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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
The Wikipedia Library's recommended citations often request that {{ open access}} ( ) be appended at the end of the citation. Is there a reason why this (and {{ closed access}} ) isn't baked into the citation template itself? I would think the metadata alone would be worthwhile. czar 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
open access}}
and {{
closed access}}
templates are just pictures. Are you looking for some sort of parameter support?|url-free=
/|doi-free=
(and similar for the other identifiers), which could either be set to yes/no, or used instead of |url=
/|doi=
? This when a free link is identified, then it can be used to automatically populate the url field, like
PMC
{{{1}}} already does.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 02:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
|via=
?|open=y
) could work, or Headbomb's solution works too—the idea is just to get the lock icon at the end of the citation so users don't need to add a template outside the main one. TWL recommends the db identifiers when they fit, I believe, and they appear to use {{
via}} (separate template) sometimes and |via=
in others. I use the latter. Are you suggesting that certain ISSNs automatically generate the lock icon in their citations? As for orange, after a quick search, I have no idea, but it is the standard icon.
czar 15:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
that only uses |url=
and |title=
? What about {{
cite web}}
?Does this icon only apply to TWL-partnered databases?If all external links in §References are marked with little orange locks, no real usable information is conveyed.
|url=
and |title=
(out of laziness), I doubt the OA icon will be the third used (over |work=
, etc.)
czar 14:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
is it appropriate to apply the oa icon to aYes, I'd say. It's for any link the editor wants to specify as open. It isn't restricted to DOI or identifier use. If the New Yorker made its pre-1990 archives publicly available, I'd want to note that they were open access. (Also I didn't mean that you made that statement re: ISSNs—I was just affirming it as a neat possibility, if it could be implemented.) czar 22:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC){{ cite journal}}
that only uses|url=
and|title=
? What about{{ cite web}}
?
{{
cite journal}}
from
Apatosaurus with all links to the source text marked:
|oa-icon=<parameter>
<parameter>
is one of only a handful of parameter names that can be associated with the lock: doi, jstor, pmc. Writing |oa-icon=doi
would append the identifier to the doi external link:
Thinking a bit upon my idea, here's a few ways my option could work, if it's implemented. If we have a free identifier, then the url is automatically generated from it. For arxiv (always free, but not official version), bibcode (sometimes free), and doi (sometimes free), we would have something like this. I'm assuming that the doi is free, but the bibcode isn't.
{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |year=2012 |title=Awesome stuff is awesome |journal=Journal of Stuff |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3-4 |arxiv=1001.1001 |bibcode=2012JStuf...1....3S |doi-free=10.1234/0123456789}}
Or alternatively
{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |year=2012 |title=Awesome stuff is awesome |journal=Journal of Stuff |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3-4 |arxiv=1001.1001 |bibcode=2012JStuf...1....3S |doi=10.1234/0123456789 |doi-free=yes}}
Option A) Autogenerate, mark everything that is open access.
Option B) Autogenerate, and only mark the link.
Option C) Autogenerate, and only mark the identifiers.
Obviously a hierarchy of identifiers should be established, with some always generating links (pmc), others only when their foobar-free version is declared (bibcode, doi), and others disallowed (e.g. issn/isbn) because they will never point to a free version. This hierarchy should be customizable, at least in the case of cite arxiv, where an autogenerated link from |arxiv=
is desirable while it would not be desirable in others.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 15:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
In the general case, I would be somewhat concerned with adding these links to e.g. DOI, because while the identifier is permanent, the redirected website may not be, and the requirements for access to documents at a changed website may make a document unavailable to open access. -- Izno ( talk) 16:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the link target of a doi may depend on where you access it from. So some people may see an open access version while others with access to a subscription-only collection may see it there instead. So I think decorating doi's with temporary and contingent information may be a mistake, and goes against the very purpose of identifying things by dois. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Going to ping @ DGG: for his input here. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
In
MOS:DATERANGE 1011–922 BC
is given as an example of a legitimate range. There was a discussion in
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6#Time to show date error messages?, which is self explanatory. The archived talk section ends with:
I am running an AWB script and in passing I came across an article ( Aristotle) in which there is a citation:
{{cite web | last =Cicero | first =Marcus Tullius | title =flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles | work =Academica Priora | date =106–43 BC | url = http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/9/7/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm#BkII_119 | accessdate =25 January 2007}}
It seems to me that as the date given meets the requirements of MOS:DATERANGE one of three things ought to be done. Add code to parse BC dates correctly, or BC dates ought to be silently ignored and not reported as an error, or the advise given by Jonesey95 should be added to the CS1/CS2 documentation. I don't mind which approach is adopted, but it is out of order to flag an error on a correctly formatted (MOS compliant) date without an explanation.-- PBS ( talk) 13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Add code to parse BC dates correctly, or BC dates ought to be silently ignored and not reported as an error, or the advise given by Jonesey95 should be added to the CS1/CS2 documentation. Not reporting the error (which doesn't mean it is ignored) seems like the least confusing/cumbersome option at present. It is not incompatible with adding proper advice to the doc. 65.88.88.69 ( talk) 18:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. In
this edit the article creator acknowledges the article was compiled by cutting and pasting from other Wikipedia articles without reading the citations. My current proposal is to delete the article for lack of sources. But if instead editors step forward to read and verify the sources, those editors could mark the sources they read with |accessdate=
. Then other editors could keep track of which sources have been verified, and which have not.
