![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
There are quite a few pages in Wikipedia space in Category:CS1 maint: Extra text. Instead of "fixing" these pages (many of which are archives), would it be better to exclude Wikipedia space from this category? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|template-doc-demo=true
may be appropriate to add./[Aa]rchive
and /[Ll]og
pages. The original discussion is
here.|website=
is no longer shown as an alias for |work=
. Are we deprecating website? Is there any discussion on that you can point me to? Thanks. ―
Mandruss
☎
08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|website=
shows as an alias at
cite web
.|work=
in {{cite news}}.
208.87.234.201 (
talk)
14:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|type=
parameter if you want to specify medium etc. Based on the latest change, I move to add |print=
as an alias of |work=
in {{cite book}}.
208.87.234.201 (
talk)
15:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
for e.g.
The Huffington Post. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
|work=
=|magazine=
|work=journal
|work=
=|news-agency=
or |work=
=|news-blog=
.
65.88.88.127 (
talk)
20:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
|work=
or |newspaper=
or |website=
- it really doesn't matter. If we tell people they must use only one of them, we will irritate a lot of people, not to mention all the hassle of sending a bot around to "fix" something that isn't broken. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
|type=web
. If we are to add distribution media, then I think more aliases for "work" are forthcoming, such as |print=
, |audio broadcast=
etc. I'm sure this will make things even more complicated.
65.88.88.46 (
talk)
16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is citing websites with {{
cite news}}
- Light-years from reality. Tons of editors are doing exactly that, because they have read the first sentence at
Template:Cite news, the table at
Help:Citation Style 1#Templates, and other guidance elsehwere, and believe in following the guidance given.|newspaper=New York Times
the proper rendition should be |website=www.nytimes.com
How does the latter qualify as a news source? Because the doc is confusing or wrong doesn't mean common sense has to be abandoned. The software does a decent job of formatting the citations. The doc is under par in several instances, especially where it sneaks novel (meaning non-discussed) citation guidelines disguised as citation formatting.
72.43.99.130 (
talk)
20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
|website=The New York Times
, in the opinion that "website" is not a synonym for "domain name". Many will defend to the death the notion that a web site is not a newspaper, since you can't hold it in your hands and turn the pages and it doesn't leave ink stains on your fingers, and so they refuse to use |newspaper=
for web-published sources. There is no guidance as to these choices, nor any documented consensus that I'm aware of, hence conflicts such as this one.|work=
for a range of purposes as documented. But I realize it's probably many years too late for that to happen, so this is a pointless comment. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)I have added simple |oclc=
checks to look for spaces. The code first removes any punctuation from the identifier value (WorldCat ignores punctuation in the identifier value) and then attempts to convert the value to a number which must be 1 or greater. Any non-digit characters the identifier value will cause the conversion to fail and the module will emit a bad oclc error message. These errors will be categorized in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category: CS1 errors: OCLC
At the time of this writing, this insource search string found 62 |oclc=
values with letters:
insource:/\| *oclc *= *[A-Za-z]+/
None of the links that I checked were valid.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)|oclc=
causes WorldCat to return a page-not-found error. Simple testing seems to indicate that removing the prefix from the 'number' returns a page that matches the title in the citation.Rewritten. Since the oclc document specifies length as a function of the prefix, the code tests for length when a recognized prefix is present. For oclc without a prefix and for the prefix (OCoLC)
, length is constrained to 9 digits for the time being. This is much like the constraint we impose on |pmc=
and |pmid=
. Where prefixes are included in the |oclc=
parameter value, they are stripped from the number and not displayed.
Prefix ocm
requires 8 digits:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Prefix ocn
requires 9 digits:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Prefix on
requires 10+ digits:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Prefix (OCoLC)
requires 1+ digits without leading zeros (constrained to 9 digits):
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)OCLC without prefix 1 to 9 digits:
Unrecognized prefix:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Punctuation between two oclc numbers:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Space between two oclc numbers:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
<poem>
blocksIt seems that <poem>
blocks are processed before templates, meaning that {{
cite journal}} and {{
cite book}} only work inside them if they go all on one line. See
this revision of "Lightbulb joke" for example - refs 3 and 4 are treated as plain wikitext. If you remove the newline before the first pipe, you get some weird errors about delete characters. There are no delete characters in the wiki text.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
01:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Category:Pages_with_citations_having_redundant_parameters, I have cleared all old entries from months ago, and left new entries to show a growing set of examples of recent redundant parameters. Previously, over 80% of entries had been pages+page, but 2nd most were author2+last2 (or similar). For the vast majority, as pages+page, the common fix is to show "page of pages" where many people think "pages=" is the total (similar to French "pages totales=" in fr:Template:Ouvrage but not in fr:Template:Lien_web). If the cites auto-combine as "page of pages" then over 80% of former "redundant" parameters will be valid now, and in viewing prior revisions of those pages, such as in old talk-pages. We would simply state in the CS1 documentation, "when pages+page cite shows page of pages" (or such), and that would remove those numerous pages+page errors from cites. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about the error messages here and how to fix them. I found this citation in Bayou Country.
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country [Expanded Reissue] (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country [Expanded Reissue] (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
I see "|url= missing title (help). Check |title= value (help)". There is a title, and the second help link leads to the param-link error explanation. I'm guessing it has to do with the single square brackets in the title parameter. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live | Selvin, Joel (2008). Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.: Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. |
Sandbox | Selvin, Joel (2008). Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.: Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. |
|title=
, the intent was to reuse the code that finds the illegal characters in |<param>-link=
to find the first
of a wikilink when |title=[[link label]]
and |title-link=article title
from which the module would produce this illegal construct:
[[article title|[[link label]]]]
|title=
(also applies to |series=
when |series-link=
is set as well as to the various other link/label pairs identified in the
help text.|title=
cannot be linked simultaneously by both |title-link=
and |url=
. When both of the latter are present, |title-link=
consumes |title=
so |url=
has no title-text for which it can be a link. This is a long-standing error message.Meanwhile, to view this thread on a mobile-phone screen, I have wrapped the overlong url by inserting a hyphen into "assets/" as "assets-/" which no longer links to the actual webpage but is treated as valid URL format (and wraps on small-device screens). - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some option to pre-emptively archiveurl things but without having any archive-related stuff appear in the rendered citation at all, either with a particular dead-url value to suppress it, or better yet, having display suppressed by default any time dead-url=no. Having archive-related stuff appear when it is not needed is cruft that badly bloats references sections when pre-emptive archiving of Web sources is done article-wide. It's bad enough that I put all my pre-emptive archive-url and archive-date parameters inside HTML comments; it adds 7 characters of edit-mode cruft per cite, versus a big bunch of it visible to everyone when left un-commented-out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=no
worked as you described (no archive output). I'm not sure that |dead-url=no
is the best parameter value to use to suppress the archive output. The historic definition means that the |url=
is still assigned to |title=
and 'Archived' in the archive out put is linked:
{{cite web |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2016-02-08 |dead-url=no}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)unfit
and usurped
which keep the archive text output but don't link to the original url:
{{cite web |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2016-02-08 |dead-url=unfit}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)hidden
. It may be more intuitive to change |dead-url=
to |url-state=
.
208.87.234.201 (
talk)
14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
In keeping with my post at Wikipedia_talk:COinS#Language metadata pollutes COinS, and because this page has more watchers, I have moved this conversation from Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests#Language to here.
