This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here. |
This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello everyone! While translating the module into Russian, I encountered one issue - some participants do not want to use the CMS or APA style, but prefer styles that correspond to their own language. For Russian, this is GOST.
I attempted to fix the render [1], but it was very challenging because the entire rendering is scattered throughout the code and sometimes is completely illogical and opaque.
I believe that since individual languages and language projects have different standards for source representation (different component order, formatting, different sets of data), it would be very helpful to simplify editing this representation in a common module. Having the ability to remove italics and bold, as well as rearrange components, would be beneficial.
In ruwiki, there are specific templates that I want to transfer to this module, but it's necessary for them to be able to change the render when a certain parameter is entered. For example: citation_style = gost.
Source | {{cite journal |last1=Aries |first1=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
|
APA/CMS | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858—1866. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
GOST | Aries Myriam B. C., Newsham Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review [PDF]. // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36. — Is. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
DIN | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R.: " Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review", Energy Policy, 2008, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, pp. 1858–1866. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
Iniquity ( talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 23–24 March 2024. Here are the changes:
|volume=
and |issue=
;
discussion|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
;
discussion|mode=cs1
and |postscript=none
in {{
citation}}
;
discussiontcommon
assignments;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
|volume=
and |issue=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties.- correct. I don't see why OOB values should exist on Wikidata (unless that limit has yet to be updated after a recent bump). If there are no legitimate uses for OOB values, then I don't see why those limits shouldn't be in Wikidata, regardless of whether or not cs1|2 uses them. If there are legitimate reasons, either I or someone else will remove them. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('The Decameron')
→ Q16438
but the name in Italian: mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('Il Decamerone')
→ nil
). We must always be able to get to the identifier limits; we can do that easily with commons tabular data.The documentation for CS1 currently includes When a source does not have a publication date, use
. However, for citations of things like web pages that don't have a date, I find it much more common to just leave out the date parameter rather than specifying that it has been omitted.
|date=n.d.
I'm curious to hear from others, what do you think the best practice should be for this? Sdkb talk 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
|date=<!--no date-->
, which at least clarifies it for editors.
Sdkb
talk 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget that {{ sfnp}} and related need something in the date field, even if it is means having to use {{sfnp|Doe|n.d.|page=123}}. The notation n.d. is reasonably well recognised and I don't know of any other conventions that are. But I guess it can be left to whoever is pulling together multiple citations of the same source to backfill it. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This one. What is the purpose of this category? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The {{cite book}} template already implements a separate publication-date parameter from CS1. Some journals and their articles have different publication-date, date and orig-date values. The latter is more flexible, but insufficient when there are three different dates, i.e. an article "orig-date=written 1930", published in a journal edition dated "date=2004-2005" and published "publication-date=2006". Ivan ( talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite what you read.Pardon my confusing wording above, but the need does not stem from the requirements of references but of bibliographies, where the works in question are the subject of the article. Some citation styles prefer the date of printing/publication (i.e. 1931), while others prefer the year published for (i.e. 1929/1930). It is not for the bibliographer to decide which must be used, and including both can help resolve confusion from the reader over which date to use given the style required of them. Posthumously published works excepted, most citation styles do not take the date of writing or reception into account, which would free up the orig-date parameter for the publication date, but in bibliographies that parameter is still needed to provide useful information to the reader; for example that the discrepancy between the publication date and that of a familiar author's death is due to posthumous publication. Ivan ( talk) 03:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Citation templates are not intended to handle all possible edge cases.Although such journals are in the minority, it is still very commonly encountered. Very. Other editors have managed to get by with manual additions thanks to the publisher parameter coming last in Citation Style 1, but that doesn't work as well when there are many entries. Nor does it fit as nicely as when it is an in-template parameter. Compare with the output of {{cite book}}: Last, First (2004–2005) [written 1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006).
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Maybe a stupid question, but why is |archive-date required and then checked for matching |archive-url even when the latter already contains the date, like archive.org urls normally do? Wouldn't it make sense to forgo the separate date and just take the one from the url? Or, if it's expected by some processing somewhere else, at least automatically populate the date upon submission instead of rising an error? Since subst exists, this can't be because there's a policy against modifying the user-submitted wikitext. 82.131.19.61 ( talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried to cite a clip from PBS NewsHour on the Orca page.
I suppose PBS is the "Publisher" and the "work" is NewsHour, but that felt awkward and there is a more specific form for audio-visual sources.
Unfortunately, the Serial citation suggests it should not be used for news shows.
/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_serial says it is "for broadcast programs (television, radio, web) which use individual titles for a collection of episodes ... For serial publications, see {{
Cite news}}
and {{
Cite journal}}
."
Unfortunately, making it a news citation caused the system to reject the network property. I assume it would also reject station, which might be essential for local news.
My preference would be that the news and especially the web citation forms allow the additional Serial properties.
My second choice -- which might be good even if the news and web citation forms are expanded -- would be that the instructions for Serial remove the word "individual" (when skimming, I thought it meant each episode had its own name, as some Sitcoms do), and change "For serial publications" to "For _written_ serial publications." JimJJewett ( talk) 19:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! When transferring the module to ruwiki, I decided to see how COinS generally live. The official website is dead [2], there is practically no documentation to be found. OpenURL is dead too [3]. The applications that use it also died, except for Zotero. Shouldn't we think about switching to a new format before everything becomes completely outdated? Or am I worrying in vain and everything is fine? Iniquity ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't find much either. Maybe this one - https://schema.org/Book (RDF/Microdata)? Iniquity ( talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)I don't know of any other metadata standard that could be used as a drop-in replacement for COinS.
— User:Trappist the monk 21:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to cite a journal that has a volume parameter with "New Series" or "N.S."? For example, in Origin of the Huns:
{{cite journal |last=de la Vaissière |first=Étienne |title=Is There a "Nationality of the Hephtalites"? |journal=Bulletin of the Asia Institute |volume=N.S. 17 |year=2003 |pages=119–132 |jstor=24049310}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
See Help:Citation_Style_1#Edition_identifiers and note 3 in particular. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to remove the "volume has extra text" error in {{
Cite Pacer}}
? Each instance in
Template:Cite Pacer#Examples and
Template:Cite Pacer/testcases now has the error. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
|volume=
and |issue=
for all cs1|2 templates except {{
cite journal}}
. It appears that |case-prefix=
is not used in any {{
cite Pacer}}
templates so perhaps you might change the template source to remove support for |case-prefix=
and change |volume=
to |number=
?If I want to cite a standalone article preprint, made available by a university through an hdl link, how can I?
|type=preprint
is best?Is there some way to make {{ cite preprint}} less fussy about what kind of availability counts as a preprint? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite preprint}}
is just a wrapper template around the cs1 templates {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite medrxiv}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
. It is not intended to support arbitrary preprints of any other sort. It has been suggested that the preprint templates should be replaced with a 'generic' {{cite preprint}}
template. As I recall there wasn't much enthusiasm for that.|type=none
.I am citing an article which was published in two journals (one US and the other UK). This is useful information for readers who may have access to one but not the other. I cannot see how to show this. "postscript=" gives an error message and there does not seem to be any other way. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
(and all of the other cs1|2 templates) are designed to support one source at a time.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Author |date= |title= |journal=[the US journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}
*also published in: {{cite journal |author=Author |author-mask=2 |date= |title= |journal=[the UK journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}</ref>
I have removed support for the deprecated |authors=
parameter from the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (
help)
|
This leaves us with |people=
and |credits=
as the only 'free-form' name-list parameters.
