Template talk:Cite archive

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cite archive template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cite archive. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this template. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cite archive at the Reference desk.

CS1[edit]

Hi. Is this template certified as CS1? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax, I'm not sure what you mean by "certified"? Per the discussion here, "In general acts and renders like cs1|2, (but is not a cs1|2 template)". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Thank you for your reply. Can we make it CS1/CS2? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Checkingfax, I have no objection but also no knowledge of how to do this myself. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

accessdate= or access-date= parameter needed[edit]

Hi. It is my stance that any citation containing a URL needs to list the access date of the URL. Even though the archived item is static, the access URL to the item description and possible image of the item is not and can suffer thereafter suffer from linkrot. All citation URLs, IMHO, need access dates. Let's add an access date parameter to this fine template. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fonds vs Collection[edit]

The template generates an error if the Collection field is empty. In Canada the information that's meant to be captured here (very often) goes in the Fonds field. Is there a way to suppress the error if there is content in either field? Dnllnd (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, back again to follow up about this. Another solution may be not having the collection entry as a mandatory field. Any thoughts? Thanks!--Dnllnd (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think that would be the simpler approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. I got around the issue by inserting 'Marian Engel fonds' into both the fonds and collection fields. Doing so raised an issue I neglected to flag in my previous comment - can we add a fonds-url field? The hyperlink that's generated when the collection and collection-url fields are used is tops. It would be nice to have the same function available for fonds entries. In any event, thanks for the continued dialogue @Nikkimaria:. Much appreciated! --Dnllnd (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me; anyone else have any thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Series and File vs Series number and File number[edit]

Series and File without a name or number qualifier leaves too much ambiguity for entering information into the fields. It's common in archival description for series and files to have both a name and a number. Currently you have to choose one over the other. This is best illustrated by two conflicting examples - the File field on the Template page overview suggests "file of of the item, e.g. "Tarkington, Booth, ca. 1905-1943"" as an entry while the citation example used on the Wikipedia Library page uses series number. There's merit for having a series- and file-name fields and series- and field-number fields. Dnllnd (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dnllnd, do they need to have different fields or could we simply say in the documentation that if both exist both should be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry for the delay, Nikkimaria. I'm not entirely sure what would be best, so I've tweeted the thread to #glamwiki to ask for input. I'm personally leaning toward having them split out given how long file names can sometimes be, but like your suggestion of making it clear in the documentation that both should/can be included by providing another example or, perhaps, something more robust than what's currently there..? Dnllnd (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

collection-url not displaying?[edit]

For some reason the collection-url field isn't displaying in the reference on the Mary Mostert page my student is working on. Did we mess up on the template somehow? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

|collection-url= with a hyphen; not |collection_url= with an underscore.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! I should have looked at it more closely :-) Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "item-url" needs an access parameter, or if it has one, needs to be explained.[edit]

I was working on Sigrid Schultz by adding the Passport reference. Using "Cite archive" doesn't offer ways to let readers know that my citation requires a subscription to read. I have NO idea how to do it. Any suggestions for either a work around or a new access parameter are greatly appreciated. Please ping me if you reply. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 05:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MagnoliaSouth, you can just add {{subscription required}} after this template. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I had no idea. Many thanks! MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 03:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived URL[edit]

Does this template take an archive-url parameter? The template is used at Julian of Norwich, with an archived URL added, but it doesn't show up; playing around with it a bit (e.g., adding "url-status = dead") doesn't do anything. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]