Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 2009 August

Could I ask.....

what are the advantages of using the templates in this article, by comparing with the ones on the page of Wikipedia:Citation templates--222.64.28.225 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not allow me to post this message--222.64.28.225 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is playing with me for posting this message is the one of a terror suspect--222.64.28.225 (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The advantages of using a citation templates are:

1. insure that citations are displayed in a consistent format
2. are easier to maintain (see for example User:Citation bot)
3. are easier to create when using tools like the template filler tool.

Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There are three popular ways to write citations. One is to just type them between <ref>...</ref> tags. A second is to use the {{citation}} template. That template puts publication information in a reasonable order no matter whether it is a book, web site, journal, etc. being cited. The last way is to pick a template suitable for the kind of work, such as {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}. All the approaches using templates provide roughly similar results. In an existing article, you should use whichever method is already in use.

There are some less popular but acceptable alternatives, such as Parenthetical referencing. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Publisher and City not displaying

I am trying to use this template for a Festschrift, where publisher and city are important. Although I have entered this information into the template it does not display. Tibetologist (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the wikitext you are using? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unpublished papers (e.g. theses)

The template {{cite paper}} was merged into this template some time ago. However, I do not feel that {{cite journal}} (rather {{citation}}, which I use now instead of this template) is suitable for citing unpublished works, such as doctoral theses, in those cases where such works could be considered 'reliable'. Thoughts on what alternative template may be more suited to unpublished (though reliable) scholarly works? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

With a few rare exceptions, such as when some intelligence or military organization orders the work kept secret, doctoral dissertations are published works, even if they haven't appeared in a journal. They have been made available (even if not always particularly easily) to the public, which is what publish means. Whether the template is adequate for citing them I don't know; certainly if it's not, that should be fixed. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, though of course {{cite journal}} specifically doesn't need to be adapted to them, as they aren't journals. But there should be a way of citing them, for sure. --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think either {{citation}} or {{cite book}} is appropriate for doctoral theses. I generally use {{citation}}, which also works for shorter-than-book-length standalone works such as technical reports. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)