Support for |people=
is documented in {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite mailing list}}
, {{
cite map}}
, {{
citation}}
. Search results:
|people=
:
|credits=
:
Support for |credits=
is documented in {{
cite episode}}
and {{
cite serial}}
. Search results:
|credits=
:
|people=
:
{{
cite episode}}
~90{{cite serial}}
~5It seems to me that {{cite mailing list}}
, {{cite map}}
, and {{citation}}
should not be using |people=
and |credits=
. No doubt there are templates that use |people=
and |credits=
aside from those mentioned here but similar searches to those above show relatively low usage counts; fewer than 100 articles for {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
combined. It seems to me that use of these two parameters should be limited to {{cite av media}}
, {{cite episode}}
, and {{cite serial}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|people=
to {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, and {{
cite serial}}
in the sandbox. |credits=
in the live module is already restricted to {{cite episode}}
and {{cite serial}}
.This proposal was originally made 6 days ago but my wording and explanations were poor.
WikiProject Bibliographies is devoted to standalone bibliography articles. Its participants have been responsible for a respectable portion of the List of bibliographies on this project. While many of these bibliographies were written manually from creation, many use citation templates to speed up the process and achieve a lower error rate. Many of the bibliographies that now use manual citations originated with templates and were only converted out of a need to reduce the post-expand include size. Because the works themselves are the subject of the article and require more detail and precision than in regular citations, we often find ourselves pushing the limits of citation templates.
For most of the additional information, corresponding parameters have already been added to {{cite book}}, because the average bibliography article consists mostly of books. Most of what remains can be added after the template. But there is one parameter missing from {{cite journal}} despite already being available in CS1 and having been incorporated into {{cite book}}, that is somewhat frequently encountered and which would benefit from being enabled for {{cite journal}} as well: publication-date. For any book Title, dated 2005 but published 2006, originally typewritten 1930, the output of {{cite book}} would be: Last, First (2005) [1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006). Most books with "two dates" are better served by the orig-date parameter than by publication-date. In the example I just gave, a book may have 2006 on its front cover but 2005 on its inside cover, with 2005 corresponding to the date the printing began and 2006 to the date of publication after the printing ended. Or 2005 could be the date the printing of the first volume began and 2006 the date the individual volume was printed. And so on.
The main reason both have to be given in bibliography articles is because differences in date and publication-date displayed prominently enough on works for the same work to be cited in one date in catalogue/database but under another date in a different catalogue/database. Only the best catalogues/databases have both parameters, and the reader's library or digital library may not be such a catalogue. Because the primary purpose of a bibliography article is to help the reader find works on a given subject, providing both years in our bibliographies allows the reader to search all year values the catalogue could have, in addition to letting them know that they have indeed found the correct work where providing only one date would leave them second guessing (especially if there are title differences). Differences between prominently displayed "date" (Jahrgang, ročnik, rocznik etc.) and date of publication values are actually more common for periodicals ({{cite journal}}) than for books.
Despite the parameter arguably being more important for {{cite journal}} than for {{cite book}}, it has still not been enabled for the former. The interval-discrepancy between Jahrgang (date) and publication date (publication-date) often varies over time. Discrepancies of interval often arise between Jahrgang and volume number and even year number,[†] so you cannot simply enter the Jahrgang in the volume parameter. And because these are bibliography articles, in which the works are the subject of the article, orig-date is often unavailable, thanks to a work being written or typed at a different date, sometimes long before publication, resulting in the work often being cited or even catalogued by the date of writing. Here are some examples of periodicals requiring a separate publication-date parameter in order of increasing complexity:
† Year number would be the closest value to Jahrgang but discrepancies arise when a year is skipped and if it happens more than once, the interval changes. Fortunately, the year number is rarely encountered in catalogues and citations, so although it would be preferable to have a separate year-number parameter, the current guidelines for placing the "year-related value" in the volume parameter work well enough. At least the result is within the citation. The publication-date parameter is also within the citation for {{cite book}}, as it should be for {{cite journal}}.
My request is to enable the publication-date parameter for {{cite journal}}. Ivan ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|publication-date=
is already available in {{
cite journal}}.Can you add "phone" and "email" to the generic name list so you get a "CS1 errors: generic name" error. Thanks Keith D ( talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Langauge is needed on de.wikipedia.org if a German langauge citation is added. Langauge can therefor not be omitted. Theking2 ( talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
|sprache=de
für „deutsch“ ist nicht erforderlich …" [… for German is not required …]. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 11:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Hey, so I'd like to create a citation for a film which is one of many as part of a multi-disc/multi-film collection, I was thinking about doing something like:
But I'd really like to add something like |at=Disc 1, Bonus Features
, but it doesn't seem like that parameter is valid for this template? Is there a better way to be doing this? Per
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT I'd like the citation to reflect the specific edition I'm citing. Thanks for any advice!
Umimmak (
talk) 02:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
|at=
is an in-source location parameter. The in-source location parameters supported by {{
cite av media}}
are |minutes=
and |time=
. Using either of those as a replacement for |at=
is semantically incorrect.{{cite av media |section=Bonus Feature Title |title=Multi-Disc Set Title |publisher=Publisher |time=01:23:30}}
Should the documentation for, e.g., |pages=
, |quote-pages=
, recommend use of {{
page range}} or subst:page range when page numbers contain hyphens, e.g., |pages={{page-range|A-3|A-5}}
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
page range}}
is not required. But... cs1|2 cannot modify wikisource so for those editors who care, using {{page range}}
will (once subst'd) produce the proper format in wikisource. Because {{page range}}
auto substs (even inside <ref>...</ref>
tags), the embedded template complicationisn't much of a complication because auto-substing usually occurs within an hour after the edit is saved.
{{page range}}
or don't. Recommend it or don't.I am working on a request from another user at
WP:AWBREQ to add author links to citation templates. The
first edit I did on the AWB run ended up with, I believe, 159 {{
cite web}}
templates for the given author. My
regex of course identifies each of those templates for adding in the author link, and I dutifully included the author link in all of them as per the request. But before I do this on the hundreds of pages where this is germane, I was wondering whether we are bound to the MOS guide to only link the first instance in an article, or whether that does not apply to references as well.
TLDR: Should I add author-link to every citation of a given author, or only the first reference on the page? Van Isaac, GHTV cont WpWS 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
|title=
, then find other instances of that title that are missing an author-link and add it there. With some sanity error checks. Could be fully automated. --
Green
C 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)I came across a case where a cite magazine article from
India Today was attributed to an agency (
Indo-Asian News Service) with no other byline. {{
cite magazine}} did not support use of the |agency=
parameter. Should it? —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 14:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
One of the references at The pen is mightier than the sword#Early pre-enlightenment sources is giving "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Date_validation at line 329: attempt to compare string with number." I can't see anything wrong with it from a quick glance. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot, thank you again for your support in the discussion on Module talk:Footnotes. Given what we just discussed there, could you re-visit and examine the revert you did on my edit on Template:Cite journal/doc on 24 March? I now realize I worded the description on my edit very badly/wrongly, and that I should have used {{SfnRef}} in the example. But otherwise what I did on the page, I feel, is basically in line with the result of that talk:Footnotes discussion, and hope you'll see that too, if you revert the revert (with or without saving). If you still stand by your revert, we could discuss further here. If not, we could move to its talk page and discuss how to improve the doc further with my edit as the base. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef
Hello again, Yiba. I've moved the discussion here from my Talk page, so other interested editors may participate if they wish; they are unlikely to find it on my Talk page. In addition, there is a lot of previous discussion at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef about this.
Sorry, I still stand by the revert, or at least, parts of it. My original revert (
diff) was motivated by your removal of the "Staff writers" expression from the |author=
param when there is no author.
