Template talk:Citation-attribution

Formatting

Hi. The inline citation is a good idea. I've tweaked the language a bit for subject/verb agreement. I'm not sure that the icon is necessary and am worried that it might be a bit obtrusive for the reflist. Perhaps we could just use it plain? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not particularly fussed, but many people like eye candy, and I included it only because the template I modelled this one on uses one: {{DNB Cite}} uses . So if you preference is still to remove (or make it smaller or whatever) then please feel free to do so. -- PBS (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go test it in a working reflist and see how it looks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here it is. What do you think? My only concern is whether it monkeys up the reflist; the other citation templates kind of stand alone. It doesn't really seem obtrusive, though perhaps it could be a bit smaller. Helps that it's the same color as the bluelinks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As there is nothing under the image (like a link to a URL of the source) it is not functional. I agree that as people usually use {{reflist}} which means a smaller font, that it should probably be smaller if kept. I've reduced it from 15 to 10. See if you think that is better, and I suggest you remove it if you do not think so. -- PBS (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the smaller size looks fine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, we probably ought to replace my fictitious example with a real one. :) I'll go dig something up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a test so that if the template is used anywhere but article space it will not put the page it is use on into the hidden category. -- PBS (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

More on formatting

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Citation attribution

The {{citation-attribution}} templates can be wrapped around the citation templates. eg using the current example from template:citation-attribution/doc:

{{citation-attribution|

{{cite book |last1=King |first1=Richard John |title=Handbook to the cathedrals of England |volume=Vol. 1, Part 2. |year=1869 |publisher=J. Murray |page=129 }}

}}

produces:

One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from King, Richard John (1869). Handbook to the cathedrals of England. Vol. Vol. 1, Part 2. J. Murray. p. 129. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help), a publication now in the public domain.

--PBS (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

O the magic of nested templates! My only suggestions then would be 1) change "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from" to "Text incorporated from"; and 2) "a publication now in the public domain" to "a PD/free work" (link to PD and whatever we have that most closely describes "free"). I really like minimal wording in footnotes. This looks like a major advance. Franamax (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit messy at the moment. I am not sure if I like the idea of replacing "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from" with "Text incorporated from" but which ever we go with I think that "from" should be altered to "from:". I am against the suggested change of the wording at the end, but would remove the word "now" as the text may never have been anything else. Also should the wording remain in italics? -- PBS (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good questions, all. I agree with the from: situation. Attribution templates usually are in italics, but this one is forging new ground. I think I can see a case for removing italics; we do not generally italicize footnotes except for book titles. I had also thought about the word "now" and agree that it should be removed. I think it's a great idea to link public domain to Wikipedia:Public domain. Maybe it would help prevent misuse of the template; I've seen a good many people with a misunderstanding of what public domain means, and that document offers some assistance in determining Wikipedia's stance on it. I have mixed feelings about "Text incorporated from". It may suggest to readers that the single sentence noted is copied, while there may actually be a greater run of text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can link to Wikipedia:Public domain although I can see why it is preferable to public domain because we don't link to editorial space from article space and it is not clear to readers that the text in this template is anything but article text. As to the other three minor changes I'll make them now. and we can see how they look. --User:PBS (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2010‎ (UTC)

Wrapper

@Primefac with this Revision as of 07:28, 30 September 2022 you commented "Restore original, no need for a wrapper" clearly I disagree as I created both {{citation-attribution}} and {{source-attribution}} more than a decade ago the former for use in inline references and the latter for placing at the bottom of a bullet pointed list of references. The reason are. For people not used to templates or adverse to them having two different templates that do not take any arguments are simpler to understand and there are less likely to be mistakes made when adding them to am article. This is even more so when one considers the issues of WP:CITEVAR and the objections some people have to using templates in citations. Please explain you reasons for the revert. -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The TFD discussion from less than a year ago had the consensus to merge this template and {{PD-notice}} into {{Source-attribution}}. It did not say that a wrapper was one of the outcomes. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)