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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 |
I have a question about a help page which is directly giving advice about the CS1/CS2 templates. Are any of the no-author styles explained at H:SFN, misusing a parameter? The section at Help:Shortened footnotes#No author reads:
Some sources do not have a single author with a last name, such as a magazine article or a report from a government institution. Options include:
- For a newspaper or periodical, use the name of the publication and the date, or set the author parameter to "publication name staff". [i]
- For a publication by an institution, use the name of the institution.
- Some style guides recommend using the title of the article (title-date).
- Other style guides recommend using "Anonymous" or "Anon."
- ^ Setting the author parameter to something solves the problem of having to set the "ref=" parameter to something other than that which is automatically generated.
This seems to contradict the template documentation, but I have seen a lot of people create citations using the |author=
field this way. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk) 22:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
seems to contradict the template documentationbut you fail to specify or quote that conflicting documentation. Which template? Which documentation?
|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
and explains the author parameter as so: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person; for the latter, prefer the use of |first= and |last=. This parameter should never hold the names of more than one author.
Template:Cite news/doc and
Template:Cite journal/doc contain the same text.
Rjjiii (
talk) 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|last=
/ |first=
pairs for each human author. The |author=<!--Not stated-->
is merely a recommendation to prevent future en.wiki editors from wasting their time searching for author(s) who have not been named. I don't see any of that as a contradiction.|author=
aliases (|author=Anonymous
etc) is wrong because that attributes the work to an author who appears to be named 'Anonymous'. Similarly, |author=publication name staff
is just as bad. For periodicals, I think that the best solution for use with {{
sfn}}
is to set |ref={{sfnref|''<periodical name>''|<date>
and {{sfn|''<periodical name>''|<date>}}
|author=NYT staff
, or even worse |author=The New York Times
|work=The New York Times
or |author=Museum of Modern Art
|publisher=Museum of Modern Art
. The material at
H:SFN is clearly wrong, or at least badly misleading. You might need to use a short footnote that read something like "Museum of Modern Art (2023)" when there is no specified author, but the way to template this is to use |ref={{
harvid|Museum of Modern Art|2023}}
in the main citation, not to do a bogus |author=Museum of Modern Art
that is redundant with |publisher=Museum of Modern Art
. This can probably be resolved by editing
H:SFN and the docs of
Template:Sfn to include specific examples of this sort, and to explicitly say not to abuse the |author=
or |last=
parameter to kluge this. PS: {{
harvid}}
has been moved to {{
SfnRef}}
, and it may be preferable to update the mentions of {{
harvid}}
to use the current actual name of the template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|ref=
.
[1] And regarding the question of why I saw the language as contradictory, I was saying that advice to use the title of the work or a description of the author (at
H:SFN) seemed to contradict the advice to use a person or organization's name (at
Template:Cite book/doc). I was uncertain, so I asked.
Rjjiii (ii) (
talk) 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)|ref=
should be encouraged to be short as well, so rather than |ref={{
harvid|Museum of Modern Art|2023}}
, it should be |ref={{
harvid|MMA|2023}}
which will very likely be unique among refs on the page (and if not, there are alternatives).
Mathglot (
talk) 01:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
left col is 90%", I realized how I goofed. I've run into this problem before and totally forgot about it. With a smaller URL and a space before the parameter, it now looks fine on desktop Chrome, mobile Chrome, mobile Safari, Edge, the android app, and some niche browsers. Thanks again, Rjjiii ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
If an article is using shortened references, that means a full list of sources appears in alphabetical order according to the first element; the only fields which can be first in a CS1 template are |author=
/|last=
or |editor-last=
I believe. If there is a |ref=
then a reader should be able to find MoMA accordingly amongst other M-names and so the first element should include whatever tag the reader will use to find the source in an alphabetic list.
{{
harvid|MoMA|2023}}
For the curious, here's the CMoS:
If a publication issued by an organization, association, or corporation carries no personal author’s name on the title page, the organization may be listed as author in the reference list, even if it is also given as publisher. To facilitate shorter parenthetical text citations, the organization may be listed under an abbreviation, in which case the entry must be alphabetized under that abbreviation (rather than the spelled-out name) in the reference list.
Umimmak ( talk) 06:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite web |publisher=[[Museum of Modern Art|MoMA]] |...}}
in alphabetical order under "MoMA" is perfectly fine. If some reader's head would just explode upon encountering this, they are not competent to be reading our material in the first place. And no one reads lists of citations like a novel. They get to a citation by clicking on a link to it. If for some reason they did not but are manually hunting around for a MoMA source in a list of sources (why?), all they have to do is Ctrl-F MoMA Enter (or on a Mac Cmd-F MoMA Enter). If this still just somehow doesn't compute for someone on the editorial side, they can do the source list entry as * MoMA: {{cite web |publisher=[[Museum of Modern Art|MoMA]] |...}}
(though I think other editors would later remove the leading "MoMA: " as extraneous and silly, treating our readers as if they had brain damage). Nothing said above is any excuse for doing a bogus |author=MoMA
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
{{harvtxt|ref=none|Last|YYYY}}.
will create exactly the citation format for the bibliography when given the same parameters as {{
sfnref}}.
[1] The citation templates could generate this when fed sfnrefs, but I don't know if it's worth the effort. It also won't be highlighted from the pinball links.<!--Aron 1962-->
than <!--{{sfn|Aron|1962|p=}}-->
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 09:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The alphabetization of sources in a "Works cited" or "Bibliography" section is mostly for the user, but has benefits for the editor wishing to expand the article and reuse the citations as well. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to find the "alphabetization item", which might be last1, last, author, surname, editor1-last or something from |ref=
, and which might be placed anywhere in the template... tick, tock; .... tick, tock; ... tick, tock; ... Have you found it, yet? I finally got tired of this, and to make it easier for myself on subsequent edits, and for other editors, I hit upon the solution I used in
Liberation of France#Works_cited (
). It makes it easier for editors, and has no effect on readers.
Mathglot (
talk) 09:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I've seen that people make good use of
Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. It would be nice to have a maintenance category for citations which contain a PMC ID but also a link from the url
parameter: such links are often subject to link rot and need updating or removing. This could later be extended to other
green OA IDs if they auto-link.
Nemo 07:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Need help again. In the Russian Wikipedia, we replace all dates with the ISO format (we display them in a human-readable way in the desired language through another module) so that those who copy articles and sources from us do not have to fool around with unreadable and unprocessable dates (English, Russian, Spanish or any other). But I now noticed that CITEREF cannot take the year from such a date (YYYY-MM-DD). It can be fixed? :) Iniquity ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book |title=Title |last=Green |first=EB |date=2023-11-27}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000028-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFGreen2023" class="citation book cs1">Green, EB (2023-11-27). ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.date=2023-11-27&rft.aulast=Green&rft.aufirst=EB&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+92" class="Z3988"></span>
|date=
in the template's id=
attribute.{{ Cite journal}} now shows a Cs1 error wherever a source is templated according to it but does not actually cite a journal title. Can this be fixed by editing the template or fixed en masse by a bot in all use cases? Æo ( talk) 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I need to set an alias for the "author" parameter, but adding 'Author' = 'автор',
to the configuration not works.
Iniquity (
talk) 21:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
'Author' = 'автор'
and add 'автор#'
to 'AuthorList-Last' = {...}
(at about line 390).'автор' = true
to local limited_basic_arguments_t = {...}
. Then add 'автор#' = true
to local numbered_arguments_t = {...}
and to local limited_numbered_arguments_t = {...}
Nice tracking category! However, this currently comes up with citations which do not need doi-access=free because they already have an auto-linking PMC identifier ( example). That makes it harder to find citations which would actually benefit from being turned green. Nemo 10:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
|pmc=
and |doi=
point to different sources. |pmc=
defaults to free-to-read; |doi=
does not. |pmc=
's free-to-read-ness does not apply to |doi=
. Readers who would prefer to read the |doi=
source are entitled to know if that source is free-to-read. All identifiers that are free-to-read should be marked with |<identifier>-access=free
.That makes it harder to find citations which would actually benefit from being turned green.
|doi=
or any other identifier parameter. In fact, the omission of a free-to-read icon for |doi=
when |pmc=
has a value implies that the source pointed to by |doi=
lies behind a paywall or registration barrier.|<identifier>-access=free
could number a million or more. It seems likely that many of those should never have a |<identifier>-access=free
so those articles would live in the new category forever. How is that useful?Hello 🙂 I was wondering how you would go about removing an article from the hidden category above. There are over 100,000 pages tagged with this category, and at least to me, it's a little unclear how to fix this. I also see that this might be a temporary category, so, is there still a need for this, or can it be deleted? Kind of a two parted question, but I hope you understand. Cheers! Johnson 524 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=1 June 1815}}
Is there any way to incorporate interlanguage links, in e.g. |author parameters? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
|author=[[:<tag>:<article name>|<author name>]]
|author-link=:<tag>:<article name>
– required for |last=
/ |first=
pairs; may be used for |authorn=
<tag>
is the target wiki's interwiki prefix (de
for German, ar
for Arabic, etc)<article name>
is the article name at the target wiki<author name>
is the author's name{{
Interlanguage link}}
.The first of two questions about one particular paper that I intend to cite (via a CS1 citation template). The questions are, I think, otherwise independent of each other.
You'll find a page introducing the article at doi: 10.1177/007542428902200202. To see the actual article, log-in (or payment) is required. However, I also found the article at this URL, which starts "https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu" and for which log-in or payment is not required. Now, I am almost totally ignorant of Citeseerx, but as doi: 10.1177/007542428902200202 works, I infer from Template:CiteSeerX's documentation that CiteSeerx: 10.1177/007542428902200202 should work too. It doesn't. Have I misunderstood something? -- Hoary ( talk) 11:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
CiteSeerX}}
in the first place; just do |url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=ca452b918dd0498837c9d127dae5b5db833e51ee
and if you're concerned about its lifespan, make sure web.archive.org saved a copy (done). Similarly, normal DOI usage in CS1 would be |doi=10.1177/007542428902200202
not a {{
DOI}}
template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm citing a German pamphlet which is listed as published/edited on behalf of - Herausgegeben im Auftrage. The work was published on behalf of the organization „Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft ‚Das kommende Deutschland'“. Johannes Täufer is listed as the author, and Astrologischer Verlag Wilhelm Becker is the publisher. What's the preferred way in {{cite book}}
to record a "published on behalf of"? -
Furicorn (
talk) 08:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|publisher=Wilhelm Becker
.|publisher=Astrologischer Verlag Wilhelm Becker, on behalf of Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft‚ "Das kommende Deutschland"
? Thanks -
Furicorn (
talk) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|publisher=Astrologischer Verlag Wilhelm Becker / Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft Das kommende Deutschland
(the quotation marks being superflous), since the strings in question are still helpful in finding the source, but I needn't do any iffy OR on my own part to try to decide who "is" the "real" publisher. This also comes up in modern cases; e.g.,
Scientific Style and Format has specific individual author-editors of particular editions, and is (in recent editions) "published by" the Council of Science Editors in the editorial-direction sense and (again in recent editions) "published by" Chicago Univerisity Press in the printer sense. I can't predict what kind of "publisher" a particular reader cares more about (an editorial "publisher" has much more to do with reputability and bias, while a printing "publisher" is more important for how the book is indexed in bibliographic databases), so I would be inclined to included both in the citation, especially as it provides additional relevant search strings. But this probably comes up more for Victorian and earlier publications, in which it may be difficult to determine whether some non-notable company name at the bottom of the title page represents a printer hired to just do the job, or a publisher who had some editorial input, especially if juxtaposed with the name of an organization or other entity that clearly did have some control over it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
|last=
, similar to how the library had done it. -
Furicorn (
talk) 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
|author2=
(equivalent to |last2=
but clearer), not jammed into the same |last[1]=
as the human author name, or it pollutes the metadata about what his name is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 15:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A second question about a paper I intend to cite (via a CS1 citation template).
doi: 10.1177/007542428902200202 describes an article as "First published October 1989" in "Volume 22, Issue 2" of the journal. Now look at the running header on evenly-numbered pages here at PSU. It reads: "JEngL 22.3 (October 1989 [1993])" [my emphases].
Now, if I were to read of a paper described as "1989 [1990]", I'd guess that it came out in a journal issue dated 1989 but in reality emerging only in 1990. But the journal wouldn't announce (in effect) "1989, nah, we're kidding, 1990". And I haven't heard of journal publication being delayed four years.
Informed comments? -- Hoary ( talk) 11:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|date=October 1989
|volume=22
|issue=3
to agree with the publication itself (as much as seems possible), rather than some third-party claim about its volume number; then follow the citation template, but still inside <ref>...</ref>
, with something like 'Also dated "[1993]" suggesting a revision or republication.' —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)|orig-date=
. But if I'm wrong, in terms of findability, the publisher (Sage, not the o'erburdened Dr Kretzschmar) has the "intended" publication date, so that might be the one to pick.
Folly Mox (
talk) 03:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
orig-date=Submitted 1989
or the like. –
jacobolus
(t) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
We have
Category:CS1 errors: extra text: volume and
Category:CS1 errors: extra text: issue that list articles where a cs1|2 template has |volume=
or |issue=
with some sort of extraneous text that reflects the parameter name: |volume=Vol. XX
or |issue=No. 13
. There are at least a couple of thousand articles where the text that is extraneous to one parameter can be found in the other: |volume=No. 13
or |issue=Vol. XX
.
This search (times out) finds ~1500 articles where the value assigned to |issue=
begins with Vol
(case insensitive)
This search (times out) finds ~700 articles where the value assigned to |volume=
begins with Iss
, Num
, No
, N°
, №
(case insensitive)
I propose to do one of two things:
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|volume=
bot task, and submit an additional bot request to fix |issue=
.
GoingBatty (
talk) 20:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)n°
and №
. When the test is run, the values assigned to |volume=
and |issue=
are checked against the combined patterns.Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Magazine. Vol. n° 32-33. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". Magazine. Vol. n° 32-33. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Magazine. Vol. №2. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". Magazine. Vol. №2. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
{{ American transit ridership}} was updated 05:46, December 6, 2023. Apparently, this resulted in 300+ articles being added to "Category:CS1 errors: dates". Can a script be run to perform an "empty edit" on the articles in this category? I assume this will remove them from the category. User-duck ( talk) 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following CS1 templates have missing or incomplete template data:
The template data goes into the documentation page, so any editor can add it, Rjjiii ( talk) 19:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to re-raise a proposal that was previously supported at
specifically that the value of |script-author=
be rendered in parentheses following the author name, and similarly for other people.
