A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please do not remove publisher parameters in citations for newspapers, magazines, or websites, as in this editatTransphobia. You linked Cite news#Publisher, Cite web#Publisher, Cite magazine#Publisher in support of your removal, but none of those support your claim, although I can kind of see how one could read it at first glance. I'm guessing that your take rests on a misunderstanding of this statement (this one is from from Cite news):
Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.).
If I guessed wrong, you can skip the rest of this, and we can discuss. If that is what it was, look at what it is saying; I think maybe adding an example or two might clarify:
Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.); that is: don't write |publisher=Wall Street Journal; the WSJ is published by Dow Jones & Company; don't write |publisher=World Book Encyclopedia, write |publisher=Scott Fetzer Company, and so on.
The citation doc is just saying not to use the website name, the encyclopedia name, the newspaper name, or the magazine name in the publisher field. In other parts of the citation doc, it says not to use pub. at all, when it duplicates the name; for example, no need to write |magazine=Time|publisher=Time, Inc., and on top of that, |publisher= is not the most important parameter to establish verifiability (which is why I didn't bother reverting that edit, because your edit didn't hurt verifiability), but if it's already there, and not a duplicate of the title, then there's no reason to remove it.
Do you think those passages are unclear? Maybe it's poorly worded. If you feel you got tripped up by the doc, this wouldn't by the first time I've changed the citation documentation to improve it. Or if you feel you know what it should say to be clearer, feel free to take a shot at it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
My edits were based on this language for the publisher field: "Not normally used for periodicals." This appears in Template:Cite_news#Publisher and similar language appears in the other pages cited. It it means what it says, then the publisher "Here Publishing" would not normally be used for the periodical "The Advocate" and can be deleted. Also, if you would like to have this discussion in the talk page of a template where more people can join in, that is fine also. I want to make sure that I am following what is intended by the language in Template:Cite_news#Publisher and similar pages. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so periodicals = no (not normally), and books, journal articles, encyclopedias = yes? Or, is an encyclopedia a periodical, too, if it came out every few years, like print versions of EB used to, before they (and just about every other encyclopedia publisher) stopped publishing print versions? Could get squirrelly, with {{cite proceedings}} and other flavors being 'no' if they are a one-shot (or irregular?) conference, and 'yes' if they occur regularly? And what about {{cite AV media}} for stuff on YouTube, same question, sometimes no (1-shots), sometimes yes if it's episodes of a series? I'd like to make sure I'm following it, too; seems like it's confusing and ought to be clarified. I'm buried in a few other template issues, but if you start a discussion, I'll watch, and participate if I can. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally think of an encyclopedia or episodic series as periodicals.
The "publisher" parameter should not be included for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work. For example, the "publisher" parameter should be omitted in these examples:
I hope this message finds you well. I've noticed that your Talk page has grown quite extensive, which is a testament to your active engagement on Wikipedia. However, I'd like to suggest considering archiving some of the older discussions.
Archiving can lead to several benefits, including:
Better Organization: It makes it easier for you and others to navigate through current discussions without scrolling through a long history of past conversations.
More Conducive Conversations: With a cleaner Talk page, it becomes simpler for other editors to engage in ongoing discussions and for you to manage responses.
Improved User Experience: For users on older computers or slower networks, a shorter page can significantly enhance loading times and overall accessibility.
If you're unsure about how to archive your Talk page, you can find detailed instructions here. I'm also happy to assist if you need any help.
Thank you for considering this suggestion. Your contributions to Wikipedia are greatly valued, and I believe that archiving could make your Talk page even more effective as a tool for collaboration.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of M*A*S*H characters, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
