Template talk:Cite news

Need to unlink dates

{{editprotected}}

The wikilinking of dates is now depreciated, so dates in this template should not be automatically linked. Dates are no longer linked in the main {{citation}} template. Dhaluza (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please update the template with this version of Template:Cite news/sandbox, (omitting the sandbox template notice at the top). The diff for the changes should match this diff of the sandbox. Please see Template:Cite news/testcases for examples of the changes. The changes are only to add the optional accessdaymonth, accessmonthday, and accessyear parameters to allow unlinked retrieval dates. These are the same parameter names in use on Template:Cite web to provide unlinked retrieval dates with that template. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to allow the option of unlinked retrieval dates have been discussed above in several places. The code in the sandbox has been adapted from Template:Cite web where these retrieval date options have been implemented since February 2007. The making of these changes will not break any "legal" uses of the template anywhere it's currently in use, nor will they preclude any future modifications of this template. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, please check that I've done it right. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I still see both the publication and access dates wikilinked where {{cite news}} is used. Dhaluza (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the publication date not wikilinked, but the access date is. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes made above don't automagically unlink all dates. Doing so would leave a rash of articles with unlinked, ISO-style dates, which would end up exchanging one style 'problem' for another. The changes made are parallel to the setup at {{cite web}} where the parameters "accessdaymonth" or "accessmonthday" coupled with "accessyear" provide the ability for unlinked retrieval dates. I don't know the status of the discussions (referenced in several sections above) to completely rework {{cite X}} family templates but results of that effort should provide for a more standardized handling of unlinked dates, formats, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Providing the ability for unlinked retrieval dates ≠ "The wikilinking of dates is now depreciated." All dates shown by this template need to be shown as unlinked. -- Suntag ☼ 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but linking of dates is not prohibited, it is just recommended against. I fear what these most recent changes have done is, rather than a leaving "sea of blue" have created a sea of ISO-formatted dates that are inconsistent with most articles' date formats. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there has always been a sea of blue YYYY-MM-DD formatted dates, which the preferences menu falsely implied conformed to ISO 8601. Now there is a sea of black YYYY-MM-DD dates. Since the number of readers who had accounts, were logged in, and had set a date preference, was so small, how the articles appeared to them can be ignored. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Linking of dates for autoformatting has been abandoned. All dates should be unlinked. As it stands, this template creates a sea of useless blue links that distract from the useful links to the referenced content. Dhaluza (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I posted the template at 16:21, 10 October 2008 at DRV and it has the Retrieved on date linked. Please fix so the Retrieved on date no longer is linked for new uses of the template. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I fully support this. The automatic date linking must be removed the sooner, the better. Punkmorten (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support this. Linked dates is ugly, stupid and distracting. The automatic date linking must be removed at earliest possible juncture. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done please check to make sure I did not miss any. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please restore the template to the previous version. Although auto-formatted dates are, indeed, deprecated (not depreciated), deprecation means "recommended against", not "prohibited". The last changes made to {{cite news}} merely replace one style problem, linked dates, with another, a huge number of ISO-formatted dates. Changes of this magnitude with a template used as widely as {{cite news}} shouldn't be done without a much wider discussion. Also, there is an active effort to rework the various {{cite NNN}} templates and address date links at that time. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, wikilinking dates for autoformatting is depreciated, as in now considered to be of little value, not deprecated which means to be worthy of ridicule, although that may also be true to some extent. And what is the "problem" with ISO formatted dates? As long as the style is consistent, there is no problem. The changes are meant to bring this template in line with the other templates as well as current practice. The old version you prefer creates a sea of useless, depreciated blue links in dates that have no usefulness, and detract from the usefulness of links to the referenced content. Dhaluza (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If the word is intended to be depreciated then MOS:NUM needs to be changed from the current deprecated (linked as in the original). As it stands now with the word deprecated, my point is still valid: auto-formatted dates are recommended against, but not prohibited. Yes, I am aware of the many reasons for not linking dates. And contrary to what others may think, I'm not in favor of linking dates. But unless auto-formatted dates are prohibited, there's no reason to capriciously change this template when (a) there were provisions for having unlinked dates in this template, and (b), there are efforts underway to address the date linking issue in a systematic way (rather than a perhaps reactionary manner) with a revision of all {{cite nnn}} family templates. As far as I am aware, {{cite web}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, and {{cite journal}} have not made this same change, and {{cite web}} has the exact same provisions for unlinked dates as this template (It's where I copied some of the code for this template). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That whole point (deprecated vs prohibited) is irrelevant to be honest - because this is a template and enforces conditions. Enforcing a situation which is not compliant with MOS from a widely used template can hardly be considered an ideal situation. Nor for that matter is enforcing a situation which for the majority of readers leaves two different date formats in an article for no reason but compliance with the parameters of a template. We should be thinking of our readers here. What would make a lot of sense is having a separate parameter to raw link a date in much the way we have the "date" parameter now, and leave the existing accessdate parameter as is. It's a pain that the original one was coded this way to begin with and left us with the problem we now have (i.e. ISO dates which are incompatible with date fields sprinkled all over Wikipedia) but it should be fixed now before the problem gets bigger with continued growth and compliance to citation conventions. Orderinchaos 04:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the date is still linked, is it not? Grsz^X 03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, I thought I got them all. You may need to purge your cache to see the change. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it still linked [[1]]? Grsz^X 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's {{cite web}} - a different template. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article date is still linked. For example, see the extensive {{cite news}} citations in 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Dhaluza (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