This is particularly important for Chinese and Japanese names, for which the romanized form is lossy. Many editors are adding the original names to other parameters, which messes up the metadata and (if |author=
is used) the refname used by the {{
harv}}
/{{
sfn}}
family. The solution is to give them somewhere else to put this name so that it will be displayed.
I am not proposing the more elaborate forms suggested here. Kanguole 23:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|script-author=
parameter join the other |script-parameter=
team. Yes, the use case is different (don't need to worry about italics), but it would keep the metadata clean and allow shortened footnotes to function intuitively without use of |ref=
(this applies to only one wrong way of citing East Asian authors).Somewhere down the road, this could also help deal with the
#Author roles problem discussed above, which current practice blocks. Lastly, |author-mask=
is tedious, and fiddly when more than one author is attributed (since it suppresses commas, ampersands, and "and" between authors).I recognise this is a whole can of cans (superior to a can of worms, which tbh should be stored fresh or dried), because it opens the door not only to |script-editor=
but also potentially to |script-author16=
and pals.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)|script-author=zh
to indicate the language, or 2) |script-author=李四
to provide the name in some other script. If no. 1, I can see this potentially adding utility, if COinS would support metadata to generate indicating the script used for the author name. If no. 2, then I don't see a reason for this when we have |author-mask=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
|script-parameter=
requires both a language code and a value, separated by a colon, like |script-author=zh:顧愷之
. The point (as I see it) is to be able to display the native names without touching the metadata or having to fiddle with |author-mask=
, which requires duplicating information as well as sometimes including punctuation, which is difficult to remember.
Folly Mox (
talk) 09:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
|author-maskn=
actually does work fine, just at the cost of some repeated name strings. 06:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 |author=<native> (<transliteration>)
or |author=<transliteration> (<native>)
. Is it common for sources to provide both? If not, then no need for |script-author=
.ja
or zh
sources provide names in native and transliterated forms then perhaps there is a need for |script-authorn=
. If that is the case, how are we to order the native and transliterated forms in the rendering? Native first? Transliterated first? Which of them contributes to the template's CITEREF
id? Only ja
and zh
or do we also include ko
?|author-mask=
works, and this idea would duplicate the (predominant?) use case that has grown up around it despite its original intent. It does seem cleaner and more intuitive to match the other |script-parameter=
parameters for the "people" fields, and would flatten the learning curve a bit, be agnostic between punctuation and author attribution positioning, and reduce duplication of data, which makes it a more attractive best practice.Side bonuses would be the ability to create a maintenance category for parentheticals in people fields, as well as the ability when |script-name=zh:
or ja:
or ko:
is present, to set the default name presentation to last first
instead of last, first
.I do understand that it would be non-trivial to implement, and isn't strictly necessary since the current system functions, albeit a bit hackily for this sort of information.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|author-link=
has no target.One final point is that this goes both directions, for example
Sarah Allan is credited under the transliterated name 艾蘭 when publishing in Chinese language publications,
Edward Shaughnessy writes under the name 夏含夷, etc. I'm not aware of any cases of English Wikipedia citing zh / ja language sources by authors who write predominantly in English and other Latin script languages, but we would want to have both versions of the name for these sources as well so they could be located for verification.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|authorn=
parameters using only non-Latin characters. There are lots of results where |authorn=
is empty or has languages other than CJK, but still there are plenty of CJK-only author names.|authorn=<romanized> (<native>)
.|authorn=<native> (<romanized>)
.Is it common for sources to provide both?because somewhere around here there is some instruction that editors should not engage in translation of quoted text. I view romanization of non-English names as a form of translation. In much the same way that
|trans-title=
should not be used if the source itself does not provide an English translation, so too, if the source itself does not provide a romanization of a native name, en.wiki editors should not attempt to romanize those native names.{{sfnp|劉|2010}}
? Seems like it might be offputting for our target audience.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter of a citation), which are meant to be read and understood by our readers as prose. But our citations of source titles and authors are not article content in this sort of sense; the only reason we have them is for identifying and finding the sources to verify the content, so there is no need to make up or machine-generate a source title or author title transliteration or translation, since it won't match the actual title/author of the source as published and thus won't help find it, and may even mislead the reader into picking the wrong source that happens to have the same name in English. It is noteworthy that the "Citing" section, right above the "Quoting" section that is the target of the WP:RSUEQ shortcut, does not advise providing translations or transliterations. It is not an accident. As I noted earlier (below) someone might argue that there is still some kind of reader utility in providing such translations or transliterations anyway, but there are counters to this argument. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)|quote=
parameter, our citations are not "content" in the usual sense, but serve a specific purpose. An argument can be made that the publication company being transliterated does help evaluate the source, since we (or someone else) may have information about the publisher that could help in evaluating reputability, especially when it comes to things like distingishing between a university or general book publisher versus a govermental organ or a game company that published the game our article is about, for example. I honestly don't really feel all that strongly about it, but I suspect that other editors do, and this is actually worth putting to a broad RfC audience somewhere like VPPOL. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
only to help the reader find the citation and verify the content– to first approximation, precisely zero readers care about "verifying the content". What readers care about is making sense of the subject. For readers who speak English and have no experience with Russian or related languages, the Cyrillic alphabet is entirely nonsensical, and barfing blobs of Cyrillic at readers is unhelpful and snobbish. Anyone can click the hyperlink to find the paper in Russian (and if they don't read Russian but want to make sense of it, as I did, they can OCR the image-based PDF and then machine translate the resulting text so they can understand the proof contained in the paper and cited by the article). But as for your point about web searches,
Osip Shvartsman
returns a wide variety of relevant results in English.
Осип Шварцман
does not. Edit to add: The #1 result in your "wild goose chase" search is a highly relevant paper in English (translated from Russian) which cites the paper in question ("O. V. Shvartsman. Comment on the article by p. v. bibikov and i. v. tkachenko. Matematicheskoe Prosveschenie. Tret’ya Seriya., (11):127–130, 2007.") and the paper it was responding to ("P. V. Bibikov and I. V. Tkachenko. On trisection and bisection of a triangle in the hyperbolic plane. Matematicheskoe Prosveschenie. Tret’ya Seriya., (11):113–126, 2007."), probably the single most relevant possible English language search result. Good job Google! –
jacobolus
(t) 08:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
|script-author=
parameter to match the others instead of relying on |author-mask=
hacks?", but I agree with jacobolus and Remsense here, while noting that the previous time this talkpage hosted a digression into the philosophical argument of "what citations are for" versus "how citations are used", (in the "Do we need |access-date ?" thread still live above), several of the protagonists came down on opposite sides to where we find ourselves this time round.
Folly Mox (
talk) 11:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
החיים שלי עם חתוליםas
Hachaim shley am alettis useless not because it is a transliteration, but because it is not a correct transliteration. "Hachaim Sheli Im Chatulim" would be more helpful, although there are some dialect differences, especially for the consonants ח ( Chet) and ע ( Ayin). -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
|script-title=
has existed for years shows prima facie that the feature would be useful, as the author is at least as important as the title. I arrived here when I tried to use {{cite book}}
to add a source where authors provided their names in both the source Chinese and Romanized. The Chinese is needed to match their names to catalog entries where machine-generated Romanizations are different from the ones they give in this source, while the Romanizations in this book are needed to match this source with other sources with no Chinese to establish that the authors are the same. —
AjaxSmack 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Hi, first, thanks for all the work you put into making this! It has saved me a lot of time.
Early this evening, however, my requests to {{cite book}}
in order to fill in additional information on the basis of the isbn field started generating a little Wikipedia box with the message "Error: Citations request failed" and the "option" to click OK. I am especially puzzled because it was working fine just a few hours earlier with an identical command.
I've tried it in other userspaces on Firefox and then on Safari and got the same thing. You can see my efforts here. [6]
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
In particular for Template:Cite press release, there is often an official id or reference number associated with pressers that would be great to be able to preserve and document in the {{cite ...}} reference, not in the least because it would aid the ability to search for alternative or archived urls if the source is dead. I can also see the need for other citation formats.
For an example, URL https://press.un.org/en/2022/ga12417.doc.htm is a UN press release with the ID GA/12417 that can be googled to find news articles or resolutions referencing the press release in question. Mahmoud ( talk) 21:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|id=
for this purpose. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 25–26 November 2023. Here are the changes:
|display-<namelist>=
handling;
discussion|language=
look for tag first then name;
discussion|work=
and aliases in {{
cite book}}
ignored;
discussion|authors=
;
discussion{{
cite book}}
with |trans-<periodical>=
;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
|archive-date=
/ timestamp check to use internal reformatter for i18n; emit suggested date;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC) +last minute bug fix 15:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|author=1234
and then maint message for |author2=4D2
|user=
parameter even if there is no number in the |author=
, |first=
, or |last=
parameters. I noticed this at
Star Trek: Picard (season 1) which has a Twitter reference called "Culpepper3Split" where it is valid for the |user=
parameter to have a number in it. I tested removing the number and it cleared the warning. -
adamstom97 (
talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite tweet}}
concatenates |last=Culpepper
, |first=Hanelle
, and |userHillview798=
into |author=Culpepper, Hanelle [@Hillview798]
which it hands off to {{
cite web}}
for rendering. This is not a {{
cite web}}
or
Module:Citation/CS1 problem but is a problem of
Module:Cite tweet – |user=
value, the brackets, and the @ symbol do not belong in |author=
as given to {{cite web}}
.the substitution. That term does not appear in the discussion I linked: Template talk:Cite tweet/Archive 2 § Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2023.
In addition to removing errors for {{
Cite tweet}} when there is a number in the |user=
parameter, we need to allow all CS1 templates to have digits in the author parameter.
Template:Citation Style documentation says "author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) ..." That would include, for example, The Jackson 5, OS/2 Development Team, Windows 95 Development Team, and thousands of other possible organizational authors that have digits. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 11:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
|last2=May 02
, and the like (there are lots of name parameters that contain date fragments). Valid names-with-digits like those you list as examples are relatively uncommon but can be excluded from the maintenance category. Compare these:
Hi all
Youtube is the second most popular website in the world, with a huge number of reliable news sources using it as a platform for sharing video. Unfortunately Citoid doesn't work properly for creating refs for Youtube currently. This leads to poor quality labelling of references being made, and while there are some templates to specifically cite video content, they aren't user friendly at all. I started a Phabricator ticket in 2021 to try and address this issue, however its not been worked on. Can I request anyone interested in this:
Also just to say I've seen a couple of people say "Youtube is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used", I think this is a missunderstanding of what the platform is, its the channels that should be assessed for reliability rather than the publishing platform as a whole. E.g the BBC News channel is reliable (its listed under Perennialy reliable sources on en.wiki), where as My Toy Reviews or DailyWire or whatever are obviously not reliable.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 08:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
|publisher=YouTube
. Unless you're citing something like YouTube's own terms-of-use policy (something actually published by YouTube), it's |via=YouTube
, and the |publisher=
(if not omitted as often completely redundant with the name of the channel, which belongs in |work=
, with the specific video title in |title=
) must be the name of the entity that editorially controls and originated the content. YouTube is just a conduit/platform/carrier. Doing |publisher=YouTube
is like saying that your mobile service provider owns and originated and has editorial control over your phone conversations with your sister. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
{{cite web|website=Newspapers.com|title=New York Times - 1|archive-url=[...]
Rjjiii (
talk) 05:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Hello, in
this version of
Miss Brazil CNB 2022 which has |last2=email
, "CS1 errors: generic name" is not reported.
Keith D (
talk) 01:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I seem to have specified everything in the configuration, but it still does not want to read dates correctly in the local language: ru:Участник:Iniquity/test date - displays an error with the date. What could it be? Iniquity ( talk) 18:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
local_date_names_from_mediawiki = false;
(line 615 in
ru:Модуль:Citation/CS1/Configuration). When that is set true
, the module overwrites your manual translations so the month-names that you used in your example (2 ноября – 21 декабря 1968) no longer exist. I think that I confirmed that with this in the debug console:
=mw.dumpObject (p.date_names'local']['long'])
table#1 {
"август" = 8,
"апрель" = 4,
"декабрь" = 12,
"июль" = 7,
"июнь" = 6,
"май" = 5,
"март" = 3,
"ноябрь" = 11,
"октябрь" = 10,
"сентябрь" = 9,
"февраль" = 2,
"январь" = 1,
}
|date=2 ноябрь – 21 декабрь 1968
.local_date_names_from_mediawiki = false;
?Hey all - I've noticed that when putting in crosswiki articles in link fields, the citation templates split out something like the following:
I was wondering whether it would be possible to add functionality for putting in a {{ill}} template instead - I think it would look a lot cleaner, especially when you have multiple authors with no page on en-wiki who are notable.
also still shows the need for a page here and look a lot better than
What do you think/is this already possible? Frzzl talk; contribs 15:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
They have been disputed since 2022. I've tried to use one to integrate a new URL on TRAPPIST-1, but it didn't work. Is it worth removing the section? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
|lay-url=
, |lay-source=
, |lay-format=
, and |lay-date=
are no longer supported. I don't know what you mean by Is it worth removing the section?What section? Where?
|lay-*=
parameters from various template doc pages and deleted the associated doc template.In
this edit,
AnomieBOT substituted {{
Ouvrage}} for {{
cite book}} without updating |pages totales=204
, which added the comment "auto-translated by Module:CS1 translator". In
this edit,
Citation bot then changed |pages totales=204
to |pages=204
, which added the article to
Category:CS1 errors: dates. Finally, in
this edit, a kind editor removed the parameter. It seems like the correct thing to do would be for the Module:CS1 translator to remove |pages totales=
because {{
cite book}} does not have a parameter to indicate the total number of pages in the book. Is this the proper place to report this issue, or is there somewhere better? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 05:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
|total-pages=
, |pages totales=
does not get translated. It is left to the editors of the article to decide what to do about untranslatable parameters.|consulté le=04 juin 2018
gets translated to |access-date=04 June 2018
. Again, it is left to article editors to decide what to do about the resulting error.|pages totales=204
to |pages=204
(semantically incorrect – page 204 is only one page) when the template also has |page=41
as your example shows. You should take this up at
User talk:Citation bot. The Citation bot edit did not add the article to
Category:CS1 errors: dates but rather, added the article to
Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter.Is there a way to suppress the "CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)" warning for something like |author=Jcmoore62
when citing social-media stuff? Also there is a notable journalist named
Jennifer 8. Lee. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
((…))
:
Jennifer 8. Lee. title. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 12:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)|user=Jcmoore62
to avoid this issue, and reserve the |author=
parameter for their real name (if known).