However, your edit at Template:Cite journal/doc made numerous other changes, unrelated to the "Staff writers" issue. Logistically speaking, that's unfortunate, as several smaller edits with each one targeting a different issue would've made it easier to adjust/revert only that portion which needed it; with one, large, monolithic edit targeting essentially unrelated issues, it becomes harder to deal with. Perhaps I was lazy reverting the whole thing, but given the length and wide scope of the discussion that resulted afterward at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef that seems somewhat vindicated. In any case, I see that you believe portions of your original edit are valid, and should be added to the documentation of either Template:Cite journal/doc (or to Template:SfnRef/doc—it's not clear to me which). In order not to fall into the same problem of long discussion here targeting unrelated or loosely related issues, I propose that we use subsections for each separate topic area of your original edit that you wish to retain. I'll start, right after this message, and I hope you list your issues in one subsection each, so the subtopic discussions remain targeted and on-track. Does that seem reasonable to you? Mathglot ( talk) 18:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|ref=
's only use is in the creation of CITEREFs for use with {{
sfn}}/{{
harv}} templates. As neither of these ideas are correct, it was corrected reverted. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Your edit removed |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
from the doc at
Template:Cite journal/doc explaining what to do when there is no author. I restored that information in the revert, and as that wording suggestion is standard use throughout several of the citation parameters; it should remain here as well for consistency, so I am not prepared to self-revert in order to remove it. If you see an argument for doing so, how would you deal with equivalent wording at all the other templates?
Mathglot (
talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
to an html comment. There is precedent for this in params |type=
, |ref=
, |title-link=
, maybe others, and I think that could be a good solution here as well.
Mathglot (
talk) 19:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
as a better idea, the hidden comment doesn't seem a great idea. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|work=
or equiv.) which narrows it down to a few people at a given org. That's different, for me, then |author=Anon.
which means the person who wrote it chose not to claim credit, and is listed as "Anonymous" in the work, and could be any author anywhere (see
WorldCat usage). Finally, "none" to me means, "I looked hard, and couldn't find it"; i.e. nothing on the title page or cover, web page, or in the html <head> tag author field or any of the usual suspects. But honestly, I don't know if it's reasonable to be able to maintain that level of distinction in a citation template author field. It seems very unlikely someone using a plain-text citation rather than a template would do it, and I don't think the citation templates should be held to a higher standard, just because they are templates.|type=press release
({{
Citation#Title}}), and that is sufficient, imho.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)|author=<!--Not stated-->
as the unknown-author indicator. See
Help:Citation Style 1 § Authors where that is recommended.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
. This is something visible only to editors who look at the wikicode, and not to viewers reading the article. The symbols '<!--
' and '-->
' are comment begin/end delimiters that hide everything between them from viewers. They can be seen by editors editing the page, and it announces (to editors) that, with or without "no byline", we don't have the name of an author.
Mathglot (
talk) 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Recommends use of staff writer names in author= in such casethe documentation doesn't suggest this, it suggests adding a note that there is no author credited author. For the purposes of the mediwiki software the
|author=
parameter is still blank.|ref=
field is not just for {{
sfnref}}, it is also not part of the general template use (as it's only needed for certain situations).|publisher=
or |journal=
name, as this is just misuse of the field. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Thanks. But |author= is listed in the "Most commonly used parameters" for "To cite a journal article with no credited author". It's clear to me I am failing miserably in building a consensus. Here is my last approach for your enjoyment:
Suppose I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and find my areas of experience and knowledge can contribute to improve Wikipedia articles, so I decide to edit one of the poorly written articles called ABC Memory. I knew there was a good sidebar article about ABC Memory on BCD Journal, where I used to work, and use some info from the column on the Wikipedia page. The article was not signed, but I know such short pieces are normally written by a staff writer John Jones. As a Wiki editor, I don't even know what CS1 stands for, but decide to use a commonly used citation format:
{{Sfn |BCD Journal |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |title=ABC Memory |journal=CDF Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
I omitted |author= entry because I know (book) 'authors' are credited, paid, and responsible for what he/she writes, and Jones is not yet a Senior Editor who gets to sign (and paid/responsible for) what he/she writes and publishes. I'm not sure if he actually wrote the piece, but I know for a fact he is a staff writer there. The pair doesn't work.
Then I find the info "To cite a journal article with no credited author" and try:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
but the pair fails to link.
{{Sfn |<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |2020 |page=4 }}
doesn't work.
{{Sfn | |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author= |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal|issue=Spring|date=2020}}
doesn't work. (@
ActivelyDisinterested Blank pair does not link.)
{{Sfn |by-line |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=no by-line |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. I kept trying because I really don't want to name Jones an author. I'm cornered to give in, but:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. (! This pair does not link. A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling |author= . One of the reasons why I think |author= should not be there.)
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=John |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
This pair finally works (mind you, without |ref= and the editor being fully aware Jones is a staff writer without any copyright responsibility), and I publish it thinking "Well, this is what Wikipedia documentation instructed me to do."
John gets sued later because I named him as the source despite my strong preference not to name him the author, and the sidebar column was found to have been written by an outside contributor Mrs.X who obtained the sensitive inside info illegally. Mrs.X has long fled abroad, and BCD Journal ends up paying for the damages and sues me for 90% of it because pageview spiked after my edit and the page attracted 9 times more number of pageviews than their subscription base. You could imagine how 'I' feel about Wikipedia documentation.
To all of you, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. @ Mathglot please don't worry, I will refrain from editing these documentation. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
it's the same as the field being blank.|author=
is a substitute for |last=
and |first=
, so:A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling
|last=
is recommended in short citations and not |author=
, it will still work if you use it properly. For example, this generates #CITEREFJohn_Jones2020 if you place the full author in the Sfn param (not recommended!) and links properly:Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
Some fact.{{Sfn|John Jones|2020|page=4}} === References === {{reflist}} === Bibliography === * {{Cite journal|author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal }} |
|
Apologies if I'm mistaken about something, but should there be Category:CS1 Yue Chinese-language sources (yue) and Category:CS1 Min Nan Chinese-language sources (nan) to match Category:CS1 Chinese-language sources (zh)? See also Category:Articles containing Yue Chinese-language text et al. Remsense 诉 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
|language=nan
are categorized at
N
and articles using |language=yue
are categorized at
Y
.Testing {{
cite report}}, {{
cite tech report}}, and {{
cite thesis}} I find that |number=
, |docket=
, and |id=
are used inconsistently in an undocumented manner. (See also previous related discussion:
Cite report issue parameter not displaying (May 2023).)
In report and thesis, |number=
appears to not be used at all, while |docket=
and |id=
are aliases for an ending bare text in report, and separable parameters in thesis (with the word "Docket" prepended, unlike in report). Meanwhile, |number=
and |id=
are aliases in tech report, also mutually incompatible. Particularly problematic is that |id=
is specified as A unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable
-- this is semantically distinct from all uses of |number=
in CS1, and from what appears to be their
documented metadata.
{{Cite_report |author=Alex |date=May 1999 |docket=DOC 27 |id=Celex 3334 |number=777 |publisher=BYU |title=Tango}}
{{ Cite_report}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Report). BYU. DOC 27.
{{ Cite_thesis}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Thesis). BYU. Docket DOC 27. Celex 3334.