at least with the linked dates, 99% of citations were being filled out with YYYY-MM-DD dates, now that the templates aren't doing anything with the dates if they're in that format, i'm afraid that everyone will enter the dates in their own favorite way and we'll have a mess very soon. i don't care about the linking. that can come or go. but the automatic reformatting was really great.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting is an illusion. Most readers don't even have accounts, so most readers do not experience autoformatting. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The dates should be formatted consistently within an article. It is not important that they be consistent betweeen articles, as long as each is internally consistent. If the dates in the citations are formatted differently, that can be corrected through normal clean-up type editing. Dhaluza (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Stifle (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No! This is a step backwards. Now all dates are linked again. We needed to unlink the article date, not link the access date! Dhaluza (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Parameter request: volume and issue

Some news publications have volumes and issues, so I was wondering if somebody could port the relevant code from {{cite journal}}? The reason I do not simply use that instead is that the article requires some fields not present in that template (such as the "agency"; see a few sections up.)

I see now that this issue has been discussed, and seemingly accepted, but no-one took the initiative to implement the change. Maybe this reminder will help. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to be contentious or anything, can you clarify why {{cite journal}} won't work for what you want to do? — Bellhalla (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, how about an item that requires an "agency" and "work" fields? {{cite journal}} has only "journal", which is what would replace the "work" field. Where would the "agency" go? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. If you can provide a (manually) formatted sample of where the volume and issue should go, I can try to take a look at implementing the code for it. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. Does the code above not work? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Accessdate in cite news is broken site-wide

Hello. Site-wide, and evidently only in cite news, ISO dates entered as YYYY-MM-DD are no longer expanded to Month DD, YYYY as they are in the other cite templates. Can this please be fixed? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give examples? Also, when you observed YYYY-MM-DD being expanded to Month DD, YYYY, were logged in with a date preference set? Autoformatting according to a date preference is now deprecated by WP:MOSNUM because most readers have no accounts, and do not benefit from autoformatting. Autoformatting created an illusion among some editors that they were writing properly formatted articles when in fact they were an inconsistent mess with respect to date format. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Autoformatted dates violate the ISO 8601 standard; the people who implemented it don't seem to have read the standard. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is accessdate only in cite news different than the other cite templates? I'm not sure which of these two edits caused this. Look at any article using cite news for examples. Deprecated doesn't mean break everything in a path backward in time. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

True, depricate does not mean to break things that did things the old way. The problem is that date autoformatting has always been broken because its design was hopelessly flawed, so this argument does not apply. You didn't say if you have date preferences set or not. I don't. For access dates entered in YYYY-MM-DD format, I see that Cite web, book news, and journal all output the YYYY-MM-DD format, but while web and journal link the date, news and book do not. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If the argument doesn't apply then WP:MOSNUM is incorrect to say and link to deprecation. Yes I have preferences set. Yes you're right cite book is broken too. How sad. I may not get back to this discussion but I will mention it on Tony1's talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Susan. I always recommend that people avoid using templates: they were designed for newbies who'd never properly looked at or written a reference list, but soon spread like leprosy throughout the project—it's a pity, because they're uncoordinated subject to change at developers' whims, and I like to think that these things can be controlled at article level. That might make me unpopular here, but too bad.