GoingBatty (
talk) 18:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Per Category:CS1 errors: generic title I would like to report a generic title. In St Richard's Catholic College, there is the generic title "Register " present however it is not being reported as a generic title error. — MATRIX! ( a good person!) citation unneeded 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in
ticket:2023121410001737 a requester brought up that doi links are getting their "/" changed to "%2F
" in the generated link, causing accessibility issues with certain browsers. Is this a new behavior? Ping to @
Trappist the monk: who recently worked on the module. Possible related to
phab:T353920? —
xaosflux
Talk 11:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
doi}}
was added at
this edit 6 May 2008. We currently use mw.uri.encode (<doi>, 'PATH')
to
percent-encode the doi value because any
ISO/IEC 10646 character may be used in a doi including characters that have specific meaning in a url. The label is not percent encoded but we do use mw.text.nowiki (<doi>)
on the label portion of the extlink to replace certain characters with their html-entity equivalents (this 'nowiki-ing' is not limited to |doi=
but applies to all identifier extlink labels).@ Trappist the monk thanks for the note, the reversion didn't change things. This may be a problem in one of their niche browsers, and doesn't seem to be about anything you've recently done - just pinged you because you have recently worked on this template in case I missed something - or if you have special insight in to the issue.
Here's what is being seen, not sure if there are drawbacks to changing this:
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2019.2956078
https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTII.2019.2956078
%2F
between the doi-prefix and the doi-suffix to /
. Is it worth the effort to make that happen? How niche is your correspondent's browser? Is it new? Is it old? How many readers of en.wiki (or the many other Wikipedias that use this module suite) use this niche browser? Has your correspondent discussed this issue with the browser manufacturer?
It has come to my attention that some people have been using doi-access=free
in citations for works which are not open access but which occasionally offer some gratis access method, such as an intermittent
bronze OA (non-libre gratis OA) status or the possibility for some people to register or go through other authentication walls, without payment, to access the full text. Such use is clearly contrary to the
documented definition of "free", which says "free to read for anyone" (emphasis added), and which is distinct from the value "registration" for the case where "a free registration with the provider is required".
However, I have sympathy for the argument that there's been some confusion so far, and that the absence of doi-access=free
is sometimes misinterpreted as a positive statement of something it's not. The easiest way out would be to allow adding doi-access=limited
and doi-access=registration
as we do for url-access
. That would allow users to manually set this value to indicate the gray area situations. It would also allow us to finally default a blank doi-access
to mean "subscription", and to show the red lock by default.
Nemo 11:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
|doi-access=registration
as a valid access indicator (and I think this might help with some of OAbot's unaddressed misbehavior), but |doi-access=subscription
is like |url-access=free
. I would not want to see bots adding zillions of understood default access indicators, or their associated lock icons in reference lists, which would be the outcome of enabling the specification of the default value.
Folly Mox (
talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)doi-access=free
. My interpretation is that this source is indeed compliant: the webpage that is the target of the doi has the full text and that text can be downloaded by simple copy-paste, if the reader so desires. (To download a .pdf a user must provide their email address.) I don't see this as a grey area: citations are there in Wikipedia articles so that readers can
verify that the source supports the text and using doi-access=free
makes the title of the work a direct link to the place that the text is hosted and can be read by anyone.
Mike Turnbull (
talk) 12:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
free to read for anyone" and hence a poor example, but the problem described may actually exist: dois that offer only a preview for all viewers, but access to the full source for non-pay-for registered accounts. Folly Mox ( talk) 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/0016-5085(92)91094-K/pdf?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F
includes the fact that this is has been a request from wikipedia! If you use the link
https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/0016-5085(92)91094-K/
in a browser tab not associated with Wikipedia, you get to the publisher's web page, where there is a comment saying that the paper is only available as a .pdf. Humans can read that advice and do indeed get free access to the .pdf with one more click.
Mike Turnbull (
talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
free -> blank
interventions and focus on the more useful blank -> free
.
Mike Turnbull (
talk) 14:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Here are some example DOIs from the JSTOR prefix, which are currently cited with doi-access=free but actually require registration: doi:10.2307/1378152, doi:10.2307/3632910, doi:10.2307/3496680, doi:10.2307/2324301, doi:10.2307/2371798. On phabricator:T344114#9392971 you can see how they're displayed to me. How are we supposed to mark these? Do I have to go through the entire registration process to check whether I will actually be able to read and download the file without paying? And how will I know that the requirements are the same in another country? Nemo 14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
|doi-access=
be consistent with |url-access=
. A |url-access=registration
means a free registration while |url-access=subscription
means a paid one. Needs to be the same for DOI. A JSTOR DOI is not free-registration but subscription-required. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)|jstor-access=
parameter, which I'm not sure I've ever seen used in the wild, although I've added it myself once or twice.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Another example: a journal which requires you to register and remain subscribed to a newsletter in order to receive a PDF copy by email ( phabricator:F41641477). Apparently the journal markets itself as open-access (and it used to be around 2022). Possibly a doi-access=registration would be warranted (but I've not checked whether registering actually provides access). Nemo 14:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a Cite template matter, but one to which Cite template experts might know an answer.
I have perpetrated a sentence, which, thanks to four reference+Rp pairs, ends, quote, [5]: 128–131, 141–143 [11]: 46 [2]: 111–114 [3]: 301–302, 304–305, unquote. (With some underlining and slightly different coloring.) Now, I know that this should be understood as something like [5] 128–131 & 141–143; [11] 46; [2] 111–114; [3] 301–302 & 304–305; but most readers may not. Any suggestions on how to make it easier to understand (and less horrid)? (And yes, I do realize (i) that having more than two references for a single assertion is usually poor practice and often is a doomed attempt to make up for the feebleness of each of those cited sources; and (ii) that 5, 11, 2, 3 is not the best order for them.) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Livingstone (1871) 128–131
.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 16:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
(back when it was actually necessary due to lack of alternatives for particular cases), I would agree that it is obsoleted by methods like those described here, and in more complex cases by |ref=
, as I "tutorialized" over
here. (Though some of that can also be pulled off by use of existing templates, there are so many, so unclearly named, that I sometimes prefer to just use |ref=Smith2023
and <ref name="Smith2023 p123">[[#Smith2023|Smith (2023)]], p. 123. Optional annotation here.</ref>
.) I'm not really sure how to go about deprecating and replacing {{Rp}}
. Probably would need really good documentation on alternatives, and how to do conversion from it to a variety of practical and in-use, modern citation approaches. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
loc
parameter to named ref tags would basically completely duplicate {{
rp}}'s functionality, although where to display the value held in loc
in the on.hover / on.tap popup might get a little bit messy if the named ref contains anything other than a single citation with no postscript.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
{{rp}}
doesn't relate to any distinction between "entire span of pages" and a specific page or page-range being cited; it is just like |page=
or |pages=
in being specific, and differs from them in living outside the cite template so that different pages in the same source can be cited, because {{
cite book}}
or whatever can have only one of |page=
or |pages=
. We have a whole pile of shortened-footnote templates that support page numbers down and do this without leaving :113–123 "droppings" all over the article text. Having a separate parameter for total pages in the work wouldn't affect this in any way. It's been proposed before to have such a parameter, but it's been rejected because that's not citation information but
bibliographical catalog information of no use to finding and verifying the source, any more than a parameter for
size or for paperback vs. hardback or for unrevised printing/impression of the same edition. If there are user scripts and other tools mistakenly putting total page count into |pages=
they need to be fixed to stop doing it (chief among them being CitationBot, which has been doing this to journal article citations, even up to replacing specific-page citations with full-page ranges, which is doing outright violence to the citation). I think you're proposing to change |page[s]=
to be for that total-pages purpose and a new |loc=
(how would that differ from |at=
?) to take over the specific-page-citation function, which would mean that all of millions of citations with a page cited would have to change. A |loc=
would be confusable with publisher's |location=
, too. Plus, if we try to depend on changes to <
ref>
coming, we'd be waiting many years. Now I sound like a just a very dedicated naysayer. [sigh]Getting rid of {{rp}}
is really a matter of replacing it and citations using it with other templates ({{
sfn}}
and {{
harvp}}
and all the too-many variants of these things); it's primarily a matter of documenting how to do it in really simple terms for each kind of case. A lot of work up-front for someone, but most of the conversion work could be done by AWB users, across large swath[e]s of articles, after it's documented (and well enough to account for weird cases). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
loc
was for use inside ref tags, and I agree that it would not be an appropriate name for a parameter inside a citation template. Perhaps I should just drop that idea entirely since it's a phab task anyway, and unlikely to get buy-in, etc.Briefly, there is one use case for {{
rp}} that would be obseleted by a |total-page-span=
: the case when a source is cited only once, but is identified in the full citation with a page span (like a book or chapter), and doesn't include a quote (which would allow for the use of |quote-page=
, already implemented). This parameter could help protect citations against Citation bot and others that find it somehow beneficial to replace page citations with the full page span of the source (which is damaging). Anyway, this wouldn't help much, and it's probably not the way to go, so apologies for the digression.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref loc="something">
Honestly, I've never actually encountered |quote-page=
in real-article use, so I'm not sure it would factor much into the {{rp}}
mess or its cleanup. Doing my part, I did eliminate an {{rp}}
just now, though; like swatting a mosquito. I've been pondering how to document a "Getting rid of Template:Rp" process; I guess no one else is going to do it, and I'm ultimately the Frankenstein responsible for that monster in the first place. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Thank you for all the commentary, peeps. I've never liked either adding or digesting these alternatives to REF+Rp, but I should reconsider them afresh. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
|under=
parameter that makes a citation subordinate to another, named, citation, possibly with sorting of the subordinate citations at a given level. I'm not sure whether that's doable as an extension of the existing <ref>...</ref>
and {{
cite}} or whether it would require new templates (CS3?). --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Can pages beginning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
not be placed into the CS1 error categories? This would affect
around 281 pages, as well as preventing new AfDs and new error modes from populating. Editing closed AfDs to fix errors is considered annoying.
Folly Mox (
talk) 15:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
|no-tracking=yes
with never a complaint. That 'fix' leaves the broken cs1|2 template broken but gets the offending page out of whatever category.-- is of course published, thanks to Libraries Tasmania, even though not conventionally published. And while we should reject sources that lack editorial oversight (etc), this MS is, I presume, a decent reference for any claim that it says this or that (even though I find the damn thing near indecipherable). But I don't think its title is "Diary of Kezia Elizabeth Hayter"; it simply is her diary (or part(s) thereof); and the library's MS number NS202-1-1 ought I think to be easier to see. Yet there's no "Template:Cite manuscript", or, as far as I know, anything similar. Am I missing anything here? (If I stick with Cite web, can I improve on my use of it?) -- Hoary ( talk) 23:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
but instead of |via=
, |website=
; I'd reduce the title so as not to be redundant; include |date=
:
{{Cite web |last=Hayter |first=Keziah Elizabeth |date=1842 |title=Diary |website=Libraries Tasmania |url=https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS202-1-1}}
It is a
WP:PRIMARY source, acceptable in moderation. There is also {{
cite document}}
which provides for the |type=file
and link the URL in the |id=
:
{{
cite document}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)Probably best to use the full name of the file on location in the library. I also added the library location. -- Green C 01:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|type=
to hold "diary" and the title for the item number:
{{cite web |last=Keziah Elizabeth |first=Hayter |type=Diary |title=NS202-1-1 |date=31 December 1842 |website=Libraries Tasmania |url=https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS202-1-1}}
{{
cite document}}
template renders – title is rendered in a quoted upright font like a book chapter, a journal/magazine/newspaper article....IMO that qualifier [(short)] makes no sense for a couple reasonsand then fails to enumerate those
reasons. Sigh.
{{
cite document}}
then it really makes no sense to differentiate based on an arbitrary and subjective size of the document. Documents like that, regardless of length, are not usually in italics anyway, because they are unpublished. --
Green
C 20:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
, unlike unpublished holdings in an archive are expected to have been published hence the requirement for |publisher=
.{{
cite archive}}
(not a cs1|2 template but it renders more-or-less like a cs1|2 template). Such sources, of course, are likely not
WP:RS.{{
cite archive}}
ok great I didn't know about that one. That is exactly what the diary is. It's a
WP:PRIMARY source. The rule says it must be "reputably published", and
WP:PUBLISHED (part of
WP:RS) says it must have been made available to the public somewhere, which it has been at the Tasmanian library. It also depends how the source is used. In this case there is a quote from her diary that doesn't support any original conclusion by Wikipedia, rather she describes her upbringing, it is sort of like an old photograph, to demonstrate what a person looked like. Anyway
User:Hoary, it's not too important but IMO {{
cite archive}}
is the way to go with this one, but your choice however you like. --
Green
C 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)A thread above, " Successions of REF-plus-Rp pairs", in which I asked about whether it was possible to make consecutive pairs (or threes, or fours....) less hideous, seemed to reach a general consensus that, now that it has better alternatives, Template:Rp is horrid and should almost never be used.
We all know that changing the citation styles of an article shouldn't be done without consensus, etc etc. In the article I'm primarily thinking of, it was me who first introduced Template:Rp; and since then the article has been very little edited by anyone other than me. So I'd have no qualms of conscience about doing away with this citation system and adopting an alternative. But I have massive qualms about the donkeywork needed. Is there perhaps some semi-automated conversion method? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
(which is a monstrosity I created in 2007 when there wasn't an alternative) with replacements like {{
sfnp}}
. Because
the community deprecated inline parenthetical referencing a few years ago, and {{rp}}
is a form of inline parenthetical (albeit partial) referencing, it has to go;
WP:CITEVAR is ultimately not going to be an issue, as long as the cleanup operation doesn't trample on otherwise legitimate citation styles. However, it is insanely difficult to parse XML (much less XML commingled with MediaWiki's novel {{...}}
syntax), and developing and testing this scripting is going to take some time.
Hoary, If you let me know what article in particular you want to de-{{rp}}-ize, I can use it as test data and thereby ensure it's one of the first pages cleaned up when the scripting is finished. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
<
ref>
, and I do not even need to account for every imaginable possibility within its attribute values, just material that is likely in WP content, especially since editors are required to check the results before saving when using semi-automated tools; this is not a bot that will be doing things on its own. As for "use a mediawiki parser", like what? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref name="foo"bar">
Can probably even build in some tests for such things. There's
a thread on my user-talk page about this, for those who want to follow along. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)wikicode = mwparserfromhell.parse(text)
ref_tags = wikicode.ifilter_tags(matches = lambda node: node.tag == "ref")
I have yearly periodicals, which the title is "World Air Forces 2024", published by FlightGlobal, and
it was already
published. That periodicals didnt explicitly states 'Date or Year of Publication', but there is a statement ©2023 FlightGlobal, part of DVV Media International Ltd
in that periodicals. Which 'year' should I put on |year=
parameter, 2023 or 2024?
Ckfasdf (
talk) 16:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
the year of first publication of the copyrighted work. Ckfasdf ( talk) 17:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|date=
(or if you really insist on using it, the partially equivalent but easily broken |year=
) is missing entirely, then templates like {{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
will not work, not without a custom |ref={{
harvid|...}}
. A date parameter should not be left off even when it seems "redundant" with something in the title of the article or the containing work. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC){{
cite book}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)Why is the DOI erroring in this citation? It resolves correctly. czar 04:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
If my citation reference is an online PDF document, which page # do I use? The page # that is printed on each page (could be i, ii, etc.) or the page # that my PDF viewer says I am reading. If the doc has an un-numbered title page & several i, ii pages, then the printed page could be 5 but the PDF page could be 10. I've tried to research this in WP but could not find the answer. Sunandshade ( talk) 02:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
|page=[https://www.domain.com/document.pdf#page=5 4]
, rendering in the citation as p.
4. This technique is often needed for specific-page links to books on Internet Archive [other than the login-required "Borrow for 1 hour" ones, for which page-specific URLs are useless], because it uses a weird page-numbering system, e.g. p. iii of an introduction/foreword would be .../page/n3/... in the URL in many cases (but not consistently; I think it depends on who did the digitization). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This works:
{{cite encyclopedia |title=Энциклопедия Республики Марий Эл |trans-title=Encyclopedia of the Republic of Mari El |language=Russian |page=99 |year=2009}}
This does not:
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=Энциклопедия Республики Марий Эл |trans-title=Encyclopedia of the Republic of Mari El |language=Russian |page=99 |year=2009}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |trans-title=
requires |title=
or |script-title=
(
help)The difference is |title=
vs. |encyclopedia=
.
The docs say the paring of |encyclopedia=
+ |trans-title=
should work (I think). --
Green
C 17:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
is a pain in the ass. {{cite encyclopedia}}
templates can be written in a variety of ways:
{{cite encyclopedia |article=Article title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Article title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |chapter=Chapter title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Chapter title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |contribution=Contribution title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Contribution title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |entry=Entry title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Entry title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |section=Section title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Section title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |title=Title title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Title title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |article=Article title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Article title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |chapter=Chapter title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Chapter title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |contribution=Contribution title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Contribution title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |entry=Entry title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Entry title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |section=Section title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Section title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia}}
templates with |encyclopedia=<Encyclopedia Title>
and |title=<article/entry title>
. Here are some searches:
{{cite encyclopedia}}
of which there are
~370.{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite web}}
are intended to work (yeah, you can write a {{cite journal}}
template with |website=
instead of |journal=
which I think to be nonsensical...).|encyclopedia=
would be |trans-encyclopedia=
which parameter does not exist (nor does |script-encyclopedia=
which would be the correct parameter to use for Энциклопедия Республики Марий Эл).|title=
to signify two different things - the title of the encyclopedia OR the title of the article in the encyclopedia. |title=
should be an alias of chapter/section/entry/article - there would be only be one of those defined. The name of the encyclopedia would be |encyclopedia=
or |work=
. Or |title=
is an alias of |encyclopedia=
, one way or another, but not both at the same time. Is this controversial to repair? I would think most people would agree, an argument should have one meaning, not a double meaning, which is ambiguous. --
Green
C 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite web}}
, etc, |title=
is the name of the article. Those templates don't support |article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, or |section=
so a rewritten {{
cite encyclopedia}}
template should not support them. Those parameters are all aliases of the {{
cite book}}
base-parameter |chapter=
so if one of them is needed, the encyclopedia can be cited using {{cite book}}
where |title=
gets the name of the encyclopedia ({{cite book}}
does not support |encyclopedia=
).{{cite encyclopedia}}
we should:
|title=
and |encyclopedia=
|script-encyclopeda=
|trans-encyclopedia=
|article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, and |section=
{{cite encyclopedia}}
use |title=
and |encyclopedia=
, I expect that a rewrite of the template will not be too controversial. But then, who knows, it is also possible that someone will get their panties in a bunch and call down the torches and pitchforks...{{
cite book}}
, since the encyclopedia template is designed for citing encyclopedia article entries, and not other book-like things it might contain on the margins. --
Green
C 17:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
|entry=
, |entry-url=
, and other similar parameters? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 02:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
with some combination of |article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, or |section=
with |encyclopedia=
or |title=
to convert those templates to use |title=
and |encyclopedia=
before the {{cite encyclopedia}}
rewrite can go live.|entry=
and |title=
. One reason is that since |encyclopedia=
isn't an alias of |work=
, the |trans-work=
and |script-work=
parameters don't work on it, while |trans-chapter=
and |script-chapter=
work on |entry=
. Another is that my keyboard suggests "encyclopaedia" and variants as string autocompletions, so I have to type the US spelling "encyclopedia" in full every time (unless |encyclopaedia=
is now a valid alias; it hasn't always been).I agree that it's confusing that |title=
is polysemic within this template, depending on whether it's paired with |entry=
or |encyclopedia=
, and one of the two modes should be sunsetted.Perhaps to ensure equal satisfaction by all users, implementation could
split the baby by dropping support for |title=
, and requiring |entry=
alongside |encyclopedia=
.
Folly Mox (
talk) 02:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
|encyclopaedia=
has been in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist from its first implementation (4 April 2013). For the sake of historical completeness:
|encyclopaedia=
was present in the first implementation of
Module:Citation/CS1 (19 February 2013)|encyclopaedia=
was added to the module at
this edit (26 August 2012){{
cite encyclopedia}}
did not support |encyclopaedia=
so that parameter did not become available until the template was switched from wikitext to Lua at
this edit (17 March 2013){{cite encyclopedia}}
is already apparent in the first version of Module:Citation/CS1. At
line 272 the Title
metaparameter can get its value from |title=
, |encyclopaedia=
, |encyclopedia=
, or |dictionary=
. A few lines from there, at
line 286, the Periodical
metaparameter can get its value from |journal=
, |newspaper=
, |magazine=
, |work=
, |periodical=
, |encyclopedia=
, or |encyclopaedia=
. Some of that has already been fixed: |encyclopedia=
and |encyclopaedia=
have their own Encyclopedia
metaparameter and are only allowed in {{cite encyclopedia}}
and {{
citation}}
.{{
cite book}}
parameters, and then just redirect {{
cite encyclopedia}}
to {{cite book}}
? Seems like a sensible proposition to make at
WP:TFD if you ask me. We have too many citation templates as it is. Same could be done with {{
cite magazine}}
→ {{
cite journal}}
; we have no need of redundant periodical templates that are the same thing except having a different name for what sort of periodical it is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
do not have "encyclopedia" (or "dictionary") in their titles. But what categorization would we be doing anyway? "Articles that contain citations to tertiary sources"? Is there an actual useful purpose to doing that? If there is, it would probably be better done with the {{
Tertiary source}}
template which is completely agnostic as to the title of the work or what {{cite foo}}
template its details were shoehorned into. That add-on template already has some configuration parameters for various use cases, like tertiary sources that don't cite their own sources, tertiary sources that do provide a bibliography but don't cite individual sources specifically, and tertiary sources that are too weak for us to be using and should be replaced. It doesn't do any categorization yet, other than in the last case (too-weak tertiary source) "put the article in
Category:All pages needing factual verification (or a dated subcat thereof), just like {{
Primary source inline}}
does". Adding more categorization to it would not be hard. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Tertiary source}}
, thank you for the reply.
Remsense
留 03:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)|chapter-url=
and {{
cite web}} with |url=
. Both render exactly the same, but cite web is much clearer in the wiki text. I don't know how cite book would affect the unseen data. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
could certainly be used as a replacement for {{
cite encyclopedia}}
cases that are Web-only publications. What this really comes down to is that {{
cite encyclopedia}}
is an odd-one-out, unnecessary template fork that has nothing to do with what medium/format the publication is, the way our most-used cite templates do, but is trying to address what "societal role" or "authorial purpose" the publication supposedly has. It's like forking a {{cite documentary}}
from {{
cite AV media}}
, or forking a {{cite reality show}}
template from {{cite AV media}}
, or forking a cite {{cite
festschrift}}
from {{
cite book}}
, or {{cite space opera}}
from {{
cite AV media}}
, or (surprise! someone did it!) forking {{
cite magazine}}
from {{
cite journal}}
. Even {{
cite news}}
should probably also be merged to the latter (which might need addition of |agency=
). Several other templates listed in
Category:Citation Style 1 templates are also pointless forks of this sort, though a few are arguably useful wrappers for addressing source types with particular ID formats, like {{
cite arXiv}}
. E.g. {{
cite podcast}}
is a pointless fork of {{
cite AV media}}
and could just be redirected to it (this would have the benefit of adding support for the "subscription or registration required" parameters which according to the documentation are lacked by {{cite podcast}}
, though that may not actually be true in the code). {{
Cite episode}}
is likewise another unnecessary redundancy forked from {{
cite AV media}}
. It's noteworthy that various other things have already been merged/redirected, like {{
cite film}}
to {{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite e-book}}
to {{
cite book}}
, etc. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I get the impression someone's recently implemented checking for digits and other non-letter chracters in the |author=
parameter... however, that seems to have missed or ignored the fact that {{
cite tweet}}
and {{
cite Instagram}}
(and possibly others) use it to hold usernames that do contain non-letters.
So basically you have a bunch of instances of those templates throwing errors. E.g.:
References
As a result, Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list has many, many entries.
Could we maybe revert this new check? Or is there some way to tweak the two templates to not throw this newly defined "error"? — Joeyconnick ( talk) 19:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) ← That message should appear.Am I correct in assuming the first letters of words in article titles other than conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns and similar words should be in upper case, so that in Visual Editor after a citation has been generated the title needs to be edited? I notice numerous citations where first letters are not in upper case. Mcljlm ( talk) 21:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
{{cite web |last=Office |first=United Nations Press |date=[none given, despite prominent presence of the webpage] |title=United Nation Press Release – United Nations Press Office |website=press.un.org |access-date=[today]}}
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has a list of sources that the community has deemed unreliable and has given it a "Deprecated" status. I think it would be helpful if the module detected citations using a site from that list and add to a maintenance category. Gonnym ( talk) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
{{/Uses}}
template, all appear in the list at my sandbox.|url=
needs to move to |chapter-url=
, or whatever. It doesn't come up often enough for me to have tested it out. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Some other features document the use of additional values for url-status that aren't documented here. Most notably, "bot: unknown". I've marked the documentation for this template with {{ Improve documentation}} per the instructions at that template. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|url-access=
, I intentionally omitted bot: unknown
because that keyword defined for bot use only. When a bot has set |url-access=bot: unknown
, cs1|2 emits a maintenance message with a link to
Category:CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown where that keyword's meaning is described.url-status=bots:
on a citation they are maintaining? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)url-status=bot: something
meant, and what I should do with it. Lots of url-status=bot: unknown
is around, for example, but that's not explained in the documentation. The title of the category doesn't even match: "bot: original URL status unknown" is different than "bot: unknown". And the instructions there aren't specific: "Editors should review these URLs and adjust the value assigned to |url-status= accordingly." I guess that means review them for an appropriate choice of the documented url-status=
values? So then these "bot:" values are not just for bots, but for humans to go and fix? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 23:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Adding ", Ph.D, D.Prof" at the end of |first=
generates "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list". Template doc shows a |degree=
parameter that is not supported. ―
Mandruss
☎ 13:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|degree=
seems to be an alias of |type=
specific to {{
cite thesis}}, but more importantly no one should care what level academic degree the author of a published work has gained: most people who publish academically are going to be PhD or an analogous medical degree, and when books published by non-academic presses include "PhD" in the authorial attribution, what this usually signals is "unable to get this quackery past peer review" or "completely outside academic field of competence".
Folly Mox (
talk) 14:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|first=
parameter, simply omit the comma, just like with Jr.
or Sr.
, and this will avoid the maintenance categorisation.
Folly Mox (
talk)
Folly Mox (
talk) 14:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|degree=
is only supported by {{
cite thesis}}
where it aliases |type=
with additional static text. Ranks, degrees, titles (scholarly and aristocratic), post-nominals, and anything else that isn't the author's/contributor's/editor's/interviewer's/translator's name is all unnecessary cruft in a citation (generational suffixes excepted). Let the source flout those things if they think it important to do so.|first=
parameter ...', one really mustn't, and needs to be aware that other editors will remove it on sight. PPS: The only maybe-exception, that is anywhere near this general realm of stuff, that I make is that if someone is "Reverend General Sir Xerxes Youill of Zounds, KBE, FSA(Scot), PhD, Esq.", and uses the long-form surname with "of Zounds" when publishing and is commonly referred to that way, I'll cite them as |last=Youill of Zounds
|first=Xerxes
(because it's consistent with de/du/di/von/van/etc. constructions in other languages). Some editors will probably object even to that, though removing it may make them ambiguous with other writers named (in this silly example) Xerxes Youill. A real example is Sir
Thomas Innes of Learney, former
Lord Lyon (heraldic authority of Scotland). I mostly see him referred to as Thomas Innes of Learney, not as Thomas Innes (except in a biographical article's material that covered his early life). Our own article on him uses both the long and short forms inconsistently, and WP isn't a reliable source anyway; I just follow the source usage. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)I've just added the TemplateData for {{
Cite document}}. Whatever this is supposed to do {{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|template_data_validate|{{ROOTPAGENAME}}}}
just gives an error message for that template. I copied most of the parameters straight from {{
Citation}} which was kind of tedious; is there a better way for other CS1 templates lacking TemplateData?
Rjjiii (
talk) 03:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
{{#invoke:}}
is for error checking the TemplateData parameter list against the module suite. Restored and lua script error fixed.I have added support for |script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
to the sandbox. This answers lack-of-same that I mentioned at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 § cite encyclopedia. The parameters are only valid in {{
cite encyclopedia}}
and {{
citation}}
:
{{cite encyclopedia/new |title=Title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |script-encyclopedia=ru:ScriptEncyclopedia |trans-encyclopedia=Trans Encyclopedia}}
{{citation/new |title=Title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |script-encyclopedia=ru:ScriptEncyclopedia |trans-encyclopedia=Trans Encyclopedia}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|chapter=
and pals? Or is that another thing that's actually supported and I'm the one doing something wrong?
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
has supported |chapter=
and its aliases since forever ago:
{{citation |chapter=Chapter |title=Title}}
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 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 |
I have a question about a help page which is directly giving advice about the CS1/CS2 templates. Are any of the no-author styles explained at H:SFN, misusing a parameter? The section at Help:Shortened footnotes#No author reads:
Some sources do not have a single author with a last name, such as a magazine article or a report from a government institution. Options include:
- For a newspaper or periodical, use the name of the publication and the date, or set the author parameter to "publication name staff". [i]
- For a publication by an institution, use the name of the institution.
- Some style guides recommend using the title of the article (title-date).
- Other style guides recommend using "Anonymous" or "Anon."
- ^ Setting the author parameter to something solves the problem of having to set the "ref=" parameter to something other than that which is automatically generated.
This seems to contradict the template documentation, but I have seen a lot of people create citations using the |author=
field this way. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk) 22:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
seems to contradict the template documentationbut you fail to specify or quote that conflicting documentation. Which template? Which documentation?
|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
and explains the author parameter as so: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person; for the latter, prefer the use of |first= and |last=. This parameter should never hold the names of more than one author.
Template:Cite news/doc and
Template:Cite journal/doc contain the same text.
Rjjiii (
talk) 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|last=
/ |first=
pairs for each human author. The |author=<!--Not stated-->
is merely a recommendation to prevent future en.wiki editors from wasting their time searching for author(s) who have not been named. I don't see any of that as a contradiction.|author=
aliases (|author=Anonymous
etc) is wrong because that attributes the work to an author who appears to be named 'Anonymous'. Similarly, |author=publication name staff
is just as bad. For periodicals, I think that the best solution for use with {{
sfn}}
is to set |ref={{sfnref|''<periodical name>''|<date>
and {{sfn|''<periodical name>''|<date>}}
|author=NYT staff
, or even worse |author=The New York Times
|work=The New York Times
or |author=Museum of Modern Art
|publisher=Museum of Modern Art
. The material at
H:SFN is clearly wrong, or at least badly misleading. You might need to use a short footnote that read something like "Museum of Modern Art (2023)" when there is no specified author, but the way to template this is to use |ref={{
harvid|Museum of Modern Art|2023}}
in the main citation, not to do a bogus |author=Museum of Modern Art
that is redundant with |publisher=Museum of Modern Art
. This can probably be resolved by editing
H:SFN and the docs of
Template:Sfn to include specific examples of this sort, and to explicitly say not to abuse the |author=
or |last=
parameter to kluge this. PS: {{
harvid}}
has been moved to {{
SfnRef}}
, and it may be preferable to update the mentions of {{
harvid}}
to use the current actual name of the template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|ref=
.
[1] And regarding the question of why I saw the language as contradictory, I was saying that advice to use the title of the work or a description of the author (at
H:SFN) seemed to contradict the advice to use a person or organization's name (at
Template:Cite book/doc). I was uncertain, so I asked.
Rjjiii (ii) (
talk) 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)|ref=
should be encouraged to be short as well, so rather than |ref={{
harvid|Museum of Modern Art|2023}}
, it should be |ref={{
harvid|MMA|2023}}
which will very likely be unique among refs on the page (and if not, there are alternatives).
Mathglot (
talk) 01:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
left col is 90%", I realized how I goofed. I've run into this problem before and totally forgot about it. With a smaller URL and a space before the parameter, it now looks fine on desktop Chrome, mobile Chrome, mobile Safari, Edge, the android app, and some niche browsers. Thanks again, Rjjiii ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
If an article is using shortened references, that means a full list of sources appears in alphabetical order according to the first element; the only fields which can be first in a CS1 template are |author=
/|last=
or |editor-last=
I believe. If there is a |ref=
then a reader should be able to find MoMA accordingly amongst other M-names and so the first element should include whatever tag the reader will use to find the source in an alphabetic list.
{{
harvid|MoMA|2023}}
For the curious, here's the CMoS:
If a publication issued by an organization, association, or corporation carries no personal author’s name on the title page, the organization may be listed as author in the reference list, even if it is also given as publisher. To facilitate shorter parenthetical text citations, the organization may be listed under an abbreviation, in which case the entry must be alphabetized under that abbreviation (rather than the spelled-out name) in the reference list.
Umimmak ( talk) 06:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite web |publisher=[[Museum of Modern Art|MoMA]] |...}}
in alphabetical order under "MoMA" is perfectly fine. If some reader's head would just explode upon encountering this, they are not competent to be reading our material in the first place. And no one reads lists of citations like a novel. They get to a citation by clicking on a link to it. If for some reason they did not but are manually hunting around for a MoMA source in a list of sources (why?), all they have to do is Ctrl-F MoMA Enter (or on a Mac Cmd-F MoMA Enter). If this still just somehow doesn't compute for someone on the editorial side, they can do the source list entry as * MoMA: {{cite web |publisher=[[Museum of Modern Art|MoMA]] |...}}
(though I think other editors would later remove the leading "MoMA: " as extraneous and silly, treating our readers as if they had brain damage). Nothing said above is any excuse for doing a bogus |author=MoMA
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 07:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
{{harvtxt|ref=none|Last|YYYY}}.
will create exactly the citation format for the bibliography when given the same parameters as {{
sfnref}}.
[1] The citation templates could generate this when fed sfnrefs, but I don't know if it's worth the effort. It also won't be highlighted from the pinball links.<!--Aron 1962-->
than <!--{{sfn|Aron|1962|p=}}-->
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 09:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The alphabetization of sources in a "Works cited" or "Bibliography" section is mostly for the user, but has benefits for the editor wishing to expand the article and reuse the citations as well. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to find the "alphabetization item", which might be last1, last, author, surname, editor1-last or something from |ref=
, and which might be placed anywhere in the template... tick, tock; .... tick, tock; ... tick, tock; ... Have you found it, yet? I finally got tired of this, and to make it easier for myself on subsequent edits, and for other editors, I hit upon the solution I used in
Liberation of France#Works_cited (
). It makes it easier for editors, and has no effect on readers.
Mathglot (
talk) 09:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I've seen that people make good use of
Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. It would be nice to have a maintenance category for citations which contain a PMC ID but also a link from the url
parameter: such links are often subject to link rot and need updating or removing. This could later be extended to other
green OA IDs if they auto-link.
Nemo 07:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Need help again. In the Russian Wikipedia, we replace all dates with the ISO format (we display them in a human-readable way in the desired language through another module) so that those who copy articles and sources from us do not have to fool around with unreadable and unprocessable dates (English, Russian, Spanish or any other). But I now noticed that CITEREF cannot take the year from such a date (YYYY-MM-DD). It can be fixed? :) Iniquity ( talk) 16:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book |title=Title |last=Green |first=EB |date=2023-11-27}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000028-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFGreen2023" class="citation book cs1">Green, EB (2023-11-27). ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.date=2023-11-27&rft.aulast=Green&rft.aufirst=EB&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+92" class="Z3988"></span>
|date=
in the template's id=
attribute.{{ Cite journal}} now shows a Cs1 error wherever a source is templated according to it but does not actually cite a journal title. Can this be fixed by editing the template or fixed en masse by a bot in all use cases? Æo ( talk) 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I need to set an alias for the "author" parameter, but adding 'Author' = 'автор',
to the configuration not works.
Iniquity (
talk) 21:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
'Author' = 'автор'
and add 'автор#'
to 'AuthorList-Last' = {...}
(at about line 390).'автор' = true
to local limited_basic_arguments_t = {...}
. Then add 'автор#' = true
to local numbered_arguments_t = {...}
and to local limited_numbered_arguments_t = {...}
Nice tracking category! However, this currently comes up with citations which do not need doi-access=free because they already have an auto-linking PMC identifier ( example). That makes it harder to find citations which would actually benefit from being turned green. Nemo 10:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
|pmc=
and |doi=
point to different sources. |pmc=
defaults to free-to-read; |doi=
does not. |pmc=
's free-to-read-ness does not apply to |doi=
. Readers who would prefer to read the |doi=
source are entitled to know if that source is free-to-read. All identifiers that are free-to-read should be marked with |<identifier>-access=free
.That makes it harder to find citations which would actually benefit from being turned green.
|doi=
or any other identifier parameter. In fact, the omission of a free-to-read icon for |doi=
when |pmc=
has a value implies that the source pointed to by |doi=
lies behind a paywall or registration barrier.|<identifier>-access=free
could number a million or more. It seems likely that many of those should never have a |<identifier>-access=free
so those articles would live in the new category forever. How is that useful?Hello 🙂 I was wondering how you would go about removing an article from the hidden category above. There are over 100,000 pages tagged with this category, and at least to me, it's a little unclear how to fix this. I also see that this might be a temporary category, so, is there still a need for this, or can it be deleted? Kind of a two parted question, but I hope you understand. Cheers! Johnson 524 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=1 June 1815}}
Is there any way to incorporate interlanguage links, in e.g. |author parameters? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
|author=[[:<tag>:<article name>|<author name>]]
|author-link=:<tag>:<article name>
– required for |last=
/ |first=
pairs; may be used for |authorn=
<tag>
is the target wiki's interwiki prefix (de
for German, ar
for Arabic, etc)<article name>
is the article name at the target wiki<author name>
is the author's name{{
Interlanguage link}}
.The first of two questions about one particular paper that I intend to cite (via a CS1 citation template). The questions are, I think, otherwise independent of each other.
You'll find a page introducing the article at doi: 10.1177/007542428902200202. To see the actual article, log-in (or payment) is required. However, I also found the article at this URL, which starts "https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu" and for which log-in or payment is not required. Now, I am almost totally ignorant of Citeseerx, but as doi: 10.1177/007542428902200202 works, I infer from Template:CiteSeerX's documentation that CiteSeerx: 10.1177/007542428902200202 should work too. It doesn't. Have I misunderstood something? -- Hoary ( talk) 11:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
CiteSeerX}}
in the first place; just do |url=https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=ca452b918dd0498837c9d127dae5b5db833e51ee
and if you're concerned about its lifespan, make sure web.archive.org saved a copy (done). Similarly, normal DOI usage in CS1 would be |doi=10.1177/007542428902200202
not a {{
DOI}}
template. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm citing a German pamphlet which is listed as published/edited on behalf of - Herausgegeben im Auftrage. The work was published on behalf of the organization „Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft ‚Das kommende Deutschland'“. Johannes Täufer is listed as the author, and Astrologischer Verlag Wilhelm Becker is the publisher. What's the preferred way in {{cite book}}
to record a "published on behalf of"? -
Furicorn (
talk) 08:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|publisher=Wilhelm Becker
.|publisher=Astrologischer Verlag Wilhelm Becker, on behalf of Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft‚ "Das kommende Deutschland"
? Thanks -
Furicorn (
talk) 19:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|publisher=Astrologischer Verlag Wilhelm Becker / Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft Das kommende Deutschland
(the quotation marks being superflous), since the strings in question are still helpful in finding the source, but I needn't do any iffy OR on my own part to try to decide who "is" the "real" publisher. This also comes up in modern cases; e.g.,
Scientific Style and Format has specific individual author-editors of particular editions, and is (in recent editions) "published by" the Council of Science Editors in the editorial-direction sense and (again in recent editions) "published by" Chicago Univerisity Press in the printer sense. I can't predict what kind of "publisher" a particular reader cares more about (an editorial "publisher" has much more to do with reputability and bias, while a printing "publisher" is more important for how the book is indexed in bibliographic databases), so I would be inclined to included both in the citation, especially as it provides additional relevant search strings. But this probably comes up more for Victorian and earlier publications, in which it may be difficult to determine whether some non-notable company name at the bottom of the title page represents a printer hired to just do the job, or a publisher who had some editorial input, especially if juxtaposed with the name of an organization or other entity that clearly did have some control over it. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
|last=
, similar to how the library had done it. -
Furicorn (
talk) 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
|author2=
(equivalent to |last2=
but clearer), not jammed into the same |last[1]=
as the human author name, or it pollutes the metadata about what his name is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 15:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A second question about a paper I intend to cite (via a CS1 citation template).
doi: 10.1177/007542428902200202 describes an article as "First published October 1989" in "Volume 22, Issue 2" of the journal. Now look at the running header on evenly-numbered pages here at PSU. It reads: "JEngL 22.3 (October 1989 [1993])" [my emphases].
Now, if I were to read of a paper described as "1989 [1990]", I'd guess that it came out in a journal issue dated 1989 but in reality emerging only in 1990. But the journal wouldn't announce (in effect) "1989, nah, we're kidding, 1990". And I haven't heard of journal publication being delayed four years.
Informed comments? -- Hoary ( talk) 11:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|date=October 1989
|volume=22
|issue=3
to agree with the publication itself (as much as seems possible), rather than some third-party claim about its volume number; then follow the citation template, but still inside <ref>...</ref>
, with something like 'Also dated "[1993]" suggesting a revision or republication.' —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)|orig-date=
. But if I'm wrong, in terms of findability, the publisher (Sage, not the o'erburdened Dr Kretzschmar) has the "intended" publication date, so that might be the one to pick.
Folly Mox (
talk) 03:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
orig-date=Submitted 1989
or the like. –
jacobolus
(t) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
We have
Category:CS1 errors: extra text: volume and
Category:CS1 errors: extra text: issue that list articles where a cs1|2 template has |volume=
or |issue=
with some sort of extraneous text that reflects the parameter name: |volume=Vol. XX
or |issue=No. 13
. There are at least a couple of thousand articles where the text that is extraneous to one parameter can be found in the other: |volume=No. 13
or |issue=Vol. XX
.
This search (times out) finds ~1500 articles where the value assigned to |issue=
begins with Vol
(case insensitive)
This search (times out) finds ~700 articles where the value assigned to |volume=
begins with Iss
, Num
, No
, N°
, №
(case insensitive)
I propose to do one of two things:
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
|volume=
bot task, and submit an additional bot request to fix |issue=
.
GoingBatty (
talk) 20:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)n°
and №
. When the test is run, the values assigned to |volume=
and |issue=
are checked against the combined patterns.Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Magazine. Vol. n° 32-33. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". Magazine. Vol. n° 32-33. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Magazine. Vol. №2. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". Magazine. Vol. №2. {{
cite magazine}} : |volume= has extra text (
help)
|
{{ American transit ridership}} was updated 05:46, December 6, 2023. Apparently, this resulted in 300+ articles being added to "Category:CS1 errors: dates". Can a script be run to perform an "empty edit" on the articles in this category? I assume this will remove them from the category. User-duck ( talk) 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
The following CS1 templates have missing or incomplete template data:
The template data goes into the documentation page, so any editor can add it, Rjjiii ( talk) 19:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to re-raise a proposal that was previously supported at
specifically that the value of |script-author=
be rendered in parentheses following the author name, and similarly for other people.
This is particularly important for Chinese and Japanese names, for which the romanized form is lossy. Many editors are adding the original names to other parameters, which messes up the metadata and (if |author=
is used) the refname used by the {{
harv}}
/{{
sfn}}
family. The solution is to give them somewhere else to put this name so that it will be displayed.
I am not proposing the more elaborate forms suggested here. Kanguole 23:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|script-author=
parameter join the other |script-parameter=
team. Yes, the use case is different (don't need to worry about italics), but it would keep the metadata clean and allow shortened footnotes to function intuitively without use of |ref=
(this applies to only one wrong way of citing East Asian authors).Somewhere down the road, this could also help deal with the
#Author roles problem discussed above, which current practice blocks. Lastly, |author-mask=
is tedious, and fiddly when more than one author is attributed (since it suppresses commas, ampersands, and "and" between authors).I recognise this is a whole can of cans (superior to a can of worms, which tbh should be stored fresh or dried), because it opens the door not only to |script-editor=
but also potentially to |script-author16=
and pals.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)|script-author=zh
to indicate the language, or 2) |script-author=李四
to provide the name in some other script. If no. 1, I can see this potentially adding utility, if COinS would support metadata to generate indicating the script used for the author name. If no. 2, then I don't see a reason for this when we have |author-mask=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
|script-parameter=
requires both a language code and a value, separated by a colon, like |script-author=zh:顧愷之
. The point (as I see it) is to be able to display the native names without touching the metadata or having to fiddle with |author-mask=
, which requires duplicating information as well as sometimes including punctuation, which is difficult to remember.
Folly Mox (
talk) 09:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
|author-maskn=
actually does work fine, just at the cost of some repeated name strings. 06:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC) —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 |author=<native> (<transliteration>)
or |author=<transliteration> (<native>)
. Is it common for sources to provide both? If not, then no need for |script-author=
.ja
or zh
sources provide names in native and transliterated forms then perhaps there is a need for |script-authorn=
. If that is the case, how are we to order the native and transliterated forms in the rendering? Native first? Transliterated first? Which of them contributes to the template's CITEREF
id? Only ja
and zh
or do we also include ko
?|author-mask=
works, and this idea would duplicate the (predominant?) use case that has grown up around it despite its original intent. It does seem cleaner and more intuitive to match the other |script-parameter=
parameters for the "people" fields, and would flatten the learning curve a bit, be agnostic between punctuation and author attribution positioning, and reduce duplication of data, which makes it a more attractive best practice.Side bonuses would be the ability to create a maintenance category for parentheticals in people fields, as well as the ability when |script-name=zh:
or ja:
or ko:
is present, to set the default name presentation to last first
instead of last, first
.I do understand that it would be non-trivial to implement, and isn't strictly necessary since the current system functions, albeit a bit hackily for this sort of information.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|author-link=
has no target.One final point is that this goes both directions, for example
Sarah Allan is credited under the transliterated name 艾蘭 when publishing in Chinese language publications,
Edward Shaughnessy writes under the name 夏含夷, etc. I'm not aware of any cases of English Wikipedia citing zh / ja language sources by authors who write predominantly in English and other Latin script languages, but we would want to have both versions of the name for these sources as well so they could be located for verification.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|authorn=
parameters using only non-Latin characters. There are lots of results where |authorn=
is empty or has languages other than CJK, but still there are plenty of CJK-only author names.|authorn=<romanized> (<native>)
.|authorn=<native> (<romanized>)
.Is it common for sources to provide both?because somewhere around here there is some instruction that editors should not engage in translation of quoted text. I view romanization of non-English names as a form of translation. In much the same way that
|trans-title=
should not be used if the source itself does not provide an English translation, so too, if the source itself does not provide a romanization of a native name, en.wiki editors should not attempt to romanize those native names.{{sfnp|劉|2010}}
? Seems like it might be offputting for our target audience.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter of a citation), which are meant to be read and understood by our readers as prose. But our citations of source titles and authors are not article content in this sort of sense; the only reason we have them is for identifying and finding the sources to verify the content, so there is no need to make up or machine-generate a source title or author title transliteration or translation, since it won't match the actual title/author of the source as published and thus won't help find it, and may even mislead the reader into picking the wrong source that happens to have the same name in English. It is noteworthy that the "Citing" section, right above the "Quoting" section that is the target of the WP:RSUEQ shortcut, does not advise providing translations or transliterations. It is not an accident. As I noted earlier (below) someone might argue that there is still some kind of reader utility in providing such translations or transliterations anyway, but there are counters to this argument. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)|quote=
parameter, our citations are not "content" in the usual sense, but serve a specific purpose. An argument can be made that the publication company being transliterated does help evaluate the source, since we (or someone else) may have information about the publisher that could help in evaluating reputability, especially when it comes to things like distingishing between a university or general book publisher versus a govermental organ or a game company that published the game our article is about, for example. I honestly don't really feel all that strongly about it, but I suspect that other editors do, and this is actually worth putting to a broad RfC audience somewhere like VPPOL. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
only to help the reader find the citation and verify the content– to first approximation, precisely zero readers care about "verifying the content". What readers care about is making sense of the subject. For readers who speak English and have no experience with Russian or related languages, the Cyrillic alphabet is entirely nonsensical, and barfing blobs of Cyrillic at readers is unhelpful and snobbish. Anyone can click the hyperlink to find the paper in Russian (and if they don't read Russian but want to make sense of it, as I did, they can OCR the image-based PDF and then machine translate the resulting text so they can understand the proof contained in the paper and cited by the article). But as for your point about web searches,
Osip Shvartsman
returns a wide variety of relevant results in English.
Осип Шварцман
does not. Edit to add: The #1 result in your "wild goose chase" search is a highly relevant paper in English (translated from Russian) which cites the paper in question ("O. V. Shvartsman. Comment on the article by p. v. bibikov and i. v. tkachenko. Matematicheskoe Prosveschenie. Tret’ya Seriya., (11):127–130, 2007.") and the paper it was responding to ("P. V. Bibikov and I. V. Tkachenko. On trisection and bisection of a triangle in the hyperbolic plane. Matematicheskoe Prosveschenie. Tret’ya Seriya., (11):113–126, 2007."), probably the single most relevant possible English language search result. Good job Google! –
jacobolus
(t) 08:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
|script-author=
parameter to match the others instead of relying on |author-mask=
hacks?", but I agree with jacobolus and Remsense here, while noting that the previous time this talkpage hosted a digression into the philosophical argument of "what citations are for" versus "how citations are used", (in the "Do we need |access-date ?" thread still live above), several of the protagonists came down on opposite sides to where we find ourselves this time round.
Folly Mox (
talk) 11:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
החיים שלי עם חתוליםas
Hachaim shley am alettis useless not because it is a transliteration, but because it is not a correct transliteration. "Hachaim Sheli Im Chatulim" would be more helpful, although there are some dialect differences, especially for the consonants ח ( Chet) and ע ( Ayin). -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 16:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
|script-title=
has existed for years shows prima facie that the feature would be useful, as the author is at least as important as the title. I arrived here when I tried to use {{cite book}}
to add a source where authors provided their names in both the source Chinese and Romanized. The Chinese is needed to match their names to catalog entries where machine-generated Romanizations are different from the ones they give in this source, while the Romanizations in this book are needed to match this source with other sources with no Chinese to establish that the authors are the same. —
AjaxSmack 17:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Hi, first, thanks for all the work you put into making this! It has saved me a lot of time.
Early this evening, however, my requests to {{cite book}}
in order to fill in additional information on the basis of the isbn field started generating a little Wikipedia box with the message "Error: Citations request failed" and the "option" to click OK. I am especially puzzled because it was working fine just a few hours earlier with an identical command.
I've tried it in other userspaces on Firefox and then on Safari and got the same thing. You can see my efforts here. [6]
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 05:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
In particular for Template:Cite press release, there is often an official id or reference number associated with pressers that would be great to be able to preserve and document in the {{cite ...}} reference, not in the least because it would aid the ability to search for alternative or archived urls if the source is dead. I can also see the need for other citation formats.
For an example, URL https://press.un.org/en/2022/ga12417.doc.htm is a UN press release with the ID GA/12417 that can be googled to find news articles or resolutions referencing the press release in question. Mahmoud ( talk) 21:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|id=
for this purpose. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 21:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 25–26 November 2023. Here are the changes:
|display-<namelist>=
handling;
discussion|language=
look for tag first then name;
discussion|work=
and aliases in {{
cite book}}
ignored;
discussion|authors=
;
discussion{{
cite book}}
with |trans-<periodical>=
;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
|archive-date=
/ timestamp check to use internal reformatter for i18n; emit suggested date;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC) +last minute bug fix 15:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
|author=1234
and then maint message for |author2=4D2
|user=
parameter even if there is no number in the |author=
, |first=
, or |last=
parameters. I noticed this at
Star Trek: Picard (season 1) which has a Twitter reference called "Culpepper3Split" where it is valid for the |user=
parameter to have a number in it. I tested removing the number and it cleared the warning. -
adamstom97 (
talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite tweet}}
concatenates |last=Culpepper
, |first=Hanelle
, and |userHillview798=
into |author=Culpepper, Hanelle [@Hillview798]
which it hands off to {{
cite web}}
for rendering. This is not a {{
cite web}}
or
Module:Citation/CS1 problem but is a problem of
Module:Cite tweet – |user=
value, the brackets, and the @ symbol do not belong in |author=
as given to {{cite web}}
.the substitution. That term does not appear in the discussion I linked: Template talk:Cite tweet/Archive 2 § Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2023.
In addition to removing errors for {{
Cite tweet}} when there is a number in the |user=
parameter, we need to allow all CS1 templates to have digits in the author parameter.
Template:Citation Style documentation says "author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) ..." That would include, for example, The Jackson 5, OS/2 Development Team, Windows 95 Development Team, and thousands of other possible organizational authors that have digits. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 11:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
|last2=May 02
, and the like (there are lots of name parameters that contain date fragments). Valid names-with-digits like those you list as examples are relatively uncommon but can be excluded from the maintenance category. Compare these:
Hi all
Youtube is the second most popular website in the world, with a huge number of reliable news sources using it as a platform for sharing video. Unfortunately Citoid doesn't work properly for creating refs for Youtube currently. This leads to poor quality labelling of references being made, and while there are some templates to specifically cite video content, they aren't user friendly at all. I started a Phabricator ticket in 2021 to try and address this issue, however its not been worked on. Can I request anyone interested in this:
Also just to say I've seen a couple of people say "Youtube is an unreliable source and shouldn't be used", I think this is a missunderstanding of what the platform is, its the channels that should be assessed for reliability rather than the publishing platform as a whole. E.g the BBC News channel is reliable (its listed under Perennialy reliable sources on en.wiki), where as My Toy Reviews or DailyWire or whatever are obviously not reliable.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 08:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
|publisher=YouTube
. Unless you're citing something like YouTube's own terms-of-use policy (something actually published by YouTube), it's |via=YouTube
, and the |publisher=
(if not omitted as often completely redundant with the name of the channel, which belongs in |work=
, with the specific video title in |title=
) must be the name of the entity that editorially controls and originated the content. YouTube is just a conduit/platform/carrier. Doing |publisher=YouTube
is like saying that your mobile service provider owns and originated and has editorial control over your phone conversations with your sister. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
{{cite web|website=Newspapers.com|title=New York Times - 1|archive-url=[...]
Rjjiii (
talk) 05:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Hello, in
this version of
Miss Brazil CNB 2022 which has |last2=email
, "CS1 errors: generic name" is not reported.
Keith D (
talk) 01:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I seem to have specified everything in the configuration, but it still does not want to read dates correctly in the local language: ru:Участник:Iniquity/test date - displays an error with the date. What could it be? Iniquity ( talk) 18:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
local_date_names_from_mediawiki = false;
(line 615 in
ru:Модуль:Citation/CS1/Configuration). When that is set true
, the module overwrites your manual translations so the month-names that you used in your example (2 ноября – 21 декабря 1968) no longer exist. I think that I confirmed that with this in the debug console:
=mw.dumpObject (p.date_names'local']['long'])
table#1 {
"август" = 8,
"апрель" = 4,
"декабрь" = 12,
"июль" = 7,
"июнь" = 6,
"май" = 5,
"март" = 3,
"ноябрь" = 11,
"октябрь" = 10,
"сентябрь" = 9,
"февраль" = 2,
"январь" = 1,
}
|date=2 ноябрь – 21 декабрь 1968
.local_date_names_from_mediawiki = false;
?Hey all - I've noticed that when putting in crosswiki articles in link fields, the citation templates split out something like the following:
I was wondering whether it would be possible to add functionality for putting in a {{ill}} template instead - I think it would look a lot cleaner, especially when you have multiple authors with no page on en-wiki who are notable.
also still shows the need for a page here and look a lot better than
What do you think/is this already possible? Frzzl talk; contribs 15:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
They have been disputed since 2022. I've tried to use one to integrate a new URL on TRAPPIST-1, but it didn't work. Is it worth removing the section? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
|lay-url=
, |lay-source=
, |lay-format=
, and |lay-date=
are no longer supported. I don't know what you mean by Is it worth removing the section?What section? Where?
|lay-*=
parameters from various template doc pages and deleted the associated doc template.In
this edit,
AnomieBOT substituted {{
Ouvrage}} for {{
cite book}} without updating |pages totales=204
, which added the comment "auto-translated by Module:CS1 translator". In
this edit,
Citation bot then changed |pages totales=204
to |pages=204
, which added the article to
Category:CS1 errors: dates. Finally, in
this edit, a kind editor removed the parameter. It seems like the correct thing to do would be for the Module:CS1 translator to remove |pages totales=
because {{
cite book}} does not have a parameter to indicate the total number of pages in the book. Is this the proper place to report this issue, or is there somewhere better? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 05:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
|total-pages=
, |pages totales=
does not get translated. It is left to the editors of the article to decide what to do about untranslatable parameters.|consulté le=04 juin 2018
gets translated to |access-date=04 June 2018
. Again, it is left to article editors to decide what to do about the resulting error.|pages totales=204
to |pages=204
(semantically incorrect – page 204 is only one page) when the template also has |page=41
as your example shows. You should take this up at
User talk:Citation bot. The Citation bot edit did not add the article to
Category:CS1 errors: dates but rather, added the article to
Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter.Is there a way to suppress the "CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)" warning for something like |author=Jcmoore62
when citing social-media stuff? Also there is a notable journalist named
Jennifer 8. Lee. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
((…))
:
Jennifer 8. Lee. title. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 12:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)|user=Jcmoore62
to avoid this issue, and reserve the |author=
parameter for their real name (if known).
GoingBatty (
talk) 18:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Per Category:CS1 errors: generic title I would like to report a generic title. In St Richard's Catholic College, there is the generic title "Register " present however it is not being reported as a generic title error. — MATRIX! ( a good person!) citation unneeded 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in
ticket:2023121410001737 a requester brought up that doi links are getting their "/" changed to "%2F
" in the generated link, causing accessibility issues with certain browsers. Is this a new behavior? Ping to @
Trappist the monk: who recently worked on the module. Possible related to
phab:T353920? —
xaosflux
Talk 11:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
doi}}
was added at
this edit 6 May 2008. We currently use mw.uri.encode (<doi>, 'PATH')
to
percent-encode the doi value because any
ISO/IEC 10646 character may be used in a doi including characters that have specific meaning in a url. The label is not percent encoded but we do use mw.text.nowiki (<doi>)
on the label portion of the extlink to replace certain characters with their html-entity equivalents (this 'nowiki-ing' is not limited to |doi=
but applies to all identifier extlink labels).@ Trappist the monk thanks for the note, the reversion didn't change things. This may be a problem in one of their niche browsers, and doesn't seem to be about anything you've recently done - just pinged you because you have recently worked on this template in case I missed something - or if you have special insight in to the issue.
Here's what is being seen, not sure if there are drawbacks to changing this:
https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2019.2956078
https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTII.2019.2956078
%2F
between the doi-prefix and the doi-suffix to /
. Is it worth the effort to make that happen? How niche is your correspondent's browser? Is it new? Is it old? How many readers of en.wiki (or the many other Wikipedias that use this module suite) use this niche browser? Has your correspondent discussed this issue with the browser manufacturer?
It has come to my attention that some people have been using doi-access=free
in citations for works which are not open access but which occasionally offer some gratis access method, such as an intermittent
bronze OA (non-libre gratis OA) status or the possibility for some people to register or go through other authentication walls, without payment, to access the full text. Such use is clearly contrary to the
documented definition of "free", which says "free to read for anyone" (emphasis added), and which is distinct from the value "registration" for the case where "a free registration with the provider is required".
However, I have sympathy for the argument that there's been some confusion so far, and that the absence of doi-access=free
is sometimes misinterpreted as a positive statement of something it's not. The easiest way out would be to allow adding doi-access=limited
and doi-access=registration
as we do for url-access
. That would allow users to manually set this value to indicate the gray area situations. It would also allow us to finally default a blank doi-access
to mean "subscription", and to show the red lock by default.
Nemo 11:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
|doi-access=registration
as a valid access indicator (and I think this might help with some of OAbot's unaddressed misbehavior), but |doi-access=subscription
is like |url-access=free
. I would not want to see bots adding zillions of understood default access indicators, or their associated lock icons in reference lists, which would be the outcome of enabling the specification of the default value.
Folly Mox (
talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)doi-access=free
. My interpretation is that this source is indeed compliant: the webpage that is the target of the doi has the full text and that text can be downloaded by simple copy-paste, if the reader so desires. (To download a .pdf a user must provide their email address.) I don't see this as a grey area: citations are there in Wikipedia articles so that readers can
verify that the source supports the text and using doi-access=free
makes the title of the work a direct link to the place that the text is hosted and can be read by anyone.
Mike Turnbull (
talk) 12:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
free to read for anyone" and hence a poor example, but the problem described may actually exist: dois that offer only a preview for all viewers, but access to the full source for non-pay-for registered accounts. Folly Mox ( talk) 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/0016-5085(92)91094-K/pdf?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F
includes the fact that this is has been a request from wikipedia! If you use the link
https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/0016-5085(92)91094-K/
in a browser tab not associated with Wikipedia, you get to the publisher's web page, where there is a comment saying that the paper is only available as a .pdf. Humans can read that advice and do indeed get free access to the .pdf with one more click.
Mike Turnbull (
talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
free -> blank
interventions and focus on the more useful blank -> free
.
Mike Turnbull (
talk) 14:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Here are some example DOIs from the JSTOR prefix, which are currently cited with doi-access=free but actually require registration: doi:10.2307/1378152, doi:10.2307/3632910, doi:10.2307/3496680, doi:10.2307/2324301, doi:10.2307/2371798. On phabricator:T344114#9392971 you can see how they're displayed to me. How are we supposed to mark these? Do I have to go through the entire registration process to check whether I will actually be able to read and download the file without paying? And how will I know that the requirements are the same in another country? Nemo 14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
|doi-access=
be consistent with |url-access=
. A |url-access=registration
means a free registration while |url-access=subscription
means a paid one. Needs to be the same for DOI. A JSTOR DOI is not free-registration but subscription-required. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)|jstor-access=
parameter, which I'm not sure I've ever seen used in the wild, although I've added it myself once or twice.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Another example: a journal which requires you to register and remain subscribed to a newsletter in order to receive a PDF copy by email ( phabricator:F41641477). Apparently the journal markets itself as open-access (and it used to be around 2022). Possibly a doi-access=registration would be warranted (but I've not checked whether registering actually provides access). Nemo 14:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a Cite template matter, but one to which Cite template experts might know an answer.
I have perpetrated a sentence, which, thanks to four reference+Rp pairs, ends, quote, [5]: 128–131, 141–143 [11]: 46 [2]: 111–114 [3]: 301–302, 304–305, unquote. (With some underlining and slightly different coloring.) Now, I know that this should be understood as something like [5] 128–131 & 141–143; [11] 46; [2] 111–114; [3] 301–302 & 304–305; but most readers may not. Any suggestions on how to make it easier to understand (and less horrid)? (And yes, I do realize (i) that having more than two references for a single assertion is usually poor practice and often is a doomed attempt to make up for the feebleness of each of those cited sources; and (ii) that 5, 11, 2, 3 is not the best order for them.) -- Hoary ( talk) 09:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Livingstone (1871) 128–131
.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 16:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
(back when it was actually necessary due to lack of alternatives for particular cases), I would agree that it is obsoleted by methods like those described here, and in more complex cases by |ref=
, as I "tutorialized" over
here. (Though some of that can also be pulled off by use of existing templates, there are so many, so unclearly named, that I sometimes prefer to just use |ref=Smith2023
and <ref name="Smith2023 p123">[[#Smith2023|Smith (2023)]], p. 123. Optional annotation here.</ref>
.) I'm not really sure how to go about deprecating and replacing {{Rp}}
. Probably would need really good documentation on alternatives, and how to do conversion from it to a variety of practical and in-use, modern citation approaches. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
loc
parameter to named ref tags would basically completely duplicate {{
rp}}'s functionality, although where to display the value held in loc
in the on.hover / on.tap popup might get a little bit messy if the named ref contains anything other than a single citation with no postscript.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
{{rp}}
doesn't relate to any distinction between "entire span of pages" and a specific page or page-range being cited; it is just like |page=
or |pages=
in being specific, and differs from them in living outside the cite template so that different pages in the same source can be cited, because {{
cite book}}
or whatever can have only one of |page=
or |pages=
. We have a whole pile of shortened-footnote templates that support page numbers down and do this without leaving :113–123 "droppings" all over the article text. Having a separate parameter for total pages in the work wouldn't affect this in any way. It's been proposed before to have such a parameter, but it's been rejected because that's not citation information but
bibliographical catalog information of no use to finding and verifying the source, any more than a parameter for
size or for paperback vs. hardback or for unrevised printing/impression of the same edition. If there are user scripts and other tools mistakenly putting total page count into |pages=
they need to be fixed to stop doing it (chief among them being CitationBot, which has been doing this to journal article citations, even up to replacing specific-page citations with full-page ranges, which is doing outright violence to the citation). I think you're proposing to change |page[s]=
to be for that total-pages purpose and a new |loc=
(how would that differ from |at=
?) to take over the specific-page-citation function, which would mean that all of millions of citations with a page cited would have to change. A |loc=
would be confusable with publisher's |location=
, too. Plus, if we try to depend on changes to <
ref>
coming, we'd be waiting many years. Now I sound like a just a very dedicated naysayer. [sigh]Getting rid of {{rp}}
is really a matter of replacing it and citations using it with other templates ({{
sfn}}
and {{
harvp}}
and all the too-many variants of these things); it's primarily a matter of documenting how to do it in really simple terms for each kind of case. A lot of work up-front for someone, but most of the conversion work could be done by AWB users, across large swath[e]s of articles, after it's documented (and well enough to account for weird cases). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
loc
was for use inside ref tags, and I agree that it would not be an appropriate name for a parameter inside a citation template. Perhaps I should just drop that idea entirely since it's a phab task anyway, and unlikely to get buy-in, etc.Briefly, there is one use case for {{
rp}} that would be obseleted by a |total-page-span=
: the case when a source is cited only once, but is identified in the full citation with a page span (like a book or chapter), and doesn't include a quote (which would allow for the use of |quote-page=
, already implemented). This parameter could help protect citations against Citation bot and others that find it somehow beneficial to replace page citations with the full page span of the source (which is damaging). Anyway, this wouldn't help much, and it's probably not the way to go, so apologies for the digression.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref loc="something">
Honestly, I've never actually encountered |quote-page=
in real-article use, so I'm not sure it would factor much into the {{rp}}
mess or its cleanup. Doing my part, I did eliminate an {{rp}}
just now, though; like swatting a mosquito. I've been pondering how to document a "Getting rid of Template:Rp" process; I guess no one else is going to do it, and I'm ultimately the Frankenstein responsible for that monster in the first place. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Thank you for all the commentary, peeps. I've never liked either adding or digesting these alternatives to REF+Rp, but I should reconsider them afresh. -- Hoary ( talk) 08:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
|under=
parameter that makes a citation subordinate to another, named, citation, possibly with sorting of the subordinate citations at a given level. I'm not sure whether that's doable as an extension of the existing <ref>...</ref>
and {{
cite}} or whether it would require new templates (CS3?). --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Can pages beginning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
not be placed into the CS1 error categories? This would affect
around 281 pages, as well as preventing new AfDs and new error modes from populating. Editing closed AfDs to fix errors is considered annoying.
Folly Mox (
talk) 15:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
|no-tracking=yes
with never a complaint. That 'fix' leaves the broken cs1|2 template broken but gets the offending page out of whatever category.-- is of course published, thanks to Libraries Tasmania, even though not conventionally published. And while we should reject sources that lack editorial oversight (etc), this MS is, I presume, a decent reference for any claim that it says this or that (even though I find the damn thing near indecipherable). But I don't think its title is "Diary of Kezia Elizabeth Hayter"; it simply is her diary (or part(s) thereof); and the library's MS number NS202-1-1 ought I think to be easier to see. Yet there's no "Template:Cite manuscript", or, as far as I know, anything similar. Am I missing anything here? (If I stick with Cite web, can I improve on my use of it?) -- Hoary ( talk) 23:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
but instead of |via=
, |website=
; I'd reduce the title so as not to be redundant; include |date=
:
{{Cite web |last=Hayter |first=Keziah Elizabeth |date=1842 |title=Diary |website=Libraries Tasmania |url=https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS202-1-1}}
It is a
WP:PRIMARY source, acceptable in moderation. There is also {{
cite document}}
which provides for the |type=file
and link the URL in the |id=
:
{{
cite document}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)Probably best to use the full name of the file on location in the library. I also added the library location. -- Green C 01:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|type=
to hold "diary" and the title for the item number:
{{cite web |last=Keziah Elizabeth |first=Hayter |type=Diary |title=NS202-1-1 |date=31 December 1842 |website=Libraries Tasmania |url=https://stors.tas.gov.au/AI/NS202-1-1}}
{{
cite document}}
template renders – title is rendered in a quoted upright font like a book chapter, a journal/magazine/newspaper article....IMO that qualifier [(short)] makes no sense for a couple reasonsand then fails to enumerate those
reasons. Sigh.
{{
cite document}}
then it really makes no sense to differentiate based on an arbitrary and subjective size of the document. Documents like that, regardless of length, are not usually in italics anyway, because they are unpublished. --
Green
C 20:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
, unlike unpublished holdings in an archive are expected to have been published hence the requirement for |publisher=
.{{
cite archive}}
(not a cs1|2 template but it renders more-or-less like a cs1|2 template). Such sources, of course, are likely not
WP:RS.{{
cite archive}}
ok great I didn't know about that one. That is exactly what the diary is. It's a
WP:PRIMARY source. The rule says it must be "reputably published", and
WP:PUBLISHED (part of
WP:RS) says it must have been made available to the public somewhere, which it has been at the Tasmanian library. It also depends how the source is used. In this case there is a quote from her diary that doesn't support any original conclusion by Wikipedia, rather she describes her upbringing, it is sort of like an old photograph, to demonstrate what a person looked like. Anyway
User:Hoary, it's not too important but IMO {{
cite archive}}
is the way to go with this one, but your choice however you like. --
Green
C 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)A thread above, " Successions of REF-plus-Rp pairs", in which I asked about whether it was possible to make consecutive pairs (or threes, or fours....) less hideous, seemed to reach a general consensus that, now that it has better alternatives, Template:Rp is horrid and should almost never be used.
We all know that changing the citation styles of an article shouldn't be done without consensus, etc etc. In the article I'm primarily thinking of, it was me who first introduced Template:Rp; and since then the article has been very little edited by anyone other than me. So I'd have no qualms of conscience about doing away with this citation system and adopting an alternative. But I have massive qualms about the donkeywork needed. Is there perhaps some semi-automated conversion method? -- Hoary ( talk) 02:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
rp}}
(which is a monstrosity I created in 2007 when there wasn't an alternative) with replacements like {{
sfnp}}
. Because
the community deprecated inline parenthetical referencing a few years ago, and {{rp}}
is a form of inline parenthetical (albeit partial) referencing, it has to go;
WP:CITEVAR is ultimately not going to be an issue, as long as the cleanup operation doesn't trample on otherwise legitimate citation styles. However, it is insanely difficult to parse XML (much less XML commingled with MediaWiki's novel {{...}}
syntax), and developing and testing this scripting is going to take some time.
Hoary, If you let me know what article in particular you want to de-{{rp}}-ize, I can use it as test data and thereby ensure it's one of the first pages cleaned up when the scripting is finished. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
<
ref>
, and I do not even need to account for every imaginable possibility within its attribute values, just material that is likely in WP content, especially since editors are required to check the results before saving when using semi-automated tools; this is not a bot that will be doing things on its own. As for "use a mediawiki parser", like what? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
<ref name="foo"bar">
Can probably even build in some tests for such things. There's
a thread on my user-talk page about this, for those who want to follow along. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)wikicode = mwparserfromhell.parse(text)
ref_tags = wikicode.ifilter_tags(matches = lambda node: node.tag == "ref")
I have yearly periodicals, which the title is "World Air Forces 2024", published by FlightGlobal, and
it was already
published. That periodicals didnt explicitly states 'Date or Year of Publication', but there is a statement ©2023 FlightGlobal, part of DVV Media International Ltd
in that periodicals. Which 'year' should I put on |year=
parameter, 2023 or 2024?
Ckfasdf (
talk) 16:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
the year of first publication of the copyrighted work. Ckfasdf ( talk) 17:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
|date=
(or if you really insist on using it, the partially equivalent but easily broken |year=
) is missing entirely, then templates like {{
sfnp}}
and {{
harvp}}
will not work, not without a custom |ref={{
harvid|...}}
. A date parameter should not be left off even when it seems "redundant" with something in the title of the article or the containing work. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC){{
cite book}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)Why is the DOI erroring in this citation? It resolves correctly. czar 04:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
If my citation reference is an online PDF document, which page # do I use? The page # that is printed on each page (could be i, ii, etc.) or the page # that my PDF viewer says I am reading. If the doc has an un-numbered title page & several i, ii pages, then the printed page could be 5 but the PDF page could be 10. I've tried to research this in WP but could not find the answer. Sunandshade ( talk) 02:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
|page=[https://www.domain.com/document.pdf#page=5 4]
, rendering in the citation as p.
4. This technique is often needed for specific-page links to books on Internet Archive [other than the login-required "Borrow for 1 hour" ones, for which page-specific URLs are useless], because it uses a weird page-numbering system, e.g. p. iii of an introduction/foreword would be .../page/n3/... in the URL in many cases (but not consistently; I think it depends on who did the digitization). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
This works:
{{cite encyclopedia |title=Энциклопедия Республики Марий Эл |trans-title=Encyclopedia of the Republic of Mari El |language=Russian |page=99 |year=2009}}
This does not:
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=Энциклопедия Республики Марий Эл |trans-title=Encyclopedia of the Republic of Mari El |language=Russian |page=99 |year=2009}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |trans-title=
requires |title=
or |script-title=
(
help)The difference is |title=
vs. |encyclopedia=
.
The docs say the paring of |encyclopedia=
+ |trans-title=
should work (I think). --
Green
C 17:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
is a pain in the ass. {{cite encyclopedia}}
templates can be written in a variety of ways:
{{cite encyclopedia |article=Article title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Article title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |chapter=Chapter title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Chapter title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |contribution=Contribution title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Contribution title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |entry=Entry title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Entry title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |section=Section title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Section title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |title=Title title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Title title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |article=Article title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Article title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |chapter=Chapter title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Chapter title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |contribution=Contribution title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Contribution title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |entry=Entry title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Entry title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia |section=Section title |title=Encyclopedia title}}
→ "Section title". Encyclopedia title.{{cite encyclopedia}}
templates with |encyclopedia=<Encyclopedia Title>
and |title=<article/entry title>
. Here are some searches:
{{cite encyclopedia}}
of which there are
~370.{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite web}}
are intended to work (yeah, you can write a {{cite journal}}
template with |website=
instead of |journal=
which I think to be nonsensical...).|encyclopedia=
would be |trans-encyclopedia=
which parameter does not exist (nor does |script-encyclopedia=
which would be the correct parameter to use for Энциклопедия Республики Марий Эл).|title=
to signify two different things - the title of the encyclopedia OR the title of the article in the encyclopedia. |title=
should be an alias of chapter/section/entry/article - there would be only be one of those defined. The name of the encyclopedia would be |encyclopedia=
or |work=
. Or |title=
is an alias of |encyclopedia=
, one way or another, but not both at the same time. Is this controversial to repair? I would think most people would agree, an argument should have one meaning, not a double meaning, which is ambiguous. --
Green
C 19:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite web}}
, etc, |title=
is the name of the article. Those templates don't support |article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, or |section=
so a rewritten {{
cite encyclopedia}}
template should not support them. Those parameters are all aliases of the {{
cite book}}
base-parameter |chapter=
so if one of them is needed, the encyclopedia can be cited using {{cite book}}
where |title=
gets the name of the encyclopedia ({{cite book}}
does not support |encyclopedia=
).{{cite encyclopedia}}
we should:
|title=
and |encyclopedia=
|script-encyclopeda=
|trans-encyclopedia=
|article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, and |section=
{{cite encyclopedia}}
use |title=
and |encyclopedia=
, I expect that a rewrite of the template will not be too controversial. But then, who knows, it is also possible that someone will get their panties in a bunch and call down the torches and pitchforks...{{
cite book}}
, since the encyclopedia template is designed for citing encyclopedia article entries, and not other book-like things it might contain on the margins. --
Green
C 17:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
|entry=
, |entry-url=
, and other similar parameters? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 02:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
with some combination of |article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, or |section=
with |encyclopedia=
or |title=
to convert those templates to use |title=
and |encyclopedia=
before the {{cite encyclopedia}}
rewrite can go live.|entry=
and |title=
. One reason is that since |encyclopedia=
isn't an alias of |work=
, the |trans-work=
and |script-work=
parameters don't work on it, while |trans-chapter=
and |script-chapter=
work on |entry=
. Another is that my keyboard suggests "encyclopaedia" and variants as string autocompletions, so I have to type the US spelling "encyclopedia" in full every time (unless |encyclopaedia=
is now a valid alias; it hasn't always been).I agree that it's confusing that |title=
is polysemic within this template, depending on whether it's paired with |entry=
or |encyclopedia=
, and one of the two modes should be sunsetted.Perhaps to ensure equal satisfaction by all users, implementation could
split the baby by dropping support for |title=
, and requiring |entry=
alongside |encyclopedia=
.
Folly Mox (
talk) 02:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
|encyclopaedia=
has been in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist from its first implementation (4 April 2013). For the sake of historical completeness:
|encyclopaedia=
was present in the first implementation of
Module:Citation/CS1 (19 February 2013)|encyclopaedia=
was added to the module at
this edit (26 August 2012){{
cite encyclopedia}}
did not support |encyclopaedia=
so that parameter did not become available until the template was switched from wikitext to Lua at
this edit (17 March 2013){{cite encyclopedia}}
is already apparent in the first version of Module:Citation/CS1. At
line 272 the Title
metaparameter can get its value from |title=
, |encyclopaedia=
, |encyclopedia=
, or |dictionary=
. A few lines from there, at
line 286, the Periodical
metaparameter can get its value from |journal=
, |newspaper=
, |magazine=
, |work=
, |periodical=
, |encyclopedia=
, or |encyclopaedia=
. Some of that has already been fixed: |encyclopedia=
and |encyclopaedia=
have their own Encyclopedia
metaparameter and are only allowed in {{cite encyclopedia}}
and {{
citation}}
.{{
cite book}}
parameters, and then just redirect {{
cite encyclopedia}}
to {{cite book}}
? Seems like a sensible proposition to make at
WP:TFD if you ask me. We have too many citation templates as it is. Same could be done with {{
cite magazine}}
→ {{
cite journal}}
; we have no need of redundant periodical templates that are the same thing except having a different name for what sort of periodical it is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 00:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
do not have "encyclopedia" (or "dictionary") in their titles. But what categorization would we be doing anyway? "Articles that contain citations to tertiary sources"? Is there an actual useful purpose to doing that? If there is, it would probably be better done with the {{
Tertiary source}}
template which is completely agnostic as to the title of the work or what {{cite foo}}
template its details were shoehorned into. That add-on template already has some configuration parameters for various use cases, like tertiary sources that don't cite their own sources, tertiary sources that do provide a bibliography but don't cite individual sources specifically, and tertiary sources that are too weak for us to be using and should be replaced. It doesn't do any categorization yet, other than in the last case (too-weak tertiary source) "put the article in
Category:All pages needing factual verification (or a dated subcat thereof), just like {{
Primary source inline}}
does". Adding more categorization to it would not be hard. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
Tertiary source}}
, thank you for the reply.
Remsense
留 03:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)|chapter-url=
and {{
cite web}} with |url=
. Both render exactly the same, but cite web is much clearer in the wiki text. I don't know how cite book would affect the unseen data. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
could certainly be used as a replacement for {{
cite encyclopedia}}
cases that are Web-only publications. What this really comes down to is that {{
cite encyclopedia}}
is an odd-one-out, unnecessary template fork that has nothing to do with what medium/format the publication is, the way our most-used cite templates do, but is trying to address what "societal role" or "authorial purpose" the publication supposedly has. It's like forking a {{cite documentary}}
from {{
cite AV media}}
, or forking a {{cite reality show}}
template from {{cite AV media}}
, or forking a cite {{cite
festschrift}}
from {{
cite book}}
, or {{cite space opera}}
from {{
cite AV media}}
, or (surprise! someone did it!) forking {{
cite magazine}}
from {{
cite journal}}
. Even {{
cite news}}
should probably also be merged to the latter (which might need addition of |agency=
). Several other templates listed in
Category:Citation Style 1 templates are also pointless forks of this sort, though a few are arguably useful wrappers for addressing source types with particular ID formats, like {{
cite arXiv}}
. E.g. {{
cite podcast}}
is a pointless fork of {{
cite AV media}}
and could just be redirected to it (this would have the benefit of adding support for the "subscription or registration required" parameters which according to the documentation are lacked by {{cite podcast}}
, though that may not actually be true in the code). {{
Cite episode}}
is likewise another unnecessary redundancy forked from {{
cite AV media}}
. It's noteworthy that various other things have already been merged/redirected, like {{
cite film}}
to {{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite e-book}}
to {{
cite book}}
, etc. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I get the impression someone's recently implemented checking for digits and other non-letter chracters in the |author=
parameter... however, that seems to have missed or ignored the fact that {{
cite tweet}}
and {{
cite Instagram}}
(and possibly others) use it to hold usernames that do contain non-letters.
So basically you have a bunch of instances of those templates throwing errors. E.g.:
References
As a result, Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list has many, many entries.
Could we maybe revert this new check? Or is there some way to tweak the two templates to not throw this newly defined "error"? — Joeyconnick ( talk) 19:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) ← That message should appear.Am I correct in assuming the first letters of words in article titles other than conjunctions, prepositions, pronouns and similar words should be in upper case, so that in Visual Editor after a citation has been generated the title needs to be edited? I notice numerous citations where first letters are not in upper case. Mcljlm ( talk) 21:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
{{cite web |last=Office |first=United Nations Press |date=[none given, despite prominent presence of the webpage] |title=United Nation Press Release – United Nations Press Office |website=press.un.org |access-date=[today]}}
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources has a list of sources that the community has deemed unreliable and has given it a "Deprecated" status. I think it would be helpful if the module detected citations using a site from that list and add to a maintenance category. Gonnym ( talk) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
{{/Uses}}
template, all appear in the list at my sandbox.|url=
needs to move to |chapter-url=
, or whatever. It doesn't come up often enough for me to have tested it out. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Some other features document the use of additional values for url-status that aren't documented here. Most notably, "bot: unknown". I've marked the documentation for this template with {{ Improve documentation}} per the instructions at that template. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|url-access=
, I intentionally omitted bot: unknown
because that keyword defined for bot use only. When a bot has set |url-access=bot: unknown
, cs1|2 emits a maintenance message with a link to
Category:CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown where that keyword's meaning is described.url-status=bots:
on a citation they are maintaining? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)url-status=bot: something
meant, and what I should do with it. Lots of url-status=bot: unknown
is around, for example, but that's not explained in the documentation. The title of the category doesn't even match: "bot: original URL status unknown" is different than "bot: unknown". And the instructions there aren't specific: "Editors should review these URLs and adjust the value assigned to |url-status= accordingly." I guess that means review them for an appropriate choice of the documented url-status=
values? So then these "bot:" values are not just for bots, but for humans to go and fix? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 23:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Adding ", Ph.D, D.Prof" at the end of |first=
generates "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list". Template doc shows a |degree=
parameter that is not supported. ―
Mandruss
☎ 13:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|degree=
seems to be an alias of |type=
specific to {{
cite thesis}}, but more importantly no one should care what level academic degree the author of a published work has gained: most people who publish academically are going to be PhD or an analogous medical degree, and when books published by non-academic presses include "PhD" in the authorial attribution, what this usually signals is "unable to get this quackery past peer review" or "completely outside academic field of competence".
Folly Mox (
talk) 14:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|first=
parameter, simply omit the comma, just like with Jr.
or Sr.
, and this will avoid the maintenance categorisation.
Folly Mox (
talk)
Folly Mox (
talk) 14:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|degree=
is only supported by {{
cite thesis}}
where it aliases |type=
with additional static text. Ranks, degrees, titles (scholarly and aristocratic), post-nominals, and anything else that isn't the author's/contributor's/editor's/interviewer's/translator's name is all unnecessary cruft in a citation (generational suffixes excepted). Let the source flout those things if they think it important to do so.|first=
parameter ...', one really mustn't, and needs to be aware that other editors will remove it on sight. PPS: The only maybe-exception, that is anywhere near this general realm of stuff, that I make is that if someone is "Reverend General Sir Xerxes Youill of Zounds, KBE, FSA(Scot), PhD, Esq.", and uses the long-form surname with "of Zounds" when publishing and is commonly referred to that way, I'll cite them as |last=Youill of Zounds
|first=Xerxes
(because it's consistent with de/du/di/von/van/etc. constructions in other languages). Some editors will probably object even to that, though removing it may make them ambiguous with other writers named (in this silly example) Xerxes Youill. A real example is Sir
Thomas Innes of Learney, former
Lord Lyon (heraldic authority of Scotland). I mostly see him referred to as Thomas Innes of Learney, not as Thomas Innes (except in a biographical article's material that covered his early life). Our own article on him uses both the long and short forms inconsistently, and WP isn't a reliable source anyway; I just follow the source usage. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)I've just added the TemplateData for {{
Cite document}}. Whatever this is supposed to do {{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|template_data_validate|{{ROOTPAGENAME}}}}
just gives an error message for that template. I copied most of the parameters straight from {{
Citation}} which was kind of tedious; is there a better way for other CS1 templates lacking TemplateData?
Rjjiii (
talk) 03:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
{{#invoke:}}
is for error checking the TemplateData parameter list against the module suite. Restored and lua script error fixed.I have added support for |script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
to the sandbox. This answers lack-of-same that I mentioned at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 § cite encyclopedia. The parameters are only valid in {{
cite encyclopedia}}
and {{
citation}}
:
{{cite encyclopedia/new |title=Title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |script-encyclopedia=ru:ScriptEncyclopedia |trans-encyclopedia=Trans Encyclopedia}}
{{citation/new |title=Title |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia |script-encyclopedia=ru:ScriptEncyclopedia |trans-encyclopedia=Trans Encyclopedia}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
|chapter=
and pals? Or is that another thing that's actually supported and I'm the one doing something wrong?
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
has supported |chapter=
and its aliases since forever ago:
{{citation |chapter=Chapter |title=Title}}