The presence of accessdate parameters is also useful in detecting this approach to creating an article in the first place; if the access dates are earlier than the creation date of the article, that raises a red flag. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
Verify source}}
, that is better suited. Mark each reference in the article under discussion. As each reference is checked, remove the tag. By this means, the task that needs to be accomplished is obvious to editors not familiar with the AfD. This method does not require a change at cs1|2.Mentioning the printing batch of a work has come out of fashion in recent years, but many older books mention both, an edition and a printing, and it may be even important to mention both since simple fixes of typographical errors and other slight corrections were often more or less "silently" incorporated into newer print runs, without marking this as a new edition. At present, both information would have to be put into the |edition=
free-flow parameter, but this results in inconsistent formatting and more difficult (automatic) parsing, therefore a separate parameter |printing=
appears beneficial to me. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 18:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
because of the wide variety of ways publishers may describe their editions. Automatic parsing would just be a stumbling stone to mess up editors.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 19:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|printing=
parameter, not about adding any automatic parsing.|edition=
is and |printing=
should be free-flow parameters accepting any text. At most, I would add a special case for the case where the value given is a single numerical character ("1".."9"), as this cannot conflict with any other reasonable free-flow text (even not with other short forms like "3rd" or "3." discussed in a thread further above).|edition=
isn't parsed, then printing information can be included in the edition parameter.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 20:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
parameter (it would be way too complicated for the template to sort it out). However, I also don't propose to put printing information into the |edition=
parameter. While in lack of a proper parameter for this, |edition=
might be the next-best place to put printing information, I don't think it is wise to mix together semantically separate information, this just creates the "mess" (non-standardized and difficult to parse text) you are complaining about. Editions and printings are different properties of a work, therefore we should have different parameters for them, in particular as the |edition=
parameter automatically adds "(? ed.)", which clearly does not work for printings.|edition=
(and |printing=
), both parameters should, of course, (continue to) accept any free-flow text and pass it along unaltered. So, I don't see how my proposal could in any way get in the way of your or another editor's edit style.I would like to repeat my proposal to add a parameter for print runs like |printing=
. To illustrate the fact, why it may sometimes useful/necessary to indicate a particular printing in addition to an edition, the well-known Handbook of mathematical functions by
Abramowitz and Stegun was published in 1964 and saw only a single edition (not counting various reprint editions), but went through many printings with a large and growing number of corrections, so, if this work is used to source a formula it might be necessary to indicate the exact print run. Since |edition=
automatically appends "ed.", it is difficult to put printing information into the |edition=
parameter; it also violates the principle of trying not to combine various information into a single parameter. The idea is to display the contents of the optional |printing=
free-flow parameter, if present, following the contents of the |edition=
parameter (and separated by a comma), as in this example:
The parameter may also be convenient to indicate reprints / facsimilies in a more organized way, as in this example:
If the contents of the |edition=
parameter is put into meta-data and there is no meta-data entry for printing information, the whole string "1st ed., 9th reprint with additional corrections of 10th original printing with corrections" rather than only "1st ed." should be put into the meta data, so no information gets lost in the transition, regardless of how the information is given in our template.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
parameter, as I don't know how it's tracked elsewhere, I think an easy workaround to accommodate the "ed." suffix would be to precede the edition number with print run information, rather than trying to place it after the edition number:{{cite book |first1=Milton |last1=Abramowitz |first2=Irena A. |last2=Stegun |title=Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables |publisher=United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards |location=Washington D.C. |edition=10th printing with corrections; 1st |lccn=64-60036 |year=December 1972 |orig-year=June 1964 |series=Applied Mathematics Series 55}}