Have you thought of choosing "no preference" for your dates? I believe that all WPians should do that, since it allows them to see in display-mode the many inconsistencies and wrong global choices of date format in our articles—in effect, what our readers have been seeing. Tony (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, Tony and Gerry too. I changed my preference to no preference. When WP:CITE can state what it is, I am more than happy to adopt a citation style. Since my second month here, in July 2006, I've been looking for agreement on how to cite articles. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I very much disagree with the idea that templates are for newbies. I've been criticized on WP:FAC for using citations without templates. Regardless, the current situation is unacceptable. The template either needs to go back to linking dates, so that a format other than YYYY-MM-DD can be displayed, or it needs to be updated so that it changes the format to the user's preference. It is wholly unacceptable to believe that the millions of uses of this template should all be changed to MONTH DD, YYYY (or similar) format. Instead, that needs to be changed in this, possibly by just putting "{{{accessdate}}}" inside a Template:Date call.--Patrick «» 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Still need to unlink dates

{{editprotected}}

The wikilinking of dates is now depreciated. Where ever [[{{{accessdate}}}]], [[{{{accessyear}}}]], [[{{{archivedate}}}]], and [[{{{date}}}]] appear in the template, please remove the brackets [[]]. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 15:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but it's "deprecated" (i.e. discouraged) rather than "depreciated" (which means reduced in value). Stifle (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes the template inconsistent with others of its kind. the skomorokh 09:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes those templates inconsistent with wikilinking of dates is now depreciated and they should be fixed, too. -- Suntag ☼ 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The "date" parameter still needs to be de-wikilinked, in addition to the other three date parameters that have already been done. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Elonka 03:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Thousands of articles now showing ISO dates. Who has the bot? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Parallel activity

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merging the zillions citation templates out there and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Comments (templates merger) on a new Citation template that would putatively replace all the Cite family.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples with accessdaymonth and accessmonthday

I've taken the liberty of adding examples using the "accessdaymonth" and "accessmonthday" fields to the documentation. I don't expect this to be problematic, but I'd rest more easily if someone could check that everything is correct. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove curly

{{editprotected}} This template uses typographic quotes in contravention of WP:MOS#Punctuation. Will an admin please make the following changes to always use "straight quotes"?

1. Change line 31 from

     | . }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|“|"

   to

     | . 

2. Chante line 32 from

     }}{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}

   to

     }}"{{#if: {{{archiveurl|}}}

3. Change line 37 from

     }}{{#if: {{{curly|}}}|”|"}}{{#if: {{{format|}}} |  ({{{format}}}) 

   to

     }}"{{#if: {{{format|}}} |  ({{{format}}}) 

Thanks! RossPatterson (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a necessary change. The curly quotes are an optional parameter and can be used if so chosen by an editor. Despite what many MOSers may think, the MOS is a guideline and not an iron-clad list of musts and must nots. Are there compelling reasons for using straight quotes? Yes, which is why the template defaults to those. Is there a site-wide prohibition on the use of curly quotes? I don't know, but I suspect not, which is why they are an option in this template. Please do not make this requested edit. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Elonka 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... but the versions provided to copy and paste all include the "curly=y" parameter. Lots of people will simply copy-and-paste without changing that, and so curly will become the de facto standard. Personally I think that's a bad thing.Loganberry (Talk) 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

date expression

{{editprotect}}

is there anything being done yet to return some consistency to the citation templates?

Author (2008-11-04). "Cite News Example". work. Retrieved 2008-11-06. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Author (2008-11-04). "Cite Web Example". work. Retrieved 2008-11-06. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

deprecated/discouraged; linked/unlinked or whatever....i'd just like to see them standardised. (this has been posted to both talk pages) --emerson7 16:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also noted on Cite web's talk, but seems to me that this template was edited too early with the delinking just removed without making sure the date's retain their format. I'd suggest undoing that edit and returning it to autoformat until a proper fix can be implemented. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that for new citations, the accessdaymonth/accessmonthday solution works for both templates. I think that what's needed is some enterprising bot creator to make a bot or script that changes accessdate to accessdaymonth or accessmonthday and accessyear, as appropriate, in templates put in before autolinking of dates was deprecated. (It should also change the format in the "date" field from ISO 8601 to whatever's appropriate for the article.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait...huh? When did new fields get added? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Months ago Gary King (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else annoyed with the longer accessdaymonth=... |accessyear=... format over the shorter accessdate=...? Anyone else think that ISO dates are just god damn fine for this? — Dispenser 03:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I much prefer accessdate with the ISO date and auto formatting (sans linking), than this mess. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm declining the edit request, because it's not entirely clear what's being asked. If there's consensus though, then perhaps update the Template:Cite news/sandbox and re-submit the request, and we'll be able to get it ported over. --Elonka 23:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

the request is for consistency across citation tags. although only {{cite web}} an {{cite news}} were given in the above example. the other "cite x" templates are all over the place as well. any suggestions for a forum where a global solution can be arrived at? --emerson7 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to change them? I attempted to format the expression similar to cite news, but apparently it broke the template. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive url without archive date?