Also, I suggest considering again the suggestion of @
Tcr25: from the linked previous discussion, that instead of outputting report number/docket at the end of the citation, it should follow the title and document type. Currently it outputs after page number, which only makes sense if it's an external catalogue identifier (like |id=
is usually used for) and not, as is often the case with technical reports, splashed across the front page as part of the title.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
, {{
cite tech report}}
, and {{
cite thesis}}
are 'inconsistent'. Each of those templates was created at different dates by different editors:
{{
cite report}}
created 16 June 2008 by Editor
Cg-realms{{
cite tech report}}
created 7 February 2006 by Editor
Tizio{{
cite thesis}}
created 6 November 2009 by Editor
Fifelfoo{{
citation/core}}
; again at different dates and different editors:
{{cite report}}
: 15 February 2015{{cite tech report}}
: 9 November 2013{{cite thesis}}
: 9 November 2013{{citation/core}}
but when I migrated these templates to Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to make the migration more-or-less transparent so differences among them inherited from their individual developmental paths were retained in the module version. No doubt, since those migrations, the individual templates have continued to differ and likely continued to diverge.This question stems from a recent realization that the Visual Editor offers the Citation Style 2 {{ citation}} template as the default citation method. I remember as a new editor not being clear on why {{ cite web}} and {{ citation}} had a different appearance. My first thought was the Visual Editor should autofill "mode=cs1" if it's trying to use {{ citation}} as a quick machine-generated reference. My second thought was, why do we have to specify in each template usage? {{ Use dmy dates}} gives a consistent format to every citation on the page. Can something similar be done with the punctuation format? ({{ use cs1}} & {{ use cs2}}) Rjjiii ( talk) 04:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cs1 config|cs1}}
or {{
cs1 config|cs2}}
|mode=cs2
to keep their formatting and post a {{
please see}} notice on their talk pages so that it would be opt-in.{{cs1 config|cs2}}
to every article with 3:1 ratio of CS2:CS1 templates, I think that could help to frame this as supporting
WP:CITEVAR rather contesting it; a bot adding {{
cs1 config}} to pages where {{
citation}} is the primary style could also function as a way to announce this editors who want CS2, maybe with a link to the RfC and clear instructions on how to auto-CS2 the content they create.clean answerrequires a 'clean' description that clearly states your objective. I am not at all clear on what it is that you are asking.
|author=
parameters with multiple names in them, semicolons are invaluable for denominating a specific author name pair. Commas would hence Suck to then divide authors from whatever comes after.The documentation for {{
Cite AV media notes}} gives examples that use the others=
parameter with the name of an artist or band without providing a value for |author=
or |editor=
. Further, the template documentation makes no mention of the requirement that others=
be only used with primrry editorship or authorship information. However, such usage places articles in the
Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) category. The documentation there says that the others=
can't stand alone.
Which is correct? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
first=
and last=
used in the examples serve as an alias for the |author
parameter? That's not intuitive, as first=
and last=
are multiple parameters, and author=
is singular. And, even if so, the documentation makes no mention of the requirement. --
Mikeblas (
talk) 03:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)|author=
is an alias of |last=
; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § Authors. Even the TemplateData 'documentation' (such as it is) shows that these parameters are aliases of each other; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § TemplateData.|last=
, |author=
, and |others=
is at
Template:Citation Style documentation/author. Remember that the documentation template is used by all cs1|2 templates. If you use VE, consider improving the TemplateData.|others=
.others=
parameter.others=
parameter, or place its value in author=
? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
or other current equivalents. Take
10.000 Nights of Thunder as a prime example of the use of these templates. The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes, or at least not all of them, if even the physical notes specify who the author of the notes are (many, maybe even most, probably don't). The current examples at
Template:Cite AV media notes reflect this use of placing the artist in |others=
and I don't think the documentation there is necessarily wrong to say so.
Template:Cite AV media is better in some ways and worse in others as it suggests that we should add the role some significant person to the media played in the |others=
, but which again does not necessarily line up with the expectations for |author=
.
Izno (
talk) 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes. It's often extremely difficult to find out who wrote the liner notes for a given piece of media; rarely are they explicitly credited somewhere in the text. But without that information, currently the template "considers itself" incompletely filled out. IMHO that's an unreasonable expectation, making the tracking category nothing but noise. That being said, "working around it" by simply crediting the band as the authors turns the citation from incomplete to incorrect, which is not an improvement. If we want the tracking category to go away, we should make the tracking category go away, not corrupt our citations to satisfy its requirements. FeRDNYC ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
author: 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;. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=<!--Not stated-->
as a parameter, because it's exceedingly common for press releases to be published without a credited author.{{
Cite press release|author=<!--Not stated-->|others=something}}
will also trigger inclusion in
Category:CS1 maint: others.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 14:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ cs1 config|name-list-style=vanc}} and cite with non-Latin author generates an error.
Example (added |name-list-style=vanc
to cite to generate error):
{{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (
help)I know translating the author would avoid the error. (There are other work-arounds.) But I believe a specific cite should be able to override a global setting.
User-duck ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|name-list-style=vanc
, |last<n>=
and |first<n>=
must hold names written using the Latin character set.Is it possible to automatically show the volume and issue parameters when first opening it up in the visual editor? And then, perhaps, hide the PMID parameter that does automatically get added; that is more for journals. I do not know of many magazines archived by PubMed. Why? I Ask ( talk) 03:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm citing this paper, which is written by 6 authors on behalf of a wider collaboration. When I cite it in Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome as [1], it generates an etal, per documentation of the collaboration parameter. Is there a way to stop the etal? With vauthors, I get an error if I simply put the collaboration after the author list. Anybody know a way around this?
References
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
vcite2 journal}}
(now a redirect along with the since deleted
Module:ParseVauthors which implemented it) automatically imposed a six name limit. That template was written primarily for use by the WP:MED community.|collaborator=
entirely. If you must include EUROMENE, you can write the template:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Sotzny F, Blanco J, Capelli E, Castro-Marrero J, Steiner S, Murovska M, Scheibenbogen C, ((European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE))) |date=June 2018 |title=Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Evidence for an autoimmune disease |journal=Autoimmunity Reviews |volume=17 |issue=6 |pages=601–609 |doi=10.1016/j.autrev.2018.01.009 |pmid=29635081 |doi-access=free}}
|
collaboration=
says (in part):
etal
is appropriate. When authors write on behalf of a group, the group is not a participant in the writing so should not be listed as a contributor.What is the proper way to indicate that an issue is a supplement? GobsPint ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
If unnumbered, |issue=Suppl
. If numbered, |issue=Suppl. 3
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
rft.part
for use with journal objects so we could (should?) add an appropriate parameter: |supplement=
that would cause the template to render the 'Suppl.' (cs1) or 'suppl.' (cs2) static text as part of the |issue=
rendering. I suppose that the parameter rendering might look like this:
|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=3
→ V (4 Suppl. 3)|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=<title>
→ V (4 Suppl. <title>)|volume=V |supplement=yes
→ V (Suppl) – where yes
is a special keyword; more-or-less equivalent to |issue=Suppl
Hello, the list on the category page includes "email" but does not appear to cause an error. On Politics of Kaliningrad Oblast
protected, email. "Kaliningrad Separatism Again on the Rise".
Keith D ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Like this cite magazine from Maidenhead Locator System:
Tyson, Edmund, N5JTY (January 1989).
"Conversion between geodetic and grid locator systems" (PDF). QST Magazine. Newington, CT:
American Radio Relay League. pp. 29–30, 43. Retrieved 2018-03-09.{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Removing ".pdf" from the link makes the lock small again. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
background-size: contain;
made no difference for me, but disabling padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
set the smaller size. (using monobook skin) —
Jts1882 |
talk 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
does not exist in
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css.In Minkowski inequality, the {{ sfn}} footnote to Bahouri, Chemin & Danchin 2011 and the reference generated by the template {{ Bahouri Chemin Danchin Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations 2011}} are together somehow generating a "Harv and Sfn no-target error" categorization (look at the text of the footnote id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBahouriCheminDanchin20114-3" in the source of the generated article) but without generating a script-highlighted error nor any actual problem in harv/sfn link targeting. Does anyone know why this error occurs and whether there is something to do (hopefully without having to subst the citation template) to make it go away? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here. |
This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | ||||||||
|
Hello everyone! While translating the module into Russian, I encountered one issue - some participants do not want to use the CMS or APA style, but prefer styles that correspond to their own language. For Russian, this is GOST.
