Template talk:citation

Comments
This needs to be repaired as a result of the deletion of the category. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

lang=
In the main namespace, using templates to generate sections is forbidden because it can lead to unexpected behavior and significantly complicate parsing of Wiktionary database entry hierarchy by external tools. I don't really understand the necessity of introducing such behavior here. Why not simply use the common L2 ==Language name== ?

IMHO this template should be completely obsoleted. The information of which spellings are being collectively provided citations for should be encoded in the hierarchical layout somehow, not in the L2. Like we already use ===Alternative forms=== or ===Alternative spellings=== in the main nemespace. uses lang= to link to a specific section on the corresponding Citations: page, and it would be the best to keep the linked section name as simple and static as possible, because every modification of the citations page introducing additional variant spellings would otherwise require change of every instance of invocation. --Ivan Štambuk 01:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish we had no template-headings. Further, as you say, it seems clear that the structure of citations has to mirror some part of the structure of principal namespace. Unfortunately, in English we quickly get to citations that are not etymology- or etymology-PoS-, but etymology-pos-sense-specific. This is not very stable. If templates were part of a solution that could keep the two spaces coordinated, I would not complain. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we would simply need to follow the layout of the corresponding entry in the main namespace. The main entry structure is meaning-based, and so should the accompanying citations page. Ideally, every established meaning would have a unique gloss attached that would be consistently propagated everywhere (FL entry translations, translation tables, citations, *nyms etc.). And perhaps some kind of a unique identifier attached (to be used as a parameter) so that we can use labeled section transclusion from the citations page (although that may be impossible to get done easily - from what I've experimented with labeled section markup for the Etymology Scriptorium which uses them, it is specifically resistant to be wrapped in templates, so the whole ugly markup needs to be written manually). If we used transcluded citations that were attached to the meanings line, that would be pretty much stable.
 * Alternatively we could ignore the etym-pos-sense hierarchy of the main namespace completely, and simply list citations linearly (from the perspective of individual meanings ) one ofter another on the citations page, and let the transclusion magic do its job.
 * How I'd like to see it, only editors would need to view/edit the Citations: pages, and they should do so on the individual meaning basis, each of which is attached to a labeled section they can edit independently of other meanings.
 * Another related problems are the alternative spellings, for which we also provide citations. Usage citations (i.e. meanings of words as in use) and variant spellings citations (of one and the same meaning) are two completely different things, often intricately related and inseparable, although we do make a clear distinction between these two. Meanings citations should be IMHO completely agnostic to this distinction. Like OED does it. I see for citations raging from OE husa (in Beowulf), to 1290 hous, 1483 hows to modern English house. These all are one and the same word, that for different purposes might be reasonable to separate (such as the attestation of a variant spelling that are today obsolete, or obsolete meanings that are gone from modern language or have underwent a semantic shift) into individual entries, but for meaning-oriented purposes it would make sense to group them. It would be nice to see how a "word" evolved over the ages in spelling and meaning.
 * This is a multidimensional problem that needs to be carefully thought out. Labeled sections could be quite handy in resolving this (we could transclude a single citation or a group of citations to several places for different purposes), but I'm not sure whether they're technically elegant enough to implement. --Ivan Štambuk 11:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit link
See Citations:mauve for example. The edit-link at heading English citations of mauve leads to the template instead of the page itself. 145.97.110.3 13:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Script support
We should allow script support, and not use Italics when the script is not Latn. Any objections? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support your proposal. Scripts are good. --Daniel. 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

missing cat
If the cited word does not exist, the citation doesn't always get added to Category:Citations of undefined terms. See Citations:dickey seat as an example.
 * There is a kludge to achieve categorization. Add "2=dickey seatx" or "2=dickey Seat" or something similarly redlinked and likely to remain so. It just doesn't work right. The same kludge, added to a citations page that had a corresponding principal namespace entry, unfortunately would place it in the category as well. See Citations:preference. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to fix the template? SemperBlotto (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't changing


 * do it? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Manually removing a citations page from Category:[Language] citations of undefined terms
Is there a parameter that enables one to prevent a transclusion of this template from categorising a given citations page in the pertinent language’s “citations of undefined terms” category? This would be desirable in cases like Citations:auroleus, which is currently categorised in Category:Translingual citations of undefined terms, Category:English citations of undefined terms, and Category:Latin citations of undefined terms; however, is a misspelling in all those cases, meaning that those citations should never have corresponding entries. Is there a solution to this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also needed for Citations:leontopetalos. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)