Sometimes a newspaper article is archived on a site that doesn't give a date for the archiving. For example, here's a Washington Post article about Robert Reich. I added it as a citation to his article (and the article on multiple epiphyseal dysplasia, a.k.a. Fairbanks disease, which Reich has), but I can't use the "archiveurl" field because the archive page doesn't give a date of when the story was archived. The story was originally here, and is now archived (abstract free, full text for a fee) here.

What's the proper course of action in a case like this? I'd like to do something like this:

<ref>{{cite news |first=Mark |last=Leibovitch |title=The True Measure of a Man |curly=n |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24219-2002Mar13 |archiveurl=http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0296.html |work=[[The Washington Post]] |date=March 14, 2002 |accessmonthday=November 8 |accessyear=2008 }}</ref>

But that yields this:

Why is this? Why is archivedate required? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I may be completely wrong here, but I assumed the archive parameters were intended to allow permanent access to pages through the Internet Archive. So for the link in the example above, I would choose the earlier appropriate date from here (the asterisk indicates a new version of the page). Even if it's not the intended use, it's a good workaround. the skomorokh 15:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks — that does indeed work as a workaround. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion about date situation in templates?

Is there a centralized discussion somewhere about how we're applying the deprecation of automatic date linking to citation templates? I agree with the principle of delinking, but we've been left with thousands of dates in ISO 8601 format. Is there a bot working on this? If not, where do we go to request one?

Also, I'm slightly concerned that the pre-loaded examples now give the date only in "15 November 2008" format. Per WP:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic, there are circumstances in which the American formatting ("November 15, 2008") is preferred, and usage should be consistent within an article. Should we list both alternatives in the documentation, or is that too confusing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no central discussion, which I think really should have happened before all this delinking started. Also strongly agree with you on the pre-loaded examples. FYI, you might want to look at cite web's talk, because the planned "fix" to the template will also force that singular format rather than allowing a choice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That discussion led me to Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#De-linking dates, which is something close to a centralized discussion. It looks to me as if the proposed technical solution will use "15 November 2008" format as a default, but will add a parameter to allow "November 15, 2008" format in appropriate cases. It's slightly clunky, but it's much better than leaving all these "2008-11-15" dates all over the place. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Its something...though I still strongly disagree with 15 November 2008 being the default. I'd like someone to try and get a rough idea of how many articles actually use International over American. I strongly suspect American is used on more articles and should therefore be the default. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No author

If the author is not stated at a website, that entry is left blank, right? I have someone at Over the Edge (1999) who insists on listing the website name in that spot because no author is mentioned on the site. TJ Spyke 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, left blank. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto...leave blank. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The "curly" parameter - why?

This is a discussion question, not a formal "editprotected" request, which is why I'm making a new section here... but I'm confused as to the reason why the "curly" parameter is there at all. The only reason given in the brief discussion above is that it's an optional parameter, and that the MOS is a guideline and not an iron-clad rule. That doesn't seem like all that strong a reason to me; you could add huge numbers of other optional parameters if that were the only thing that mattered. I think it especially undesirable that the sample template outlines provided for copy-pasting have "curly = y" as default.

Would anything be harmed if all quotes were straight? Only if you think it looks ugly and if you further think that's important. Would it make anything better? Yes, in making the template (slightly) simpler, in avoiding any problems with displays that can't deal with curved quotes (there are a few), and in encouraging a uniform style. As well as this, the "curly" parameter is not used in other cite templates, such as {{Cite web}} and {{cite book}}. I genuinely do not see the point of it. Loganberry (Talk) 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be flippant, but if you don't like it, don't use it. Personally, I use straight quotes and never have used the "curly" option, but what is harmed by leaving the curly option there for those who wish to use it to match a curly quote style in a particular article? Just because someone fails to see the utility of something doesn't mean that all share the same viewpoint.