yields:{{cite book |first1=Milton |last1=Abramowitz |first2=Irena A. |last2=Stegun |title=Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables |isbn=978-0-486-61272-0 |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |edition=9th reprint with additional corrections of 10th original printing with corrections; 1st |lccn=65-12253 |year=2005 |orig-year=1965 |series=Applied Mathematics Series 55}}
yields:|orig-year=
, |series=
, nor |lccn=
are parameters that are included in any of the citation tools to my knowledge.I just found this template:
{{cite news |ref={{sfnRef|The Jakarta Post, 2002}} |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=June 5, 2002 |title=Medan loses its historical buildings |url=http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/06/05/medan-loses-its-historical-buildings.html |dead-url= |newspaper=The Jakarta Post |location=Jakarta |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/save/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/06/05/medan-loses-its-historical-buildings.html |archive-date=May 3, 2016 |access-date=May 3, 2016 }}
The May archive and access dates were causing error messages. When I looked at fixing them, I clicked on the citation's title but landed on a page that didn't look like a standard archived page: the header along the top that I usually see was missing. Assuming that I had misclicked, I backtracked and tried again landing in the same place.
Looking at the |archive-url=
again, I noticed the 'save' in the path. I wonder then, does that cause archive.org to save a copy of the target url? If it does, we should not be making that kind of link active in cs1|2 templates.
I propose then, to create a test for the content of |archive-url=
that looks for |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/save/
(and also https:...) When found, the module will emit an error message and disable the link.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
|archive-url=
as it is a moving target, whilst |archive-date=
specifies a specific date. If this was meant as an example, it should be replaced by "/web/20160503/".|url=
contains a well-formed link and it finds an |archive-url=
containing either only "http[s]://web.archive.org/" (that is, an incomplete link indicating intended usage of archive.org), or a link starting with "http[s]://web.archive.org/save/", or - if we assume archive.org is our default archiving service - a |archive-url=
parameter with empty content "", the template could display its error message but additionally provide a number of dynamically constructed links to archive.org to help editors select an existing snapshot link from archive.org or create a new snapshot:
|archive-date=
contains a parseable date the template could convert it into ISO 8601 format (without separators) and implant it in the url as well:
|archive-url=
parameter, and use the error message then displayed in edit preview as a tool to create and/or select a snapshot and date then to be stuffed into the |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters before saving their contribution.https://web.archive.org/web/1/...
doesn't always select the oldest snapshot:
|archive-date=
. That may not be the right thing to do because, apparently, archive.org will select the most recent snapshot from that date which may be wrong. This link shows that the last snapshot taken on 2016-03-05 was at 23:56:38:
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: save command (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)|archive-url=
links to snapshots should be non-ambiguous. Yes, they should use all digits provided by archive.org. I never stated anything different for the normal rendering; those suggested links were only meant as part of the error message (that is, semantically outside normal reader context).|archive-date=
is present, this should be stuffed into <iso date> (with the count of digits depending on what was provided by |archive-date=
). The pending * causes archive.org not to select the nearest snapshot but to show all snapshots matching <iso date>. The oldest and newest snapshots (optionally narrowed down by <iso date>) are available from archive.org's list, so we don't need direct links. If the page wasn't archived at all, archive.org will display the dialogue to save the current page (similar to /save/). This doesn't cover the case of saving a new snapshot for pages of which some older snapshots exist already, but it would still be helpful in the majority of other cases, whilst not disturbing the error message display much.|archive-url=
cause an error message when it is the save command url and when the timestamp is not 14 digits:
I haven't looked at the sandbox, Trappist, but have you included uses of url=//web.archive.org/web/...
? For quite some time, there was an effort to make all web.archive.org
urls relative, as they weren't accessible in countries blocking https. It's now a moot point, since both Wikipedia and the Internet Archive have adopted secure protocols, but there may be leftovers, although I have no idea how many.