I attempted to fix the render [1], but it was very challenging because the entire rendering is scattered throughout the code and sometimes is completely illogical and opaque.
I believe that since individual languages and language projects have different standards for source representation (different component order, formatting, different sets of data), it would be very helpful to simplify editing this representation in a common module. Having the ability to remove italics and bold, as well as rearrange components, would be beneficial.
In ruwiki, there are specific templates that I want to transfer to this module, but it's necessary for them to be able to change the render when a certain parameter is entered. For example: citation_style = gost.
Source | {{cite journal |last1=Aries |first1=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
|
APA/CMS | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858—1866. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
GOST | Aries Myriam B. C., Newsham Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review [PDF]. // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36. — Is. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
DIN | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R.: " Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review", Energy Policy, 2008, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, pp. 1858–1866. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
Iniquity ( talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 23–24 March 2024. Here are the changes:
|volume=
and |issue=
;
discussion|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
;
discussion|mode=cs1
and |postscript=none
in {{
citation}}
;
discussiontcommon
assignments;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
|volume=
and |issue=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties.- correct. I don't see why OOB values should exist on Wikidata (unless that limit has yet to be updated after a recent bump). If there are no legitimate uses for OOB values, then I don't see why those limits shouldn't be in Wikidata, regardless of whether or not cs1|2 uses them. If there are legitimate reasons, either I or someone else will remove them. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('The Decameron')
→ Q16438
but the name in Italian: mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('Il Decamerone')
→ nil
). We must always be able to get to the identifier limits; we can do that easily with commons tabular data.The documentation for CS1 currently includes When a source does not have a publication date, use
. However, for citations of things like web pages that don't have a date, I find it much more common to just leave out the date parameter rather than specifying that it has been omitted.
|date=n.d.
I'm curious to hear from others, what do you think the best practice should be for this? Sdkb talk 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
|date=<!--no date-->
, which at least clarifies it for editors.
Sdkb
talk 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget that {{ sfnp}} and related need something in the date field, even if it is means having to use {{sfnp|Doe|n.d.|page=123}}. The notation n.d. is reasonably well recognised and I don't know of any other conventions that are. But I guess it can be left to whoever is pulling together multiple citations of the same source to backfill it. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This one. What is the purpose of this category? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The {{cite book}} template already implements a separate publication-date parameter from CS1. Some journals and their articles have different publication-date, date and orig-date values. The latter is more flexible, but insufficient when there are three different dates, i.e. an article "orig-date=written 1930", published in a journal edition dated "date=2004-2005" and published "publication-date=2006". Ivan ( talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite what you read.Pardon my confusing wording above, but the need does not stem from the requirements of references but of bibliographies, where the works in question are the subject of the article. Some citation styles prefer the date of printing/publication (i.e. 1931), while others prefer the year published for (i.e. 1929/1930). It is not for the bibliographer to decide which must be used, and including both can help resolve confusion from the reader over which date to use given the style required of them. Posthumously published works excepted, most citation styles do not take the date of writing or reception into account, which would free up the orig-date parameter for the publication date, but in bibliographies that parameter is still needed to provide useful information to the reader; for example that the discrepancy between the publication date and that of a familiar author's death is due to posthumous publication. Ivan ( talk) 03:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Citation templates are not intended to handle all possible edge cases.Although such journals are in the minority, it is still very commonly encountered. Very. Other editors have managed to get by with manual additions thanks to the publisher parameter coming last in Citation Style 1, but that doesn't work as well when there are many entries. Nor does it fit as nicely as when it is an in-template parameter. Compare with the output of {{cite book}}: Last, First (2004–2005) [written 1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006).
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Maybe a stupid question, but why is |archive-date required and then checked for matching |archive-url even when the latter already contains the date, like archive.org urls normally do? Wouldn't it make sense to forgo the separate date and just take the one from the url? Or, if it's expected by some processing somewhere else, at least automatically populate the date upon submission instead of rising an error? Since subst exists, this can't be because there's a policy against modifying the user-submitted wikitext. 82.131.19.61 ( talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried to cite a clip from PBS NewsHour on the Orca page.
I suppose PBS is the "Publisher" and the "work" is NewsHour, but that felt awkward and there is a more specific form for audio-visual sources.
Unfortunately, the Serial citation suggests it should not be used for news shows.
/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_serial says it is "for broadcast programs (television, radio, web) which use individual titles for a collection of episodes ... For serial publications, see {{
Cite news}}
and {{
Cite journal}}
."
Unfortunately, making it a news citation caused the system to reject the network property. I assume it would also reject station, which might be essential for local news.
My preference would be that the news and especially the web citation forms allow the additional Serial properties.
My second choice -- which might be good even if the news and web citation forms are expanded -- would be that the instructions for Serial remove the word "individual" (when skimming, I thought it meant each episode had its own name, as some Sitcoms do), and change "For serial publications" to "For _written_ serial publications." JimJJewett ( talk) 19:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! When transferring the module to ruwiki, I decided to see how COinS generally live. The official website is dead [2], there is practically no documentation to be found. OpenURL is dead too [3]. The applications that use it also died, except for Zotero. Shouldn't we think about switching to a new format before everything becomes completely outdated? Or am I worrying in vain and everything is fine? Iniquity ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't find much either. Maybe this one - https://schema.org/Book (RDF/Microdata)? Iniquity ( talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)I don't know of any other metadata standard that could be used as a drop-in replacement for COinS.
— User:Trappist the monk 21:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to cite a journal that has a volume parameter with "New Series" or "N.S."? For example, in Origin of the Huns:
{{cite journal |last=de la Vaissière |first=Étienne |title=Is There a "Nationality of the Hephtalites"? |journal=Bulletin of the Asia Institute |volume=N.S. 17 |year=2003 |pages=119–132 |jstor=24049310}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
See Help:Citation_Style_1#Edition_identifiers and note 3 in particular. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to remove the "volume has extra text" error in {{
Cite Pacer}}
? Each instance in
Template:Cite Pacer#Examples and
Template:Cite Pacer/testcases now has the error. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
|volume=
and |issue=
for all cs1|2 templates except {{
cite journal}}
. It appears that |case-prefix=
is not used in any {{
cite Pacer}}
templates so perhaps you might change the template source to remove support for |case-prefix=
and change |volume=
to |number=
?If I want to cite a standalone article preprint, made available by a university through an hdl link, how can I?
|type=preprint
is best?Is there some way to make {{ cite preprint}} less fussy about what kind of availability counts as a preprint? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite preprint}}
is just a wrapper template around the cs1 templates {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite medrxiv}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
. It is not intended to support arbitrary preprints of any other sort. It has been suggested that the preprint templates should be replaced with a 'generic' {{cite preprint}}
template. As I recall there wasn't much enthusiasm for that.|type=none
.I am citing an article which was published in two journals (one US and the other UK). This is useful information for readers who may have access to one but not the other. I cannot see how to show this. "postscript=" gives an error message and there does not seem to be any other way. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
(and all of the other cs1|2 templates) are designed to support one source at a time.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Author |date= |title= |journal=[the US journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}
*also published in: {{cite journal |author=Author |author-mask=2 |date= |title= |journal=[the UK journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}</ref>
I have removed support for the deprecated |authors=
parameter from the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (
help)
|
This leaves us with |people=
and |credits=
as the only 'free-form' name-list parameters.
Support for |people=
is documented in {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite mailing list}}
, {{
cite map}}
, {{
citation}}
. Search results:
|people=
:
|credits=
:
Support for |credits=
is documented in {{
cite episode}}
and {{
cite serial}}
. Search results:
|credits=
:
|people=
:
{{
cite episode}}
~90{{cite serial}}
~5It seems to me that {{cite mailing list}}
, {{cite map}}
, and {{citation}}
should not be using |people=
and |credits=
. No doubt there are templates that use |people=
and |credits=
aside from those mentioned here but similar searches to those above show relatively low usage counts; fewer than 100 articles for {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
combined. It seems to me that use of these two parameters should be limited to {{cite av media}}
, {{cite episode}}
, and {{cite serial}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|people=
to {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, and {{
cite serial}}
in the sandbox. |credits=
in the live module is already restricted to {{cite episode}}
and {{cite serial}}
.This proposal was originally made 6 days ago but my wording and explanations were poor.
WikiProject Bibliographies is devoted to standalone bibliography articles. Its participants have been responsible for a respectable portion of the List of bibliographies on this project. While many of these bibliographies were written manually from creation, many use citation templates to speed up the process and achieve a lower error rate. Many of the bibliographies that now use manual citations originated with templates and were only converted out of a need to reduce the post-expand include size. Because the works themselves are the subject of the article and require more detail and precision than in regular citations, we often find ourselves pushing the limits of citation templates.
For most of the additional information, corresponding parameters have already been added to {{cite book}}, because the average bibliography article consists mostly of books. Most of what remains can be added after the template. But there is one parameter missing from {{cite journal}} despite already being available in CS1 and having been incorporated into {{cite book}}, that is somewhat frequently encountered and which would benefit from being enabled for {{cite journal}} as well: publication-date. For any book Title, dated 2005 but published 2006, originally typewritten 1930, the output of {{cite book}} would be: Last, First (2005) [1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006). Most books with "two dates" are better served by the orig-date parameter than by publication-date. In the example I just gave, a book may have 2006 on its front cover but 2005 on its inside cover, with 2005 corresponding to the date the printing began and 2006 to the date of publication after the printing ended. Or 2005 could be the date the printing of the first volume began and 2006 the date the individual volume was printed. And so on.
The main reason both have to be given in bibliography articles is because differences in date and publication-date displayed prominently enough on works for the same work to be cited in one date in catalogue/database but under another date in a different catalogue/database. Only the best catalogues/databases have both parameters, and the reader's library or digital library may not be such a catalogue. Because the primary purpose of a bibliography article is to help the reader find works on a given subject, providing both years in our bibliographies allows the reader to search all year values the catalogue could have, in addition to letting them know that they have indeed found the correct work where providing only one date would leave them second guessing (especially if there are title differences). Differences between prominently displayed "date" (Jahrgang, ročnik, rocznik etc.) and date of publication values are actually more common for periodicals ({{cite journal}}) than for books.
Despite the parameter arguably being more important for {{cite journal}} than for {{cite book}}, it has still not been enabled for the former. The interval-discrepancy between Jahrgang (date) and publication date (publication-date) often varies over time. Discrepancies of interval often arise between Jahrgang and volume number and even year number,[†] so you cannot simply enter the Jahrgang in the volume parameter. And because these are bibliography articles, in which the works are the subject of the article, orig-date is often unavailable, thanks to a work being written or typed at a different date, sometimes long before publication, resulting in the work often being cited or even catalogued by the date of writing. Here are some examples of periodicals requiring a separate publication-date parameter in order of increasing complexity:
† Year number would be the closest value to Jahrgang but discrepancies arise when a year is skipped and if it happens more than once, the interval changes. Fortunately, the year number is rarely encountered in catalogues and citations, so although it would be preferable to have a separate year-number parameter, the current guidelines for placing the "year-related value" in the volume parameter work well enough. At least the result is within the citation. The publication-date parameter is also within the citation for {{cite book}}, as it should be for {{cite journal}}.
My request is to enable the publication-date parameter for {{cite journal}}. Ivan ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|publication-date=
is already available in {{
cite journal}}.Can you add "phone" and "email" to the generic name list so you get a "CS1 errors: generic name" error. Thanks Keith D ( talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Langauge is needed on de.wikipedia.org if a German langauge citation is added. Langauge can therefor not be omitted. Theking2 ( talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
|sprache=de
für „deutsch“ ist nicht erforderlich …" [… for German is not required …]. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 11:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Hey, so I'd like to create a citation for a film which is one of many as part of a multi-disc/multi-film collection, I was thinking about doing something like:
But I'd really like to add something like |at=Disc 1, Bonus Features
, but it doesn't seem like that parameter is valid for this template? Is there a better way to be doing this? Per
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT I'd like the citation to reflect the specific edition I'm citing. Thanks for any advice!
Umimmak (
talk) 02:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
|at=
is an in-source location parameter. The in-source location parameters supported by {{
cite av media}}
are |minutes=
and |time=
. Using either of those as a replacement for |at=
is semantically incorrect.{{cite av media |section=Bonus Feature Title |title=Multi-Disc Set Title |publisher=Publisher |time=01:23:30}}
Should the documentation for, e.g., |pages=
, |quote-pages=
, recommend use of {{
page range}} or subst:page range when page numbers contain hyphens, e.g., |pages={{page-range|A-3|A-5}}
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
page range}}
is not required. But... cs1|2 cannot modify wikisource so for those editors who care, using {{page range}}
will (once subst'd) produce the proper format in wikisource. Because {{page range}}
auto substs (even inside <ref>...</ref>
tags), the embedded template complicationisn't much of a complication because auto-substing usually occurs within an hour after the edit is saved.
{{page range}}
or don't. Recommend it or don't.I am working on a request from another user at
WP:AWBREQ to add author links to citation templates. The
first edit I did on the AWB run ended up with, I believe, 159 {{
cite web}}
templates for the given author. My
regex of course identifies each of those templates for adding in the author link, and I dutifully included the author link in all of them as per the request. But before I do this on the hundreds of pages where this is germane, I was wondering whether we are bound to the MOS guide to only link the first instance in an article, or whether that does not apply to references as well.
TLDR: Should I add author-link to every citation of a given author, or only the first reference on the page? Van Isaac, GHTV cont WpWS 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
|title=
, then find other instances of that title that are missing an author-link and add it there. With some sanity error checks. Could be fully automated. --
Green
C 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)I came across a case where a cite magazine article from
India Today was attributed to an agency (
Indo-Asian News Service) with no other byline. {{
cite magazine}} did not support use of the |agency=
parameter. Should it? —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 14:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
One of the references at The pen is mightier than the sword#Early pre-enlightenment sources is giving "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Date_validation at line 329: attempt to compare string with number." I can't see anything wrong with it from a quick glance. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot, thank you again for your support in the discussion on Module talk:Footnotes. Given what we just discussed there, could you re-visit and examine the revert you did on my edit on Template:Cite journal/doc on 24 March? I now realize I worded the description on my edit very badly/wrongly, and that I should have used {{SfnRef}} in the example. But otherwise what I did on the page, I feel, is basically in line with the result of that talk:Footnotes discussion, and hope you'll see that too, if you revert the revert (with or without saving). If you still stand by your revert, we could discuss further here. If not, we could move to its talk page and discuss how to improve the doc further with my edit as the base. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef
Hello again, Yiba. I've moved the discussion here from my Talk page, so other interested editors may participate if they wish; they are unlikely to find it on my Talk page. In addition, there is a lot of previous discussion at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef about this.
Sorry, I still stand by the revert, or at least, parts of it. My original revert (
diff) was motivated by your removal of the "Staff writers" expression from the |author=
param when there is no author.
