involves merging this with {{cite news}} unless and until the latter can properly handle column referencing (rather than the fudge proposed above of using the "at" field and typing "column foo" into it). "Page number" on the Times pre-1850 or so is meaningless, since the "pages" are either front/back or 1–4 (depending on how that particular issue was folded). I can see a case for making the output from this template look the same as cite news, but I find the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments above completely unconvincing; the reason we have
one format for a particular newspaper that is different from that used for all other newspapers
is that the old format of the paper in question is different from that of all other newspapers, not a perverse desire to be awkward. – iridescent 21:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)- @Mike Peel: - my argument for the retention of this template as a separate one to cite news is not based on IDONTLIKEIT, unlike Alarics reasons for supporting your proposal. Turning this template into a redirect would have the same effect as deleting it. There are solid reasons for keeping this one separate. In some ways, this template creates more work for an editor using it, but that is balanced by it lessening work in other ways. It is said that there is an exception to every rule - this is the exception to cite news. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, so the key argument seems to be that the column and day of week parameters are needed. I've asked if they can be added to cite news over at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and pointed back to this page for the reasons. Hope that helps! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: - my argument for the retention of this template as a separate one to cite news is not based on IDONTLIKEIT, unlike Alarics reasons for supporting your proposal. Turning this template into a redirect would have the same effect as deleting it. There are solid reasons for keeping this one separate. In some ways, this template creates more work for an editor using it, but that is balanced by it lessening work in other ways. It is said that there is an exception to every rule - this is the exception to cite news. Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- To reiterate, I would not support anything that involves merging this with {{cite news}} unless and until the latter can properly handle column referencing (rather than the fudge proposed above of using the "at" field and typing "column foo" into it). "Page number" on the Times pre-1850 or so is meaningless, since the "pages" are either front/back or 1–4 (depending on how that particular issue was folded). I can see a case for making the output from this template look the same as cite news, but I find the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments above completely unconvincing; the reason we have
Authorlink
This template unlike every other cite template I have ever used, does not support the authorlink= field. Could it be edited to enable this please? DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Temporary tracking categories
@Pigsonthewing: - what is the purpose of these uncreated categories? The are appearing on all articles and lists that use this template. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- As the name indicates, they are TEMPORARY. One tracks Cite newspaper The Times using the 'column' parameter; the other tracks Cite newspaper The Times using the 'day of week' parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- The relevant discussion is here (at the talk page for Help:Citation Style 1). Andy should have properly notified those using this template of the preparations he is making for his proposed changes. I do hope the temporary tracking categories are hidden ones, as otherwise they will be directly affecting article namespace. FFS! they are not hidden categories. Readers will be seeing these 'temporary' (over a day and a half now) categories popping up in many articles. That is not acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think, to make the tracking categories hidden, someone needs to actually create them and add {{Hidden category}} to them (see Category:Hidden categories). Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Update: I have asked for advice here at the technical village pump. I wouldn't normally do this, but I think the issue needs some wider attention and I'll not be around for the next day or so. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Categories: