Template talk:Vcite book

ISBN error tracking category

I have added an error-tracking category for invalid ISBNs after finding one in the wild that was not possible to identify by looking at the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Support for archive-url vs. archiveurl

This request concerns the "vcite" template suite: {{vcite book}}, {{vcite conference}}, {{vcite journal}}, {{vcite news}}, {{vcite web}}

Currently they support: |archiveurl=, |archivedate=.

Please add support for aliases |archive-url=, |archive-date=. This is because users are adding it with the dashed argument since they are used to doing that with {{cite web}}). See also T227044 for knock-on effects this is causing. -- GreenC 00:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: Unfortunately, putting the {{edit template-protected}} template on a semi-protected page puts the request into the semi-protected edit queue, which tends to get you non-template-savvy people (like me) looking at the request. If you need assistance with this, I suggest raising it directly with an editor with the proper expertise. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@ElHef: - it was my understanding that many people on Wikipedia know how to use advanced wikitext templates. Thus we convert Lua Modules to Wikitext where possible. I actually know how to do Lua, but not advanced wikitext. So Im reaching out the community, who supposedly know how to do these things. In fact I have often had a hard time getting help with advanced wikitext templates, and you confirm it requires someone with advanced expertise, and that a general request template is not appropriate. If it was Lua, I could get it done in 5 minutes. But since it is advanced Wikitext, I am stuck trying to ping individual experts who might be able to help. Do you have any suggestions who might be able to help? I will try pinging some known wikitext editors : @Pppery: -- GreenC 14:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: There actually is a force parameter to the edit request templates that puts it where you want it (instead of where it thinks you want it). In the recent past, the admins/TEs that monitor that queue have been just kicking it back to the semi- queue when I try it (typically saying something along the lines of "anyone can do this"), but it's at least worth a shot here to get another pair of eyes looking at this. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I did not actually get that ping, and only noticed this thread when you posted to VPT (which I watchlist) about it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Not usual. The notification system is apparently broken. -- GreenC 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done the "edit request" process is primarily a counter against the the need to protect pages from disruption, not a flare gun to get someone else to make edits for you. Once changes have been made in the sandbox and test cases are validated, feel free to reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux What? Edit requests are made all the time to update templates, it's a means of asking for help. Who is going to update the sandbox? -- GreenC 16:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Further help requests at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Template_help and Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Vcite_template_updates. -- GreenC 16:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with Xaosflux as to the impropriety of using the edit request template for this,  Done for all templates except {{vcite book}}, which doesn't support |archiveurl= at all and therefore this edit request does not make sense for. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (BTW I've used, and seen others use, edit templates this way with no problem). If you are interested, it would be an improvement to add archive-url/date to vcite book, it looks like an oversight that it is missing. -- GreenC 17:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

broken harv link reporting

Please see the discussion at Module talk:Footnotes § broken harv link reporting where a broken harv-link reporting scheme is proposed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken DOI category

Articles that use this template with |doi_brokendate= specified are categorized into "Category:Pages with DOIs broken since X" (X could be, for example, 2021), which do not exist. Since Category:Pages with DOIs broken since 2021 is empty, should the categories be created or should this categorization be removed? ネイ (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Since |doi_brokendate= is not used anywhere, change to |doi-broken-date= to match CS1/CS2. Secondly, then perhaps abuse the CS1/CS2 category and add to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_DOI_inactive_as_of_April_2021 and such????? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Made the change accordingly. Will update the docs later. ネイ (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the other vcite templates need changed? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I object to this template using CS1 categories. It is not a CS1 template. The documentation for that template also objects: Pages in this category should only be added by Module:Citation/CS1.– Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

And I undid the category part of that change. I concur with all of Editor Jonesey95's objections except that I think what was meant was: The documentation for that templatecategory also objects. When a category does not exist, because |doi-broken-date=2021, then, when the date is valid, a new category needs to be made.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The category got its first member, and I have already fixed it. The citation bot now adds and removes |doi-broken-date= from the vcite family of templates. It is the the only thing the bot does to vcite, but I am now running the bot on all pages with vcite templates on them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The category is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_DOIs_broken_vcite . AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! My concern was the broken category so as long as that is resolved, I am fine with that. ネイ (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Support for chapter-url vs. chapterurl

|chapterurl= is basically non-existent on wikipedia, and barely used with vcite. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22chapterurl%22&title=Special:Search&go=Go&ns0=1 Could we change |chapterurl= to |chapter-url= to match CS1/C S2. Once this is done, just edit the above eight pages and it is all done. Keeping cite and vcite in sync will help editors swap between them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. It is now done. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

See the last bullet point of Template:Vcite book#Rationale. Hyphens are not used for performance reasons. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't image how that's going to impact performance, or if it did, a negligible amount. The upside of consistency in naming and protection from errors by other tools which are not expecting this unusual naming schemes outweigh it. -- GreenC 02:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

reference info for Bethlem Royal Hospital

unnamed refs	91
named refs	7
self closed	9
Refn templates	25
cs1 refs	37
cs1 templates	23
vcite templates	67
harv refs	70
harv templates	137
sfn templates	194
refbegin templates	1
use xxx dates	dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates	7
cs1|2 ymd dates	6
cs1|2 dmy access dates	8
cs1|2 ymd access dates	4
cs1|2 dmy archive dates	1
cs1|2 last/first	12
List of cs1 templates cite book (2) Cite book (4) Cite news (3) cite web (14)
List of vcite templates vcite book (47) vcite journal (11) vcite news (3) vcite web (6)
List of sfn templates sfn (190) Sfn (4)
List of harv templates harvnb (137)
explanations

This template was created before the CS1 templates used Lua, and it has suffered from neglect. It has had essentially no improvements since two months after its creation in 2010. It is used on only 134 pages and should probably be nominated for deletion as redundant to {{Cite book}}. The latter template can provide a format that is close enough to this one to work well. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those 134 pages, like Bethlem Royal Hospital, have a mix of CS1 and vcite templates, which would be a WP:CITEVAR issue. Someone with a little spare time could use {{ref info}} to check the articles, as I have done in the table to the right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)