However, your edit at Template:Cite journal/doc made numerous other changes, unrelated to the "Staff writers" issue. Logistically speaking, that's unfortunate, as several smaller edits with each one targeting a different issue would've made it easier to adjust/revert only that portion which needed it; with one, large, monolithic edit targeting essentially unrelated issues, it becomes harder to deal with. Perhaps I was lazy reverting the whole thing, but given the length and wide scope of the discussion that resulted afterward at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef that seems somewhat vindicated. In any case, I see that you believe portions of your original edit are valid, and should be added to the documentation of either Template:Cite journal/doc (or to Template:SfnRef/doc—it's not clear to me which). In order not to fall into the same problem of long discussion here targeting unrelated or loosely related issues, I propose that we use subsections for each separate topic area of your original edit that you wish to retain. I'll start, right after this message, and I hope you list your issues in one subsection each, so the subtopic discussions remain targeted and on-track. Does that seem reasonable to you? Mathglot ( talk) 18:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|ref=
's only use is in the creation of CITEREFs for use with {{
sfn}}/{{
harv}} templates. As neither of these ideas are correct, it was corrected reverted. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Your edit removed |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
from the doc at
Template:Cite journal/doc explaining what to do when there is no author. I restored that information in the revert, and as that wording suggestion is standard use throughout several of the citation parameters; it should remain here as well for consistency, so I am not prepared to self-revert in order to remove it. If you see an argument for doing so, how would you deal with equivalent wording at all the other templates?
Mathglot (
talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
to an html comment. There is precedent for this in params |type=
, |ref=
, |title-link=
, maybe others, and I think that could be a good solution here as well.
Mathglot (
talk) 19:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
as a better idea, the hidden comment doesn't seem a great idea. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|work=
or equiv.) which narrows it down to a few people at a given org. That's different, for me, then |author=Anon.
which means the person who wrote it chose not to claim credit, and is listed as "Anonymous" in the work, and could be any author anywhere (see
WorldCat usage). Finally, "none" to me means, "I looked hard, and couldn't find it"; i.e. nothing on the title page or cover, web page, or in the html <head> tag author field or any of the usual suspects. But honestly, I don't know if it's reasonable to be able to maintain that level of distinction in a citation template author field. It seems very unlikely someone using a plain-text citation rather than a template would do it, and I don't think the citation templates should be held to a higher standard, just because they are templates.|type=press release
({{
Citation#Title}}), and that is sufficient, imho.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)|author=<!--Not stated-->
as the unknown-author indicator. See
Help:Citation Style 1 § Authors where that is recommended.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
. This is something visible only to editors who look at the wikicode, and not to viewers reading the article. The symbols '<!--
' and '-->
' are comment begin/end delimiters that hide everything between them from viewers. They can be seen by editors editing the page, and it announces (to editors) that, with or without "no byline", we don't have the name of an author.
Mathglot (
talk) 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Recommends use of staff writer names in author= in such casethe documentation doesn't suggest this, it suggests adding a note that there is no author credited author. For the purposes of the mediwiki software the
|author=
parameter is still blank.|ref=
field is not just for {{
sfnref}}, it is also not part of the general template use (as it's only needed for certain situations).|publisher=
or |journal=
name, as this is just misuse of the field. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Thanks. But |author= is listed in the "Most commonly used parameters" for "To cite a journal article with no credited author". It's clear to me I am failing miserably in building a consensus. Here is my last approach for your enjoyment:
Suppose I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and find my areas of experience and knowledge can contribute to improve Wikipedia articles, so I decide to edit one of the poorly written articles called ABC Memory. I knew there was a good sidebar article about ABC Memory on BCD Journal, where I used to work, and use some info from the column on the Wikipedia page. The article was not signed, but I know such short pieces are normally written by a staff writer John Jones. As a Wiki editor, I don't even know what CS1 stands for, but decide to use a commonly used citation format:
{{Sfn |BCD Journal |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |title=ABC Memory |journal=CDF Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
I omitted |author= entry because I know (book) 'authors' are credited, paid, and responsible for what he/she writes, and Jones is not yet a Senior Editor who gets to sign (and paid/responsible for) what he/she writes and publishes. I'm not sure if he actually wrote the piece, but I know for a fact he is a staff writer there. The pair doesn't work.
Then I find the info "To cite a journal article with no credited author" and try:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
but the pair fails to link.
{{Sfn |<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |2020 |page=4 }}
doesn't work.
{{Sfn | |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author= |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal|issue=Spring|date=2020}}
doesn't work. (@
ActivelyDisinterested Blank pair does not link.)
{{Sfn |by-line |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=no by-line |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. I kept trying because I really don't want to name Jones an author. I'm cornered to give in, but:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. (! This pair does not link. A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling |author= . One of the reasons why I think |author= should not be there.)
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=John |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
This pair finally works (mind you, without |ref= and the editor being fully aware Jones is a staff writer without any copyright responsibility), and I publish it thinking "Well, this is what Wikipedia documentation instructed me to do."
John gets sued later because I named him as the source despite my strong preference not to name him the author, and the sidebar column was found to have been written by an outside contributor Mrs.X who obtained the sensitive inside info illegally. Mrs.X has long fled abroad, and BCD Journal ends up paying for the damages and sues me for 90% of it because pageview spiked after my edit and the page attracted 9 times more number of pageviews than their subscription base. You could imagine how 'I' feel about Wikipedia documentation.
To all of you, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. @ Mathglot please don't worry, I will refrain from editing these documentation. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
it's the same as the field being blank.|author=
is a substitute for |last=
and |first=
, so:A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling
|last=
is recommended in short citations and not |author=
, it will still work if you use it properly. For example, this generates #CITEREFJohn_Jones2020 if you place the full author in the Sfn param (not recommended!) and links properly:Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
Some fact.{{Sfn|John Jones|2020|page=4}} === References === {{reflist}} === Bibliography === * {{Cite journal|author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal }} |
|
Apologies if I'm mistaken about something, but should there be Category:CS1 Yue Chinese-language sources (yue) and Category:CS1 Min Nan Chinese-language sources (nan) to match Category:CS1 Chinese-language sources (zh)? See also Category:Articles containing Yue Chinese-language text et al. Remsense 诉 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
|language=nan
are categorized at
N
and articles using |language=yue
are categorized at
Y
.Testing {{
cite report}}, {{
cite tech report}}, and {{
cite thesis}} I find that |number=
, |docket=
, and |id=
are used inconsistently in an undocumented manner. (See also previous related discussion:
Cite report issue parameter not displaying (May 2023).)
In report and thesis, |number=
appears to not be used at all, while |docket=
and |id=
are aliases for an ending bare text in report, and separable parameters in thesis (with the word "Docket" prepended, unlike in report). Meanwhile, |number=
and |id=
are aliases in tech report, also mutually incompatible. Particularly problematic is that |id=
is specified as A unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable
-- this is semantically distinct from all uses of |number=
in CS1, and from what appears to be their
documented metadata.
{{Cite_report |author=Alex |date=May 1999 |docket=DOC 27 |id=Celex 3334 |number=777 |publisher=BYU |title=Tango}}
{{ Cite_report}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Report). BYU. DOC 27.
{{ Cite_thesis}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Thesis). BYU. Docket DOC 27. Celex 3334.