At Feature requests#Language, Editor OwenBlacker wrote
Is it possible to reinstigate discussion on this change? At the moment, providing human-readable language tagging is done (as Jonesey95 pointed out on 20 December 2013) and COinS-tagging means that we can't use {{ lang}} within CS1 templates (like {{cite book |title={{lang|es|La Casa de Mi Padre}} |trans_title=My Father's Home |author=Will Ferrell |language=es }}) because it would pollute the machine-readable data; we need to use {{cite book |title=La Casa de Mi Padre |trans_title=My Father's Home |author=Will Ferrell |language=es }} instead. What would be great would be to change the output markup so that this example above goes from rendering (without the COinS):
<cite class="citation book">Will Ferrell. <i>La Casa de Mi Padre</i> [<i>My Father's Home</i>] (in Spanish).</cite>to rendering
<cite class="citation book">Will Ferrell. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">La Casa de Mi Padre</i> [<i>My Father's Home</i>] (in Spanish).</cite>for example. This would allow assistive technologies correctly to identify the language of the title (and, for example, user CSS to style text differently according to language). Alternatively, rather than assuming that the
title
(and only thetitle
) will match thelanguage
, new parameters could be added such as|title_lang=
,|chapter_lang=
and|journal_lang=
, for example.I'm entirely open to discussing the details, as I've just made these up on the spot, but in principle this feels like something we could make work, no? :o)
— OwenBlacker ( Talk) 14:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Is xml:lang="..."
required? Wikipedia pages are <!DOCTYPE html>
.
It occurs to me that one way to address this might be to support certain parameters that look like this: |title-es=
, |chapter-de=
, etc where the language code suffix is the appropriate
ISO 639-1 code. This will require that we make changes to validate()
, argument_wrapper()
(this one is problematic because it is not at all documented and is not easily understood), and certainly others.
We would ignore the English versions: |title-en=
, etc.
What do we do when |script-title=
is also set? If both |script-title=
and |title=
are set, |title=
is supposed to hold the transliteration of the original title so its language specifier, if provided, must be the same as the specifier in |script-title=
. If the language is specified for one of |script-title=
or |title=
but not both, what do we do then?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
|script-title=
overloaded to hold the lang code of the title, or a new |title-lang=
, seems more sensible than a number of new parameters. I have a preference for the latter. --
Izno (
talk)|work-title-lang=
. --
Izno (
talk)
17:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
|script-title=
to hold the language code of |title=
? Like this?:
{{cite ... |title=La Casa de Mi Padre |script-title=es: |...}}
|title=
then it should extend to other 'title' holding parameters as well. Which leads me to the additional question, what about authors:
{{cite book |first=Guðrún Eva |last=Mínervudóttir |author-link=Guðrún Eva Mínervudóttir |title=Fyrirlestur um hamingjuna |trans-title=Lecture on Happiness |isbn=9789979865773 |location=Reykjavík |publisher=Bjartur |date=2000 |language=is}}
xml:lang
does not apply to us, but I thought that the question should be asked since the Editor OwenBlacker specifically included it in the example cite.It was a stray thought tossed out that might solve the issue of "what to do when script is also specified". Don't worry too much if an implementation doesn't jump out at you--we have two others to consider (but which include the issue).
I think we should attempt not to confuse the issue of having a title in a different language than the default and the issue of having a title at all, which is why I prefer |title-lang=es
+ |title=
to |title-es=
. The former can presumably also re-use the language checking utility we have in |language=
without change. There is also the issue of duplicate parameteres that
User:Citation bot chokes on (reported already as a bug) as-it-is as well as updating other scripts to consider |title=
and |title-es=
as duplicates.
I think it's trivial to indicate that a certain work's/section's/whatnot's title may be in a particular language in the citation; I'm unsure if the same can be said about personal names. Besides the case of psuedonyms (which, at best, we can indicate are in a particular script), is the name "Steven" in Swedish, English, or Spanish? So I'd be disinclined to agree to an |author-lang=
or similar. --
Izno (
talk)
18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
lang
and xml:lang
attributes, in particular the paragraph beginning "Authors must not use the lang
attribute in the XML namespace on HTML elements in HTML documents." In this context, "the lang
attribute in the XML namespace" means xml:lang=something
. Therefore, as MediaWiki serves HTML, we must not add the xml:lang=
attribute to a <i>
tag. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Many Russian mathematics journal articles have two DOIs, one for the original Russian article and a second one for its translation into English. Example:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)(Also note that the Russian original is free online while the translation is paywalled.) Above, I am abusing the |id=
parameter to link the translation. Is there or should there be a better way? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) Translated as
doi:
10.1070/RM2006v061n04ABEH004354.|id=
was a later cleanup for here. But it would be nice if we could actually use the template to format the whole citation rather than having some of it spill over into freeform non-templated text. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Editor
SMcCandlish added this to the |editor=
documentation:
These parameters are for editors of collaborative printed works, such as multi-author anthologies. Wikipedia does not use them to indicate the managing editors of periodicals such as journals, newspapers, magazines, or news sites (this information is not needed in source citations). For editor-revisers of later editions of previously published unitary works, add any editors as authors, with an "(ed.)" annotation after their given names, e.g.
|author2-last=Doe |author2-first=Jane (ed.)
; this will prevent formatting that implies the cited|chapter=
in a|title=
(for books), or the|title=
in a|work=
or|website=
, is an isolated contribution contained within a multi-author work compiled by the named editor(s). None of these parameters should be used to add other, non-essential contributors who are not needed in citations, such as foreword authors or illustrators, only credited editors, revisers, and work-wide commentators.
I am on wikibreak and have no time to discuss right now so have reverted the addition and started this discussion. Please discuss.
My objection lies in the 'add any editors as authors, with an "(ed.)" annotation ...'. We should not be encouraging the improper practice of adding extraneous text to parameters that are part of the metadata nor should we misuse parameters in this way.
We can, and probably should disable |editor=
when the template is {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
. Foreword authors is supported in {{
cite book}}
with |contributor=
and |others=
serves for illustrators and other non-essential contributors.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Almost every time I document a real, reader- or editor-affecting problem here and try to work around or fix it, I get shot down or ignored by the same one or two editors for whom COinS seems to be more important than WP:CITE, but who effectively totally control these templates. I've been a vocal supporter of CS1 for years, and would like to see CS2 eliminated, but over the last year and half I get increasingly inspired to go create a CS3 that looks almost identical to CS1, and has one consistent set of parameters, and no extraneous fiddly stuff. CS1 has turned into an enormous pile of "feeping creaturism", and hardly anyone can figure out how to use it effectively any longer. I've been here a decade, and these template still screw up my sourcing attempts at least once a week. I spend more time reading these templates' documentation than any others. I've reported more problems with these templates than any others. Fewer of them have been resolved than with any others. Given that people are not required to use any of our templates at all to insert citations, it would be a entirely valid approach to simplicity-fork this. If the principal and rather my-way-only maintainers of these templates don't want to see that happen, they need to be more responsive to problem reports, including paying attention to the details they report, and not dismissing them "oh well, you can do this complicated hack no one will remember nor understand when they encounter it", much less "we can't fix this because our precious metadata won't be ideal". Faaaaaack... — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
editorial insertions can be used with square brackets?
|editor=
and |author=
to include names that are neither (sometimes with annotation; sometimes not). That will be a problem forever I'm afraid.|mode=
to accept additional keywords to control how the editor name list is rendered; perhaps alternate editor parameters that render in a certain way; perhaps some other parameter or parameter modification. Of these, I think that modifying |mode=
is likely the better solution. Suggest other solutions.our own readersand though only a small minority of
our own readerstheir right to quality information is the same as that of the majority.
|display-editors=
in some fashion; this would be my new favorite solution.|author2-first=Jane (ed.)
can't possibly be a sensible way forward – it's simply a misuse of the parameters regardless of whether it generates misleading metadata. (@
SMcCandlish: it's like using '' instead of {{
em}} or <tt> instead of <code>, both of which you have rightly deprecated in the past. Parameters, like markup, should be used semantically.){{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
etc. Many articles have no credited author, for example
this one. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
|editor=
in journal, etc. However, note that such disablement is only TM's secondary comment, that the main point is regarding Mac's documentation change that editors can be cited as authors. I also oppose that change (effectively supporting TM's reversion), though as a possible work-around it might merit discussion. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
23:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
To address some of the comments above: For the record, I do not agree that the sole purpose of these citations is identifying the source so people can find it; that's the primary purpose. As anyone with any familiarity with academia knows, it also has a lot to do with proper attribution, credit where due. And this is actually important for WP-internal reasons, like being exact in our attribution of claims, especially primary ones.