As far as the sample having "curly = y" for the copy-paste example, I would agree to its removal. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I felt particularly strongly about this matter, and I'm not going to argue further, except to say that if the copy-paste defaulted to not having curly it would be a good thing. I don't like curly quotes at all (on screen, that is) but of course I accept that some others do. I still think it's rather pointless, especially since nobody is forced to use cite templates in the first place, but given the lack of pages of instant and impassioned support for what I said I seriously doubt there's any sort of consensus! Right; back to writing articles for me. Loganberry (Talk) 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In the template documentation I removed the "y" from the curly parameter in the full example and removed the entire curly parameter from the shorter versions since the MOS recommends straight quotes. (Note that this change does not affect the template itself; setting curly to "y" will still work, should one fell compelled to use it.) — Bellhalla (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Standardisation with other citation templates

Other citation templates – Citation, Cite Journal, Cite book and Cite web (imminently) – now all use a standard 'engine', Template:Citation/core, to produce their output. This means that they produce output in a consistent format, and that future improvements to each template can be made in one place and discussed centrally.

Upgrading Cite News to use this central template will involve a couple of minor formatting changes to make the output consistent with other templates; the order of a couple of parameters has also been switched. Examples of the sandbox output can be viewed at Template:Cite news/test cases, and I'd welcome any other potentially problematic examples, in case my code needs further tweaking. If anyone has any major concerns about the changes in output, please list them here so I can address them. Thanks, Martin ' 18:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

No-one has raised any problems, so please replace the current template code with that at :Template:Cite news/sandbox. This should also address some of the below issues.

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This change has broken (or removed?) support for the parameters accessdaymonth/accessmonthday/accessyear, leaving some references with false information in them. A sample from FA 1923 FA Cup Final:

{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2000/wembley/943404.stm|title=Bolton clinch the Cup|publisher=BBC|accessdaymonth=14 October|accessyear=2008|date=1 October 2000}} renders the incorrect retrieved date:

"Bolton clinch the Cup". BBC. 1 October 2000. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |accessdaymonth= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

There are plenty more FAs that use this format. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I'm afraid that this must be reverted. There are too many inconsistencies at the moment. In an FAC that I'm currently working on, {{cite news |title = All Hope Is Gone is #1!! |publisher = Sparkart |date = 2008-09-03 |url = http://www.webcitation.org/5aYydJpQI |accessdate = 2008-09-03}} produces "All Hope Is Gone is #1!!". Sparkart. 2008-09-03. Retrieved 2008-09-03.

The date formats are inconsistent, and this makes this template completely inconsistent with others that look like "). Retrieved". Gary King (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This template is inconsistent with others, now returning a "retrieved on" rather than "Retrieved on". Please bring this template back in to line with other cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I reverted my edit. Ruslik (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Both problems are fixed in the current sandbox. Please copy the sandbox to the template page. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like full stops are now missing from the ends of citations. Please fix. Pagrashtak 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed that part—why was this not caught? It affects every call and should have been a noticeable problem. What other problems are we now missing? Pagrashtak 19:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that this has been done, is anyone planning to update the documentation? Pagrashtak 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sisterwiki links

I find that in this template, one can only use a full url, and cannot add a wikisister project wikilink, using the defined syntax. For example one has to quote en.wikisource.org/... rather than using [[s:...]]. It would be great if we could adapt the url field to give both forms. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

Is it possible to change the date formatting in {{cite news}} (2 December 2007) to match {{cite web}} (2007-12-07) at Elmer Gedeon?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why the accessdate field is defaulting to DMY format if ISO formatting is used? It is creating situations where the date field is displayed in ISO and the accessdate is DMY. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 09:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it needs to be the other way around. CiteWeb needs to be fixed to do as cite news does and convert the ISOs to mdy (not dym), but it hasn't happened yet. One of many, IMHO screw ups, from the whole sudden stripping of autoformatting without planning. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the current A-Class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Elmer Gedeon this is an issue. What should I say the resolution of the problem is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Volume & Issue parameters

Is it possible to add volume & issue numbers to this template. I notice this was previously suggested here but it wasn't acted on. I am trying to cite student newspaper NYU Today (here), but it gives Vol. and Issue numbers. I realise {{citation}} has these parameters, but it is advised not to mix citation templates, so I was wondering if the code could be copied over please. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Use {{cite journal}}. Gary King (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We do need it in the longer term, though. Hopefully all these citation templates will be merged one day. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The above-requested edit will provide these (and effectively merge cite news with citation and cite journal). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Date format