Also, I suggest considering again the suggestion of @
Tcr25: from the linked previous discussion, that instead of outputting report number/docket at the end of the citation, it should follow the title and document type. Currently it outputs after page number, which only makes sense if it's an external catalogue identifier (like |id=
is usually used for) and not, as is often the case with technical reports, splashed across the front page as part of the title.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
, {{
cite tech report}}
, and {{
cite thesis}}
are 'inconsistent'. Each of those templates was created at different dates by different editors:
{{
cite report}}
created 16 June 2008 by Editor
Cg-realms{{
cite tech report}}
created 7 February 2006 by Editor
Tizio{{
cite thesis}}
created 6 November 2009 by Editor
Fifelfoo{{
citation/core}}
; again at different dates and different editors:
{{cite report}}
: 15 February 2015{{cite tech report}}
: 9 November 2013{{cite thesis}}
: 9 November 2013{{citation/core}}
but when I migrated these templates to Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to make the migration more-or-less transparent so differences among them inherited from their individual developmental paths were retained in the module version. No doubt, since those migrations, the individual templates have continued to differ and likely continued to diverge.This question stems from a recent realization that the Visual Editor offers the Citation Style 2 {{ citation}} template as the default citation method. I remember as a new editor not being clear on why {{ cite web}} and {{ citation}} had a different appearance. My first thought was the Visual Editor should autofill "mode=cs1" if it's trying to use {{ citation}} as a quick machine-generated reference. My second thought was, why do we have to specify in each template usage? {{ Use dmy dates}} gives a consistent format to every citation on the page. Can something similar be done with the punctuation format? ({{ use cs1}} & {{ use cs2}}) Rjjiii ( talk) 04:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cs1 config|cs1}}
or {{
cs1 config|cs2}}
|mode=cs2
to keep their formatting and post a {{
please see}} notice on their talk pages so that it would be opt-in.{{cs1 config|cs2}}
to every article with 3:1 ratio of CS2:CS1 templates, I think that could help to frame this as supporting
WP:CITEVAR rather contesting it; a bot adding {{
cs1 config}} to pages where {{
citation}} is the primary style could also function as a way to announce this editors who want CS2, maybe with a link to the RfC and clear instructions on how to auto-CS2 the content they create.clean answerrequires a 'clean' description that clearly states your objective. I am not at all clear on what it is that you are asking.
|author=
parameters with multiple names in them, semicolons are invaluable for denominating a specific author name pair. Commas would hence Suck to then divide authors from whatever comes after.The documentation for {{
Cite AV media notes}} gives examples that use the others=
parameter with the name of an artist or band without providing a value for |author=
or |editor=
. Further, the template documentation makes no mention of the requirement that others=
be only used with primrry editorship or authorship information. However, such usage places articles in the
Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) category. The documentation there says that the others=
can't stand alone.
Which is correct? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
first=
and last=
used in the examples serve as an alias for the |author
parameter? That's not intuitive, as first=
and last=
are multiple parameters, and author=
is singular. And, even if so, the documentation makes no mention of the requirement. --
Mikeblas (
talk) 03:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)|author=
is an alias of |last=
; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § Authors. Even the TemplateData 'documentation' (such as it is) shows that these parameters are aliases of each other; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § TemplateData.|last=
, |author=
, and |others=
is at
Template:Citation Style documentation/author. Remember that the documentation template is used by all cs1|2 templates. If you use VE, consider improving the TemplateData.|others=
.others=
parameter.others=
parameter, or place its value in author=
? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
or other current equivalents. Take
10.000 Nights of Thunder as a prime example of the use of these templates. The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes, or at least not all of them, if even the physical notes specify who the author of the notes are (many, maybe even most, probably don't). The current examples at
Template:Cite AV media notes reflect this use of placing the artist in |others=
and I don't think the documentation there is necessarily wrong to say so.
Template:Cite AV media is better in some ways and worse in others as it suggests that we should add the role some significant person to the media played in the |others=
, but which again does not necessarily line up with the expectations for |author=
.
Izno (
talk) 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes. It's often extremely difficult to find out who wrote the liner notes for a given piece of media; rarely are they explicitly credited somewhere in the text. But without that information, currently the template "considers itself" incompletely filled out. IMHO that's an unreasonable expectation, making the tracking category nothing but noise. That being said, "working around it" by simply crediting the band as the authors turns the citation from incomplete to incorrect, which is not an improvement. If we want the tracking category to go away, we should make the tracking category go away, not corrupt our citations to satisfy its requirements. FeRDNYC ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
author: 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;. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=<!--Not stated-->
as a parameter, because it's exceedingly common for press releases to be published without a credited author.{{
Cite press release|author=<!--Not stated-->|others=something}}
will also trigger inclusion in
Category:CS1 maint: others.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 14:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ cs1 config|name-list-style=vanc}} and cite with non-Latin author generates an error.
Example (added |name-list-style=vanc
to cite to generate error):
{{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (
help)I know translating the author would avoid the error. (There are other work-arounds.) But I believe a specific cite should be able to override a global setting.
User-duck ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|name-list-style=vanc
, |last<n>=
and |first<n>=
must hold names written using the Latin character set.Is it possible to automatically show the volume and issue parameters when first opening it up in the visual editor? And then, perhaps, hide the PMID parameter that does automatically get added; that is more for journals. I do not know of many magazines archived by PubMed. Why? I Ask ( talk) 03:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm citing this paper, which is written by 6 authors on behalf of a wider collaboration. When I cite it in Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome as [1], it generates an etal, per documentation of the collaboration parameter. Is there a way to stop the etal? With vauthors, I get an error if I simply put the collaboration after the author list. Anybody know a way around this?
References
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
vcite2 journal}}
(now a redirect along with the since deleted
Module:ParseVauthors which implemented it) automatically imposed a six name limit. That template was written primarily for use by the WP:MED community.|collaborator=
entirely. If you must include EUROMENE, you can write the template:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Sotzny F, Blanco J, Capelli E, Castro-Marrero J, Steiner S, Murovska M, Scheibenbogen C, ((European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE))) |date=June 2018 |title=Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Evidence for an autoimmune disease |journal=Autoimmunity Reviews |volume=17 |issue=6 |pages=601–609 |doi=10.1016/j.autrev.2018.01.009 |pmid=29635081 |doi-access=free}}
|
collaboration=
says (in part):
etal
is appropriate. When authors write on behalf of a group, the group is not a participant in the writing so should not be listed as a contributor.What is the proper way to indicate that an issue is a supplement? GobsPint ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
If unnumbered, |issue=Suppl
. If numbered, |issue=Suppl. 3
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
rft.part
for use with journal objects so we could (should?) add an appropriate parameter: |supplement=
that would cause the template to render the 'Suppl.' (cs1) or 'suppl.' (cs2) static text as part of the |issue=
rendering. I suppose that the parameter rendering might look like this:
|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=3
→ V (4 Suppl. 3)|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=<title>
→ V (4 Suppl. <title>)|volume=V |supplement=yes
→ V (Suppl) – where yes
is a special keyword; more-or-less equivalent to |issue=Suppl
Hello, the list on the category page includes "email" but does not appear to cause an error. On Politics of Kaliningrad Oblast
protected, email. "Kaliningrad Separatism Again on the Rise".
Keith D ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Like this cite magazine from Maidenhead Locator System:
Tyson, Edmund, N5JTY (January 1989).
"Conversion between geodetic and grid locator systems" (PDF). QST Magazine. Newington, CT:
American Radio Relay League. pp. 29–30, 43. Retrieved 2018-03-09.{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Removing ".pdf" from the link makes the lock small again. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
background-size: contain;
made no difference for me, but disabling padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
set the smaller size. (using monobook skin) —
Jts1882 |
talk 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
does not exist in
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css.In Minkowski inequality, the {{ sfn}} footnote to Bahouri, Chemin & Danchin 2011 and the reference generated by the template {{ Bahouri Chemin Danchin Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations 2011}} are together somehow generating a "Harv and Sfn no-target error" categorization (look at the text of the footnote id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBahouriCheminDanchin20114-3" in the source of the generated article) but without generating a script-highlighted error nor any actual problem in harv/sfn link targeting. Does anyone know why this error occurs and whether there is something to do (hopefully without having to subst the citation template) to make it go away? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)