As someone commented above, yes, it is true that we do not cite managing editors of newspapers and such, except possibly under unusual circumstances. (When would we ever do that? Give a concrete example. Even if there's some kind of "Statement by the Editor" piece, the "editor" in that case is actually the author, and would be cited as such.) If you are adding the names of the general or managing editorial staff at a newspaper or journal as |editors, you are not doing citations right, you're engaging in WP:NOT#BIBLIOGRAPHY; it's exactly the same thing as giving the total page count, the address of the publisher, or hardback vs. paperback. This is not citation information. It looks superficially like attribution, but it's attribution for an organizational role, like adding a parameter for the owner of the newspaper, and its janitor. WP is not IMDb; we don't provide details on every single person associated with a "production" in any medium. That said, we s should not disable the parameter for any particular medium, since a particular piece may in fact have a direct, actual, credited-in-the-specific-piece editor who needs attribution (and whose editorial presence in the piece may considerably enhance its reliability, I might add). We don't need to kill the parameter, we need to clarify what not to do with it. That much of what I added to the docs should be restored.
At any rate, it looks like me like neither of the issues I attempted to address in what I wrote in the doc page have been addressed. We do need to discourage the misuse of the editor field to identify corporate administrators, and we do need to distinguish between two different levels of revisers of an original author, especially when the intermediary one was a very significant contributor to the work. Many "editors" are actually posthumous co-authors, and may even be responsible for much more of the content than the original author, yet may themselves be retired from the project in question (or deceased) for some time, with some new editor (actually acting as an editor per se or a new layer of co-author). This sort of thing comes up very frequently in style guides, as just one topical example. What is presently called Fowler's Modern English has much less of H. W. Fowler's original content in it than people think (I know; I have the 1st ed., too). Same goes for the ones we call in short form Turabian and Hart's, and Gowers. Sometimes the editions with different editors are cumulative, sometimes they are not, and this can have actual RS implications – particular editors are more reputable than others, and even particular editions by the same editor may be (and this is not always chronological). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|chapter=
is set (1) and when it is not set (2):
|editor=
using the form in (2) when |chapter=
and |editor=
are set and when |authorn=
is/are the author(s) of the whole work?MLA: "Ed. Kathleen A. Hauke." or "Hauke, Kathleen A., ed.," depending on edition / "In. [title], ed. Kathleen A. Hauke." or "[chapter]. [title]. Ed. Kathleen A. Hauke." (emphasis added – note the lack of "[i|I]n", and that's from the 2014 source), depending on edition
APA: "K. A. Hauke (Ed.)." / "In K. A. Hauke (Ed.),"
CMS: "Edited by Kathleen A. Hauke." / "In [title], edited by Kathleen A. Hauke,"
Chicago/Turabian: "Kathleen A. Hauke, ed.," / "[I|i]n [title], edited by Kathleen A. Hauke,"
AAA: "Kathleen A. Hauke, ed." / In [title]. Kathleen A. Hauke, ed."
CSE & AMA: "Hauke KA, editor." / In: Hauke KA, editor. [title]."
ACS: "Hauke, K. A., Ed.;" / "In [title]; Hauke, K.A., Ed.;"
AIP: "K. A. Hauke, editor," / ", in [title], edited by K. A. Hauke (...)."
Astro. (no single standard, but fairly consistent): ", ed. K. A. Hauke (...)" / ", in [title], ed. K. A. Hauke (...)."
Maths. (not consistent): "K. A. Hauke (ed.)," or "K. A. Hauke (ed.):" or "In: K. A. Hauke (ed.)," / ", in [title], K. A. Hauke, ed.," or "In: K. A. Hauke (ed.), [title]."
Bluebook & ALWD: "(Kathleen A. Hauke ed, ...)." / ", in [title] (Kathleen A. Hauke ed, ...)." (Bluebook italicizes in, ALWD does not).
So, all of these use some form of "in" except some editions of MLA. But at least that's proof it's not effectively mandatory to treat it this way. I've not yet gone through MHRA and other non-American sources on this question. I'm pretty sure there are more that do not expect an "in". Anyway, I actually need to verify that the 2014 Purdue source is correct on MLA dropping the "in". I actually just got the latest MLA guide last month, and have not perused it yet, but my eyes hurt, so I'll look into it later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems the number of works with dual numbers (print & electronic ISBN) or just an eISBN (when published solely as e-books) is increasing. 72.43.99.130 ( talk) 20:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
</ref>
. Largely unnecessary. For some books, there may be 5 or more ISBNs, depending on whether its hardback, paperback, trade paperback, spiral-bound, e-book, etc., and maybe additional ones depending on whether the UK or US or India office printed it, etc. There's no point in including all this info, per
WP:NOT#BIBLIOGRAPHY. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|type=e-book
and |edition=digital
(or similar) to a citation of an e-book that has additional features not in the print editions? Or is an additional signifier along the lines of eISSN to be considered?
65.88.88.127 (
talk)
16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Hi there. In
this edit I overcame a date=/year= mismatch error but I do not feel this is a proper edit to really fix the error. What is the correct fix? The papers were re-released in 2010 and written in 1914. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
|date=28 January 1914
which appears to refer to the date of the lecture that is Chapter 12. Generally, |date=
is the publication date. The template identifies Cambridge University Press as publisher but links to the Bartleby version. The Bartleby version is dated April 2000. According to WorldCat and GoogleBooks, the ISBN is for a 2008 Cambridge publication. Were I seeking the exact source that you are citing, I would be at a loss since I cannot extract the reality, the
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, from this collection of mismatched facts. Choose one source, and cite that. Since the Bartleby appears to support the article text, I would rewrite the cite this way:
{{cite book |last1=Quiller-Couch |first1=Sir Arthur |title=On the Art of Writing: Lectures Delivered in the University of Cambridge, 1913–1914 |edition=Online |url=http://www.bartleby.com/190/ |access-date=3 March 2012 |date=2000 |orig-year=1916 |publisher=Bartleby.com |chapter=XII. On Style |chapterurl=http://www.bartleby.com/190/12.html |at=¶6}}
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)It would be helpful if |author[N]-link=y
would auto-grab values from the author/first/last[N] parameters and use them. About 80% of the time, no disambiguation or other alteration is needed (unless you use one of those awful citations styles that force the use of initials, which should be banned on WP, but that's another matter). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
is coded. ―
Mandruss
☎
14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)|author-link=
, why not |work=
and its aliases? And so on. Hard to justify saying yes to one and no to the rest, hard to justify the overhead to do all of them, in my opinion.
Slippery slope,
Unintended consequences. ―
Mandruss
☎
19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
parameter makes no sense. If you are going to the trouble of using that, why not just use |author-link=
as it was originally intended and only use it if and only if the corresponding page exists? (For the remaining 0.1% of authors that do have articles, it would be simple enough for a bot to create systematic redirects from the Vancouver style author name to the target article so that we can avoid that awful first1, last1, ... parameter bloat, but that's another matter ;-)
Boghog (
talk)
20:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=
, use |author-linkn=
where n
is that author's position in the |vauthors=
list. Same is true for |veditors=
. Bots to create redirects not needed.Implementing this proposal would convert the reference section of many articles into a sea of red- No reading of SMcCandlish's proposal suggests such an outcome. No reading of J. Johnson's proposal suggests such an outcome. Both mentions of "sea of red" have been unfounded. I assumed that Jonesey95 simply misread the proposal, but to continue saying that is puzzling to me.
|last=Ishihara
|first=Shintaro
|author-link=Shintaro Ishihara
is significantly more difficult and time-consuming for the average, non-techy user than |last=Ishihara
|first=Shintaro
|author-link=y
, as well as being a case of data redundancy/duplication. It has a small upside and no downside that I can see, aside from the one-time developer effort, and a small bit of
feature creep. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-linkn=
and is more likely to have checked the target of the link. An editor using |authorn-link=y
may assume that it would work without checking.