I've noticed that the "date" section does not automatically turn 2009-01-03 into January 3, 2009. The "accessdate" does do this, but not the basic "date" (for publication date). I'd fix this if I knew how, but I think it needs to be done to be consistent with the other dating styles that are present.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to have no resolution of this accessdate problem. Why does it autoformat ISO dates to DMY? Surely it would be better to allow the user to define how the dates are done in an article rather than having a needless one-size-fits-all conversion? Am I missing something here? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is awaiting an edit which has been requested at Template talk:Citation/core. If a different format is required for an article, one can specify |dateformat=none (or mdy, or alternatives listed at {{date}}). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sep=period

When did we switch to "|Sep = ." Now it puts a double period in after the title when the title has a period. Remember a title can have more than one sentence. It looks terrible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Periods missing at end of citations

Citations using {{Cite news}} no longer end in periods. This needs to be fixed. I assume it has something to do with the (unnecessary) switch to Cite/core. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got it fixed, but I hope there aren't any other problems from the switch. Pagrashtak 19:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

URLs printing

Since the "cite news" template was updated to use "citation/core", URLs are now printed, making reference sections with citations to newspaper articles with URLs very, very long and unreadable, and printouts of Wikipedia articles much, much longer. This problem exists with other citation templates that use "citation/core", such as "cite book", "cite journal", etc., but the problem is much, much more glaring with citations using the more frequently used "cite news" template. Please fix this problem as soon as possible. Thank you. Newross (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the printable version has always printed the full URL. It is one of the issues noted with using {{reflist}} and multiple columns; the URL can get mangled. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The printable version never printed URLs until the citation templates were "enhanced" to use citation/core. Was this change intended? Discussed? What is the value of a URL on a piece of paper? Newross (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, to my knowledge, the printable version did include reference URLs. I can probably find a printout somewhere but I'm fairly certain that this was the case, having printed quite a few articles from Wikipedia in the past few months. The URLs are useful, especially on paper. When traveling with a printout, it's an excellent way to have a quick list of useful sources for a specific topic on paper. Gary King (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure the URLs were always printed in the printable version, from old print outs I've done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely, positively, 100% certain that "cite news" URLs did not print when printing Wikipedia articles until 15:38, 28 January 2009.
For example, from United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004:
before 15:38, 28 January 2009:

^Davey, Monica (2004-03-18). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born", The New York Times, p. A20. Retrieved on 4 November 2008.

Howlett, Debbie (2004-03-19). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate", USA Today, p. A04. Retrieved on 4 November 2008.

Mendell, David (2004-03-17). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state" (paid archive), Chicago Tribune, p. 1. Retrieved on 4 November 2008.

Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (2004-03-17). "Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker" (paid archive), Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2. Retrieved on 4 November 2008.

after 15:38, 28 January 2009:

^Davey, Monica (2004-03-18). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born". The New York Times: p. A20. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E2DD1231F93BA25750C0A9629C8B63&pagewanted=all. Retrieved on 4 November 2008

Howlett, Debbie (2004-03-19). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". USA Today: p. A04. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm. Retrieved on 4 November 2008

Mendell, David (2004-03-17). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state" (paid archive). Chicago Tribune: p. 1. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/580623991.html?dids=580623991:580623991&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT. Retrieved on 4 November 2008

Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (2004-03-17). "Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker" (paid archive). Chicago Sun-Times: p. 2. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=headline(Obama%20defeats%20Hull's)%20AND%20date(3/17/2004%20to%202/17/2004)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=3/17/2004%20to%202/17/2004)&p_field_advanced-0=title&p_text_advanced-0=(Obama%20defeats%20Hull's)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no. Retrieved on 4 November 2008

How is having less than useless URLs—that make a References section completely unreadable and make a printout of an article almost twice as long—anything other than exasperating? Newross (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just double-checked physical printouts I have of articles printed in December 2007 and June 2008, and in both of them, the URLs for {{cite news}} references did indeed print out. So this has not changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the template used to print out the URLs is somewhat of a moot point; they should only be printed (or concealed) if that option is better than the other. I can think of the following pros and cons; feel free to add to them:

Pros

Makes it easier to verify sources

Cons

Takes up lots of paper

Suppressing printed urls by default would require a very minor change to Template:Citation/core, which I'd be happy to code if consensus shows that it's necessary.

Just to explain the change to citation/core; it has two main benefits; the first is that it produces COinS metadata; but the more significant is that is ensures that the output produced remains consistent with other citation templates - the 'cite' family were prone to drift apart from one another. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)