Boghog (
talk)
21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
unless they have checked and determined that the correct article's title is a match for first+last. At least that's how the proposal intends for it to work. ―
Mandruss
☎
00:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I am thinking to create a simple template, {cite_page} to ignore "title=" & "publisher" and just show "Author (year). p. [url page]." as a short cite for optional link page+url. However, the template could also show "volume=" so the cite could link a page within different volumes of the same author/year book. The benefit would be to morph multiple refs to the same book, but different pages, to be {cite_page} with optional "url=" link to each page (rather than link to title). Recent timing tests show the simple markup cite templates (without Lua) now run over 800/second and use perhaps 300 bytes (rather than Lua's 1,000-1,600 per cite, as 4x title+url length) of the wp:post-expand include size (limit 2,000MB). Would that kind of short cite need CoINS metadata? - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
|ref=harv
.
[2]References
{{
cite news}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 February 2016
While the use of "{{sfn|Baker|2013|p=[http://www.example.com 34]}}" is great for people who think of parameters that way, it is very, very different from "author=" plus "year=" plus "url=" & "pages=" etc. Again, the benefit would be to easily morph multiple refs to the same book, but different pages, to be {cite_page} with optional "url=" link to each page (rather than link to title). Typically, we see repeated:
So to fix all the repeats, just change each extra "cite book" to be "cite page" and instantly done. No need to explain Harvard referencing with the mandatory parameter "|ref=harv" and no need to omit "author=" or "year=" or "url=" or "pages=" (etc.); the template could just ignore "title=" (or "publisher") to show the short cites. Fixing repeated references would become a matter of seconds per article, with no worry of misspelling the author's names or putting wrong year. New users would see {cite_page} as having similar parameters to the other cites they wrote in the page. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
May we use italics in |publisher=
when it is a newspaper?
SLBedit (
talk)
00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|newspaper=
? E.g.
{{
cite web}}
when using a source from a newspaper's website.
SLBedit (
talk)
01:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|work=
:
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)|work=
(alias for |website=
) adds italics.
SLBedit (
talk)
02:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
to display a website's name in italics?
SLBedit (
talk)
03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|publisher=
. Markup and static text in rendered citations is the duty and obligation of the template. The cs1|2 templates provide a machine readable version of the rendered citation as metadata. By adding extraneous markup and text to parameter values, you corrupt that metadata. This is documented in all of the cs1|2 templates at, for example,
Template:Cite_web#COinS.|publisher=
in a news context. I welcome anyone to go to a more public venue and try to establish such a consensus. ―
Mandruss
☎
15:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC){{
cite web|title=Aliens Invade Roswell|...|website=latimes.com|publisher=''[[Los Angeles Times]]''}}
is an abuse of the parameters. If you insist on drawing a distinction between the online and print editions (this should only be done when an article appears in one but not the other, or when it appears in different form in one vs. the other), do {{
cite news|title=Aliens Invade Roswell|...|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|edition=online}}
: Doeh, Janet (April 1, 2016).
"Aliens Invade Roswell".
Los Angeles Times (online ed.). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Why should I use {{ cite news}} for news and articles available on a newspaper's website if those articles are different from the (printed) newspaper itself? (I'm not discussing an online edition of a printed newspaper.) SLBedit ( talk) 18:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite webnews}}
, since {{
cite news}}
is clearly not up to the task. Before you do that, see
WP:BIKESHED. ―
Mandruss
☎
19:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
would probably be more appropriare. That doesn't mean you can't use {{
cite news}}
for the items that are news. You don't have to use the same template for everything on a given site. ―
Mandruss
☎
22:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
says, right at the top,
|newspaper=
parameter, you can use |work=
or |website=
, as I explained
above at 23:33, 31 January 2016. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
with |newspaper=
, which is an alias for |magazine=
.
SLBedit (
talk)
00:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
and since it's not the actual newspaper but its magazine, use e.g. |magazine=The Sunday Times Magazine
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{cite news|department=Magazine|newspaper=Newspaper}}
.
72.43.99.146 (
talk)
15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
By far the most important things about citations are:
As long as your cite satisfies those two goals, the rest is trivial detail. Make some attempt to follow whatever guidance is given in the doc. Where something is not covered in the doc, or the doc is ambiguous, use your best judgment. Many of the things we agonize over make no difference in what the reader sees, so we should cease agonizing over them. Even when they make a difference in what the reader sees, it's usually a minor formatting difference that is meaningless to most readers.
My opinions. ―
Mandruss
☎
01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I propose to update the cs1|2 modules over the weekend of 20–21 February 2016. The changes are:
{{
cite map}}
;
discussionsplit_url()
;
discussionlink_title_ok()
;
discussionformat_script_value()
;to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
get_month_number()
and is_valid_month_season_range()
; better code practices;to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
In many cases, where we currently use the |orig-year=
parameter, the full original date is known (and sometimes even important or at least insightful to know), but our |orig-year=
parameter only accepts a year, not a full date. I would like to suggest to either relax the error checking of the |orig-year=
parameter or to add an |orig-date=
parameter to the cite template framework accepting a date similar to the |date=
parameter. The existing |orig-year=
parameter could be deprecated and mapped to the new |orig-date=
parameter. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
18:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|orig-year=
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2016 |orig-year=some text in orig year that clearly isn't a year}}
|orig-year=
for quite a while, but I seem to remember that it threw an error message when I tried back then. Anyway, even better this way.|orig-year=
into |orig-date=
and change the documentation accordingly.I would like to suggest an addition to the |edition=
parameter, so that it would treat at least the numbers 1..9 (perhaps 1..99) as symbols, so that we no longer have to write |edition=3rd
, but just |edition=3
etc. It would make the parameter list easier to parse and edit by editors (at least in the default cases), it would make it easier to change the output format of the template in the future, and it would aid automatic processing by bots, translation services, etc. Since the use of raw numbers is not conflictive with the existing usage of the parameter, it should be very easy to implement this. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
18:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
parameter symbolically only when it does not contain any other info. In all other cases, the string would be passed along unaltered. So, values like "1", "2", "3" etc. would be replaced by whatever is our preferred text to indicate a first, second, third etc. edition (f.e. "1st ed.", "2nd ed.", "3rd ed." in the English version of the template), whereas "third", "3." or "3rd" (with or without more stuff following) would not be changed in any way. So, the proposal would only cover the most common cases, but still give us the freedom to use the parameter as free-flow parameter for the more complicated cases.|edition=3rd
and it would be rendered as "(3rd ed.)". You could continue to do this if you want to, of course.|edition=3
as well (which isn't a useful value at present, as it would result in the grammatically incorrect rendering "(3 ed.)" at present). Following my proposal, this would be rendered properly as "(3rd ed.)" as well (but it could be easily adjusted to something different like "(third edition)", if we'd want to do so in the future).|title=
) wouldn't you still enter this as |edition=3rd
? After all, if you'd enter it as |edition=3
, the template displays "(3 ed.)" at present, which is grammatically incorrect.I'm looking to properly cite the following magazine https://issuu.com/apa1906network/docs/201510001-02 . The issue date according to the cover is "Spring/Summer 2015". How should I place this into the date field? Naraht ( talk) 01:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
|date=Spring–Summer 2015
. We convert the slash to an en dash for consistency with our MOS.
{{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
There are quite a few pages in Wikipedia space in Category:CS1 maint: Extra text. Instead of "fixing" these pages (many of which are archives), would it be better to exclude Wikipedia space from this category? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|template-doc-demo=true
may be appropriate to add./[Aa]rchive
and /[Ll]og
pages. The original discussion is
here.|website=
is no longer shown as an alias for |work=
. Are we deprecating website? Is there any discussion on that you can point me to? Thanks. ―
Mandruss
☎
08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|website=
shows as an alias at
cite web
.|work=
in {{cite news}}.
208.87.234.201 (
talk)
14:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|type=
parameter if you want to specify medium etc. Based on the latest change, I move to add |print=
as an alias of |work=
in {{cite book}}.
208.87.234.201 (
talk)
15:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
for e.g.
The Huffington Post. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
|work=
=|magazine=
|work=journal
|work=
=|news-agency=
or |work=
=|news-blog=
.
65.88.88.127 (
talk)
20:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
|work=
or |newspaper=
or |website=
- it really doesn't matter. If we tell people they must use only one of them, we will irritate a lot of people, not to mention all the hassle of sending a bot around to "fix" something that isn't broken. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
|type=web
. If we are to add distribution media, then I think more aliases for "work" are forthcoming, such as |print=
, |audio broadcast=
etc. I'm sure this will make things even more complicated.
65.88.88.46 (
talk)
16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Nobody is citing websites with {{
cite news}}
- Light-years from reality. Tons of editors are doing exactly that, because they have read the first sentence at
Template:Cite news, the table at
Help:Citation Style 1#Templates, and other guidance elsehwere, and believe in following the guidance given.|newspaper=New York Times
the proper rendition should be |website=www.nytimes.com
How does the latter qualify as a news source? Because the doc is confusing or wrong doesn't mean common sense has to be abandoned. The software does a decent job of formatting the citations. The doc is under par in several instances, especially where it sneaks novel (meaning non-discussed) citation guidelines disguised as citation formatting.
72.43.99.130 (
talk)
20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
|website=The New York Times
, in the opinion that "website" is not a synonym for "domain name". Many will defend to the death the notion that a web site is not a newspaper, since you can't hold it in your hands and turn the pages and it doesn't leave ink stains on your fingers, and so they refuse to use |newspaper=
for web-published sources. There is no guidance as to these choices, nor any documented consensus that I'm aware of, hence conflicts such as this one.|work=
for a range of purposes as documented. But I realize it's probably many years too late for that to happen, so this is a pointless comment. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)I have added simple |oclc=
checks to look for spaces. The code first removes any punctuation from the identifier value (WorldCat ignores punctuation in the identifier value) and then attempts to convert the value to a number which must be 1 or greater. Any non-digit characters the identifier value will cause the conversion to fail and the module will emit a bad oclc error message. These errors will be categorized in ‹The
template
Category link is being
considered for merging.›
Category: CS1 errors: OCLC
At the time of this writing, this insource search string found 62 |oclc=
values with letters:
insource:/\| *oclc *= *[A-Za-z]+/
None of the links that I checked were valid.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)|oclc=
causes WorldCat to return a page-not-found error. Simple testing seems to indicate that removing the prefix from the 'number' returns a page that matches the title in the citation.Rewritten. Since the oclc document specifies length as a function of the prefix, the code tests for length when a recognized prefix is present. For oclc without a prefix and for the prefix (OCoLC)
, length is constrained to 9 digits for the time being. This is much like the constraint we impose on |pmc=
and |pmid=
. Where prefixes are included in the |oclc=
parameter value, they are stripped from the number and not displayed.
Prefix ocm
requires 8 digits:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Prefix ocn
requires 9 digits:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Prefix on
requires 10+ digits:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Prefix (OCoLC)
requires 1+ digits without leading zeros (constrained to 9 digits):
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)OCLC without prefix 1 to 9 digits:
Unrecognized prefix:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Punctuation between two oclc numbers:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)Space between two oclc numbers:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |oclc=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
<poem>
blocksIt seems that <poem>
blocks are processed before templates, meaning that {{
cite journal}} and {{
cite book}} only work inside them if they go all on one line. See
this revision of "Lightbulb joke" for example - refs 3 and 4 are treated as plain wikitext. If you remove the newline before the first pipe, you get some weird errors about delete characters. There are no delete characters in the wiki text.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
01:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Category:Pages_with_citations_having_redundant_parameters, I have cleared all old entries from months ago, and left new entries to show a growing set of examples of recent redundant parameters. Previously, over 80% of entries had been pages+page, but 2nd most were author2+last2 (or similar). For the vast majority, as pages+page, the common fix is to show "page of pages" where many people think "pages=" is the total (similar to French "pages totales=" in fr:Template:Ouvrage but not in fr:Template:Lien_web). If the cites auto-combine as "page of pages" then over 80% of former "redundant" parameters will be valid now, and in viewing prior revisions of those pages, such as in old talk-pages. We would simply state in the CS1 documentation, "when pages+page cite shows page of pages" (or such), and that would remove those numerous pages+page errors from cites. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused about the error messages here and how to fix them. I found this citation in Bayou Country.
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country [Expanded Reissue] (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country [Expanded Reissue] (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
I see "|url= missing title (help). Check |title= value (help)". There is a title, and the second help link leads to the param-link error explanation. I'm guessing it has to do with the single square brackets in the title parameter. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Selvin, Joel (2008).
Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.:
Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live | Selvin, Joel (2008). Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.: Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. |
Sandbox | Selvin, Joel (2008). Bayou Country Expanded Reissue (PDF) (CD booklet). Creedence Clearwater Revival. U.S.A.: Concord Music Group. FAN-30877-02. |
|title=
, the intent was to reuse the code that finds the illegal characters in |<param>-link=
to find the first
of a wikilink when |title=[[link label]]
and |title-link=article title
from which the module would produce this illegal construct:
[[article title|[[link label]]]]
|title=
(also applies to |series=
when |series-link=
is set as well as to the various other link/label pairs identified in the
help text.|title=
cannot be linked simultaneously by both |title-link=
and |url=
. When both of the latter are present, |title-link=
consumes |title=
so |url=
has no title-text for which it can be a link. This is a long-standing error message.Meanwhile, to view this thread on a mobile-phone screen, I have wrapped the overlong url by inserting a hyphen into "assets/" as "assets-/" which no longer links to the actual webpage but is treated as valid URL format (and wraps on small-device screens). - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some option to pre-emptively archiveurl things but without having any archive-related stuff appear in the rendered citation at all, either with a particular dead-url value to suppress it, or better yet, having display suppressed by default any time dead-url=no. Having archive-related stuff appear when it is not needed is cruft that badly bloats references sections when pre-emptive archiving of Web sources is done article-wide. It's bad enough that I put all my pre-emptive archive-url and archive-date parameters inside HTML comments; it adds 7 characters of edit-mode cruft per cite, versus a big bunch of it visible to everyone when left un-commented-out. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=no
worked as you described (no archive output). I'm not sure that |dead-url=no
is the best parameter value to use to suppress the archive output. The historic definition means that the |url=
is still assigned to |title=
and 'Archived' in the archive out put is linked:
{{cite web |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2016-02-08 |dead-url=no}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)unfit
and usurped
which keep the archive text output but don't link to the original url:
{{cite web |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2016-02-08 |dead-url=unfit}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)hidden
. It may be more intuitive to change |dead-url=
to |url-state=
.
208.87.234.201 (
talk)
14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
In keeping with my post at Wikipedia_talk:COinS#Language metadata pollutes COinS, and because this page has more watchers, I have moved this conversation from Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests#Language to here.
At Feature requests#Language, Editor OwenBlacker wrote
Is it possible to reinstigate discussion on this change? At the moment, providing human-readable language tagging is done (as Jonesey95 pointed out on 20 December 2013) and COinS-tagging means that we can't use {{ lang}} within CS1 templates (like {{cite book |title={{lang|es|La Casa de Mi Padre}} |trans_title=My Father's Home |author=Will Ferrell |language=es }}) because it would pollute the machine-readable data; we need to use {{cite book |title=La Casa de Mi Padre |trans_title=My Father's Home |author=Will Ferrell |language=es }} instead. What would be great would be to change the output markup so that this example above goes from rendering (without the COinS):
<cite class="citation book">Will Ferrell. <i>La Casa de Mi Padre</i> [<i>My Father's Home</i>] (in Spanish).</cite>to rendering
<cite class="citation book">Will Ferrell. <i lang="es" xml:lang="es">La Casa de Mi Padre</i> [<i>My Father's Home</i>] (in Spanish).</cite>for example. This would allow assistive technologies correctly to identify the language of the title (and, for example, user CSS to style text differently according to language). Alternatively, rather than assuming that the
title
(and only thetitle
) will match thelanguage
, new parameters could be added such as|title_lang=
,|chapter_lang=
and|journal_lang=
, for example.I'm entirely open to discussing the details, as I've just made these up on the spot, but in principle this feels like something we could make work, no? :o)
— OwenBlacker ( Talk) 14:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Is xml:lang="..."
required? Wikipedia pages are <!DOCTYPE html>
.
It occurs to me that one way to address this might be to support certain parameters that look like this: |title-es=
, |chapter-de=
, etc where the language code suffix is the appropriate
ISO 639-1 code. This will require that we make changes to validate()
, argument_wrapper()
(this one is problematic because it is not at all documented and is not easily understood), and certainly others.
We would ignore the English versions: |title-en=
, etc.
What do we do when |script-title=
is also set? If both |script-title=
and |title=
are set, |title=
is supposed to hold the transliteration of the original title so its language specifier, if provided, must be the same as the specifier in |script-title=
. If the language is specified for one of |script-title=
or |title=
but not both, what do we do then?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
|script-title=
overloaded to hold the lang code of the title, or a new |title-lang=
, seems more sensible than a number of new parameters. I have a preference for the latter. --
Izno (
talk)|work-title-lang=
. --
Izno (
talk)
17:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
|script-title=
to hold the language code of |title=
? Like this?:
{{cite ... |title=La Casa de Mi Padre |script-title=es: |...}}
|title=
then it should extend to other 'title' holding parameters as well. Which leads me to the additional question, what about authors:
{{cite book |first=Guðrún Eva |last=Mínervudóttir |author-link=Guðrún Eva Mínervudóttir |title=Fyrirlestur um hamingjuna |trans-title=Lecture on Happiness |isbn=9789979865773 |location=Reykjavík |publisher=Bjartur |date=2000 |language=is}}
xml:lang
does not apply to us, but I thought that the question should be asked since the Editor OwenBlacker specifically included it in the example cite.It was a stray thought tossed out that might solve the issue of "what to do when script is also specified". Don't worry too much if an implementation doesn't jump out at you--we have two others to consider (but which include the issue).
I think we should attempt not to confuse the issue of having a title in a different language than the default and the issue of having a title at all, which is why I prefer |title-lang=es
+ |title=
to |title-es=
. The former can presumably also re-use the language checking utility we have in |language=
without change. There is also the issue of duplicate parameteres that
User:Citation bot chokes on (reported already as a bug) as-it-is as well as updating other scripts to consider |title=
and |title-es=
as duplicates.
I think it's trivial to indicate that a certain work's/section's/whatnot's title may be in a particular language in the citation; I'm unsure if the same can be said about personal names. Besides the case of psuedonyms (which, at best, we can indicate are in a particular script), is the name "Steven" in Swedish, English, or Spanish? So I'd be disinclined to agree to an |author-lang=
or similar. --
Izno (
talk)
18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
lang
and xml:lang
attributes, in particular the paragraph beginning "Authors must not use the lang
attribute in the XML namespace on HTML elements in HTML documents." In this context, "the lang
attribute in the XML namespace" means xml:lang=something
. Therefore, as MediaWiki serves HTML, we must not add the xml:lang=
attribute to a <i>
tag. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Many Russian mathematics journal articles have two DOIs, one for the original Russian article and a second one for its translation into English. Example:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)(Also note that the Russian original is free online while the translation is paywalled.) Above, I am abusing the |id=
parameter to link the translation. Is there or should there be a better way? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) Translated as
doi:
10.1070/RM2006v061n04ABEH004354.|id=
was a later cleanup for here. But it would be nice if we could actually use the template to format the whole citation rather than having some of it spill over into freeform non-templated text. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Editor
SMcCandlish added this to the |editor=
documentation:
These parameters are for editors of collaborative printed works, such as multi-author anthologies. Wikipedia does not use them to indicate the managing editors of periodicals such as journals, newspapers, magazines, or news sites (this information is not needed in source citations). For editor-revisers of later editions of previously published unitary works, add any editors as authors, with an "(ed.)" annotation after their given names, e.g.
|author2-last=Doe |author2-first=Jane (ed.)
; this will prevent formatting that implies the cited|chapter=
in a|title=
(for books), or the|title=
in a|work=
or|website=
, is an isolated contribution contained within a multi-author work compiled by the named editor(s). None of these parameters should be used to add other, non-essential contributors who are not needed in citations, such as foreword authors or illustrators, only credited editors, revisers, and work-wide commentators.
I am on wikibreak and have no time to discuss right now so have reverted the addition and started this discussion. Please discuss.
My objection lies in the 'add any editors as authors, with an "(ed.)" annotation ...'. We should not be encouraging the improper practice of adding extraneous text to parameters that are part of the metadata nor should we misuse parameters in this way.
We can, and probably should disable |editor=
when the template is {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
. Foreword authors is supported in {{
cite book}}
with |contributor=
and |others=
serves for illustrators and other non-essential contributors.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Almost every time I document a real, reader- or editor-affecting problem here and try to work around or fix it, I get shot down or ignored by the same one or two editors for whom COinS seems to be more important than WP:CITE, but who effectively totally control these templates. I've been a vocal supporter of CS1 for years, and would like to see CS2 eliminated, but over the last year and half I get increasingly inspired to go create a CS3 that looks almost identical to CS1, and has one consistent set of parameters, and no extraneous fiddly stuff. CS1 has turned into an enormous pile of "feeping creaturism", and hardly anyone can figure out how to use it effectively any longer. I've been here a decade, and these template still screw up my sourcing attempts at least once a week. I spend more time reading these templates' documentation than any others. I've reported more problems with these templates than any others. Fewer of them have been resolved than with any others. Given that people are not required to use any of our templates at all to insert citations, it would be a entirely valid approach to simplicity-fork this. If the principal and rather my-way-only maintainers of these templates don't want to see that happen, they need to be more responsive to problem reports, including paying attention to the details they report, and not dismissing them "oh well, you can do this complicated hack no one will remember nor understand when they encounter it", much less "we can't fix this because our precious metadata won't be ideal". Faaaaaack... — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
editorial insertions can be used with square brackets?
|editor=
and |author=
to include names that are neither (sometimes with annotation; sometimes not). That will be a problem forever I'm afraid.|mode=
to accept additional keywords to control how the editor name list is rendered; perhaps alternate editor parameters that render in a certain way; perhaps some other parameter or parameter modification. Of these, I think that modifying |mode=
is likely the better solution. Suggest other solutions.our own readersand though only a small minority of
our own readerstheir right to quality information is the same as that of the majority.
|display-editors=
in some fashion; this would be my new favorite solution.|author2-first=Jane (ed.)
can't possibly be a sensible way forward – it's simply a misuse of the parameters regardless of whether it generates misleading metadata. (@
SMcCandlish: it's like using '' instead of {{
em}} or <tt> instead of <code>, both of which you have rightly deprecated in the past. Parameters, like markup, should be used semantically.){{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
etc. Many articles have no credited author, for example
this one. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
|editor=
in journal, etc. However, note that such disablement is only TM's secondary comment, that the main point is regarding Mac's documentation change that editors can be cited as authors. I also oppose that change (effectively supporting TM's reversion), though as a possible work-around it might merit discussion. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
23:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
To address some of the comments above: For the record, I do not agree that the sole purpose of these citations is identifying the source so people can find it; that's the primary purpose. As anyone with any familiarity with academia knows, it also has a lot to do with proper attribution, credit where due. And this is actually important for WP-internal reasons, like being exact in our attribution of claims, especially primary ones.
As someone commented above, yes, it is true that we do not cite managing editors of newspapers and such, except possibly under unusual circumstances. (When would we ever do that? Give a concrete example. Even if there's some kind of "Statement by the Editor" piece, the "editor" in that case is actually the author, and would be cited as such.) If you are adding the names of the general or managing editorial staff at a newspaper or journal as |editors, you are not doing citations right, you're engaging in WP:NOT#BIBLIOGRAPHY; it's exactly the same thing as giving the total page count, the address of the publisher, or hardback vs. paperback. This is not citation information. It looks superficially like attribution, but it's attribution for an organizational role, like adding a parameter for the owner of the newspaper, and its janitor. WP is not IMDb; we don't provide details on every single person associated with a "production" in any medium. That said, we s should not disable the parameter for any particular medium, since a particular piece may in fact have a direct, actual, credited-in-the-specific-piece editor who needs attribution (and whose editorial presence in the piece may considerably enhance its reliability, I might add). We don't need to kill the parameter, we need to clarify what not to do with it. That much of what I added to the docs should be restored.
At any rate, it looks like me like neither of the issues I attempted to address in what I wrote in the doc page have been addressed. We do need to discourage the misuse of the editor field to identify corporate administrators, and we do need to distinguish between two different levels of revisers of an original author, especially when the intermediary one was a very significant contributor to the work. Many "editors" are actually posthumous co-authors, and may even be responsible for much more of the content than the original author, yet may themselves be retired from the project in question (or deceased) for some time, with some new editor (actually acting as an editor per se or a new layer of co-author). This sort of thing comes up very frequently in style guides, as just one topical example. What is presently called Fowler's Modern English has much less of H. W. Fowler's original content in it than people think (I know; I have the 1st ed., too). Same goes for the ones we call in short form Turabian and Hart's, and Gowers. Sometimes the editions with different editors are cumulative, sometimes they are not, and this can have actual RS implications – particular editors are more reputable than others, and even particular editions by the same editor may be (and this is not always chronological). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|chapter=
is set (1) and when it is not set (2):
|editor=
using the form in (2) when |chapter=
and |editor=
are set and when |authorn=
is/are the author(s) of the whole work?MLA: "Ed. Kathleen A. Hauke." or "Hauke, Kathleen A., ed.," depending on edition / "In. [title], ed. Kathleen A. Hauke." or "[chapter]. [title]. Ed. Kathleen A. Hauke." (emphasis added – note the lack of "[i|I]n", and that's from the 2014 source), depending on edition
APA: "K. A. Hauke (Ed.)." / "In K. A. Hauke (Ed.),"
CMS: "Edited by Kathleen A. Hauke." / "In [title], edited by Kathleen A. Hauke,"
Chicago/Turabian: "Kathleen A. Hauke, ed.," / "[I|i]n [title], edited by Kathleen A. Hauke,"
AAA: "Kathleen A. Hauke, ed." / In [title]. Kathleen A. Hauke, ed."
CSE & AMA: "Hauke KA, editor." / In: Hauke KA, editor. [title]."
ACS: "Hauke, K. A., Ed.;" / "In [title]; Hauke, K.A., Ed.;"
AIP: "K. A. Hauke, editor," / ", in [title], edited by K. A. Hauke (...)."
Astro. (no single standard, but fairly consistent): ", ed. K. A. Hauke (...)" / ", in [title], ed. K. A. Hauke (...)."
Maths. (not consistent): "K. A. Hauke (ed.)," or "K. A. Hauke (ed.):" or "In: K. A. Hauke (ed.)," / ", in [title], K. A. Hauke, ed.," or "In: K. A. Hauke (ed.), [title]."
Bluebook & ALWD: "(Kathleen A. Hauke ed, ...)." / ", in [title] (Kathleen A. Hauke ed, ...)." (Bluebook italicizes in, ALWD does not).
So, all of these use some form of "in" except some editions of MLA. But at least that's proof it's not effectively mandatory to treat it this way. I've not yet gone through MHRA and other non-American sources on this question. I'm pretty sure there are more that do not expect an "in". Anyway, I actually need to verify that the 2014 Purdue source is correct on MLA dropping the "in". I actually just got the latest MLA guide last month, and have not perused it yet, but my eyes hurt, so I'll look into it later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems the number of works with dual numbers (print & electronic ISBN) or just an eISBN (when published solely as e-books) is increasing. 72.43.99.130 ( talk) 20:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
</ref>
. Largely unnecessary. For some books, there may be 5 or more ISBNs, depending on whether its hardback, paperback, trade paperback, spiral-bound, e-book, etc., and maybe additional ones depending on whether the UK or US or India office printed it, etc. There's no point in including all this info, per
WP:NOT#BIBLIOGRAPHY. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|type=e-book
and |edition=digital
(or similar) to a citation of an e-book that has additional features not in the print editions? Or is an additional signifier along the lines of eISSN to be considered?
65.88.88.127 (
talk)
16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Hi there. In
this edit I overcame a date=/year= mismatch error but I do not feel this is a proper edit to really fix the error. What is the correct fix? The papers were re-released in 2010 and written in 1914. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
04:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
|date=28 January 1914
which appears to refer to the date of the lecture that is Chapter 12. Generally, |date=
is the publication date. The template identifies Cambridge University Press as publisher but links to the Bartleby version. The Bartleby version is dated April 2000. According to WorldCat and GoogleBooks, the ISBN is for a 2008 Cambridge publication. Were I seeking the exact source that you are citing, I would be at a loss since I cannot extract the reality, the
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, from this collection of mismatched facts. Choose one source, and cite that. Since the Bartleby appears to support the article text, I would rewrite the cite this way:
{{cite book |last1=Quiller-Couch |first1=Sir Arthur |title=On the Art of Writing: Lectures Delivered in the University of Cambridge, 1913–1914 |edition=Online |url=http://www.bartleby.com/190/ |access-date=3 March 2012 |date=2000 |orig-year=1916 |publisher=Bartleby.com |chapter=XII. On Style |chapterurl=http://www.bartleby.com/190/12.html |at=¶6}}
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)It would be helpful if |author[N]-link=y
would auto-grab values from the author/first/last[N] parameters and use them. About 80% of the time, no disambiguation or other alteration is needed (unless you use one of those awful citations styles that force the use of initials, which should be banned on WP, but that's another matter). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
is coded. ―
Mandruss
☎
14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)|author-link=
, why not |work=
and its aliases? And so on. Hard to justify saying yes to one and no to the rest, hard to justify the overhead to do all of them, in my opinion.
Slippery slope,
Unintended consequences. ―
Mandruss
☎
19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
parameter makes no sense. If you are going to the trouble of using that, why not just use |author-link=
as it was originally intended and only use it if and only if the corresponding page exists? (For the remaining 0.1% of authors that do have articles, it would be simple enough for a bot to create systematic redirects from the Vancouver style author name to the target article so that we can avoid that awful first1, last1, ... parameter bloat, but that's another matter ;-)
Boghog (
talk)
20:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=
, use |author-linkn=
where n
is that author's position in the |vauthors=
list. Same is true for |veditors=
. Bots to create redirects not needed.Implementing this proposal would convert the reference section of many articles into a sea of red- No reading of SMcCandlish's proposal suggests such an outcome. No reading of J. Johnson's proposal suggests such an outcome. Both mentions of "sea of red" have been unfounded. I assumed that Jonesey95 simply misread the proposal, but to continue saying that is puzzling to me.
|last=Ishihara
|first=Shintaro
|author-link=Shintaro Ishihara
is significantly more difficult and time-consuming for the average, non-techy user than |last=Ishihara
|first=Shintaro
|author-link=y
, as well as being a case of data redundancy/duplication. It has a small upside and no downside that I can see, aside from the one-time developer effort, and a small bit of
feature creep. ―
Mandruss
☎
20:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-linkn=
and is more likely to have checked the target of the link. An editor using |authorn-link=y
may assume that it would work without checking.
Boghog (
talk)
21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
unless they have checked and determined that the correct article's title is a match for first+last. At least that's how the proposal intends for it to work. ―
Mandruss
☎
00:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I am thinking to create a simple template, {cite_page} to ignore "title=" & "publisher" and just show "Author (year). p. [url page]." as a short cite for optional link page+url. However, the template could also show "volume=" so the cite could link a page within different volumes of the same author/year book. The benefit would be to morph multiple refs to the same book, but different pages, to be {cite_page} with optional "url=" link to each page (rather than link to title). Recent timing tests show the simple markup cite templates (without Lua) now run over 800/second and use perhaps 300 bytes (rather than Lua's 1,000-1,600 per cite, as 4x title+url length) of the wp:post-expand include size (limit 2,000MB). Would that kind of short cite need CoINS metadata? - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
|ref=harv
.
[2]References
{{
cite news}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 February 2016
While the use of "{{sfn|Baker|2013|p=[http://www.example.com 34]}}" is great for people who think of parameters that way, it is very, very different from "author=" plus "year=" plus "url=" & "pages=" etc. Again, the benefit would be to easily morph multiple refs to the same book, but different pages, to be {cite_page} with optional "url=" link to each page (rather than link to title). Typically, we see repeated:
So to fix all the repeats, just change each extra "cite book" to be "cite page" and instantly done. No need to explain Harvard referencing with the mandatory parameter "|ref=harv" and no need to omit "author=" or "year=" or "url=" or "pages=" (etc.); the template could just ignore "title=" (or "publisher") to show the short cites. Fixing repeated references would become a matter of seconds per article, with no worry of misspelling the author's names or putting wrong year. New users would see {cite_page} as having similar parameters to the other cites they wrote in the page. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
May we use italics in |publisher=
when it is a newspaper?
SLBedit (
talk)
00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|newspaper=
? E.g.
{{
cite web}}
when using a source from a newspaper's website.
SLBedit (
talk)
01:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|work=
:
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)|work=
(alias for |website=
) adds italics.
SLBedit (
talk)
02:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
to display a website's name in italics?
SLBedit (
talk)
03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
|publisher=
. Markup and static text in rendered citations is the duty and obligation of the template. The cs1|2 templates provide a machine readable version of the rendered citation as metadata. By adding extraneous markup and text to parameter values, you corrupt that metadata. This is documented in all of the cs1|2 templates at, for example,
Template:Cite_web#COinS.|publisher=
in a news context. I welcome anyone to go to a more public venue and try to establish such a consensus. ―
Mandruss
☎
15:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC){{
cite web|title=Aliens Invade Roswell|...|website=latimes.com|publisher=''[[Los Angeles Times]]''}}
is an abuse of the parameters. If you insist on drawing a distinction between the online and print editions (this should only be done when an article appears in one but not the other, or when it appears in different form in one vs. the other), do {{
cite news|title=Aliens Invade Roswell|...|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|edition=online}}
: Doeh, Janet (April 1, 2016).
"Aliens Invade Roswell".
Los Angeles Times (online ed.). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
14:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Why should I use {{ cite news}} for news and articles available on a newspaper's website if those articles are different from the (printed) newspaper itself? (I'm not discussing an online edition of a printed newspaper.) SLBedit ( talk) 18:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite webnews}}
, since {{
cite news}}
is clearly not up to the task. Before you do that, see
WP:BIKESHED. ―
Mandruss
☎
19:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
would probably be more appropriare. That doesn't mean you can't use {{
cite news}}
for the items that are news. You don't have to use the same template for everything on a given site. ―
Mandruss
☎
22:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
says, right at the top,
|newspaper=
parameter, you can use |work=
or |website=
, as I explained
above at 23:33, 31 January 2016. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
with |newspaper=
, which is an alias for |magazine=
.
SLBedit (
talk)
00:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
and since it's not the actual newspaper but its magazine, use e.g. |magazine=The Sunday Times Magazine
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
14:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
{{cite news|department=Magazine|newspaper=Newspaper}}
.
72.43.99.146 (
talk)
15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
By far the most important things about citations are:
As long as your cite satisfies those two goals, the rest is trivial detail. Make some attempt to follow whatever guidance is given in the doc. Where something is not covered in the doc, or the doc is ambiguous, use your best judgment. Many of the things we agonize over make no difference in what the reader sees, so we should cease agonizing over them. Even when they make a difference in what the reader sees, it's usually a minor formatting difference that is meaningless to most readers.
My opinions. ―
Mandruss
☎
01:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I propose to update the cs1|2 modules over the weekend of 20–21 February 2016. The changes are:
{{
cite map}}
;
discussionsplit_url()
;
discussionlink_title_ok()
;
discussionformat_script_value()
;to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
get_month_number()
and is_valid_month_season_range()
; better code practices;to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
In many cases, where we currently use the |orig-year=
parameter, the full original date is known (and sometimes even important or at least insightful to know), but our |orig-year=
parameter only accepts a year, not a full date. I would like to suggest to either relax the error checking of the |orig-year=
parameter or to add an |orig-date=
parameter to the cite template framework accepting a date similar to the |date=
parameter. The existing |orig-year=
parameter could be deprecated and mapped to the new |orig-date=
parameter. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
18:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|orig-year=
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2016 |orig-year=some text in orig year that clearly isn't a year}}
|orig-year=
for quite a while, but I seem to remember that it threw an error message when I tried back then. Anyway, even better this way.|orig-year=
into |orig-date=
and change the documentation accordingly.I would like to suggest an addition to the |edition=
parameter, so that it would treat at least the numbers 1..9 (perhaps 1..99) as symbols, so that we no longer have to write |edition=3rd
, but just |edition=3
etc. It would make the parameter list easier to parse and edit by editors (at least in the default cases), it would make it easier to change the output format of the template in the future, and it would aid automatic processing by bots, translation services, etc. Since the use of raw numbers is not conflictive with the existing usage of the parameter, it should be very easy to implement this. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
18:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
parameter symbolically only when it does not contain any other info. In all other cases, the string would be passed along unaltered. So, values like "1", "2", "3" etc. would be replaced by whatever is our preferred text to indicate a first, second, third etc. edition (f.e. "1st ed.", "2nd ed.", "3rd ed." in the English version of the template), whereas "third", "3." or "3rd" (with or without more stuff following) would not be changed in any way. So, the proposal would only cover the most common cases, but still give us the freedom to use the parameter as free-flow parameter for the more complicated cases.|edition=3rd
and it would be rendered as "(3rd ed.)". You could continue to do this if you want to, of course.|edition=3
as well (which isn't a useful value at present, as it would result in the grammatically incorrect rendering "(3 ed.)" at present). Following my proposal, this would be rendered properly as "(3rd ed.)" as well (but it could be easily adjusted to something different like "(third edition)", if we'd want to do so in the future).|title=
) wouldn't you still enter this as |edition=3rd
? After all, if you'd enter it as |edition=3
, the template displays "(3 ed.)" at present, which is grammatically incorrect.I'm looking to properly cite the following magazine https://issuu.com/apa1906network/docs/201510001-02 . The issue date according to the cover is "Spring/Summer 2015". How should I place this into the date field? Naraht ( talk) 01:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
|date=Spring–Summer 2015
. We convert the slash to an en dash for consistency with our MOS.
{{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)