As for making it easier for editors to save a cited page or find an archive of it, there are handy tools available at Help:Using the Wayback Machine#JavaScript bookmarklet that allow editors to add scripts to their toolbars that make both tasks simple. Where should we propose that these archiving tools be added to citation tools; I don't think it's a function of the citation templates but also wonder if there's some help that could be given via the templates? Evidently the availability of these scripts is not well-known; nor is proactive archiving of sites much promoted, to our detriment, I think. So, is there a way that the templates can help?
— D'Ranged 1 | VTalk : 19:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
|archive-url=
parameter. If the link target hasn't been archived at all but exists in the live net, archive.org will ask the user if s/he wants to save a snapshot. If the link is invalid and does not exist in the live net, archive.org will ask if the user wants to broaden the scope to other snapshots at the target site. So, this trivial enhancement would already make it much easier for editors to select the desired snapshot and fix an error. In contrast to providing "/save/" links, there is no risk for abuse, as archive.org will only ask to save snapshots if no snapshots exist (so it will happen only once) and it will not save snapshots without explicit confirmation by the user, anyway (whereas "/save/" saves snapshots without user confirmation).|url=
parameter to the |archive-url=
parameter if the template detects that the given |archive-url=
does not contain a link target already. If the timestamp is not present at all, but |archive-date=
is given, it would use the contents of |archive-date=
to create an incomplete timestamp to be implanted into the resulting check url link. The extension would still insert the "*" as described further above.|archive-url=
http://web.archive.org/web/
(and optionally some form of |archive-date=
) to the citation template, invoke edit preview, and click on the "auto-completed" check link in the resulting error message in order to select the proper snapshot at archive.org and copy the resulting url back into the |archive-url=
parameter before saving their contribution. It would thereby making it trivially easy to select and/or create archive snapshots without external tools - while the "user interface" would remain completely unobtrusive (a single link in an error message typically displayed only in preview mode) and allow no abuse at all.When using {{
harvnb}}
within the |in=
parameter of {{
cite book}}
, the page is incorrectly appended following the word "and", while there should be just a comma. Outside {{
cite book}}
it works fine. See these examples:
{{harvnb|DNC|2016|pages=100–159}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |in=
ignored (
help)Unfortunately I'm not enough into the whole CS1 module to find the bug, but am hopeful someone else does. Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 18:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
|in=
is an alias of the parameter |language=
.{{
harvnb}}
parameter doesn't belong inside {{
cite book}}
. Instead, do this:
{{cite book |last=Clinton |first=Hillary |year=2016 |title=Who would trust a secret Neocon? |ref={{sfnref|DNC|2016}}}}
|ref=harv
is the proper way to create a link from a shortened form to the full citation. It can be confusing to the reader to have differing author-date combinations for the two, which is why a non-"harv" value for |ref=
is recommended when the author is unknown or cannot be determined. It may be that you are trying to cite a work (Clinton) that was included in another work (DNC). There are native template parameters that can handle these situations.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)In the citation (from Alphabet (formal languages))
By an alphabet we mean a nonempty set of symbols.
I see the red error text "delete character in |quote= at position 20 (help)" at the end of the citation. Position 20 of the quote is the math formula, which should not be deleted (it is an essential part of the quote), and formatting it as a math formula is necessary in order to accurately convey the quote (the fact that it is shown as a script font is a meaningful piece of mathematical notation and changing the font would change the meaning). So the error message is itself erroneous. In addition this is putting the article into the "CS1 errors: invisible characters" error category. I assume this is something to do with the wikimedia math formatting, since I don't think this passage actually has any invisible characters (I tried copying and pasting into an editor that would show me the fnords, and then back to here again, but this made no change, and I get the same behavior whenever I have math in a quote even when I type it myself with no invisible characters). The same problem also happens with math in titles; see e.g. two examples in squared triangular number. Can this be fixed, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This may be related to recent changes to how wikimedia handles math, in order to fix https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T103269 — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
<gallery>...</gallery>
, <math>...</math>
, <nowiki>...</nowiki>
, <pre>...</pre>
, and <ref>...</ref>
tags with strip markers. The first and last characters in a stripmarker are
delete characters. The error message identifies the first delete character in the strip marker. Here is a highly simplified version of your citation as the module renders it for further processing by MediaWiki:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000002A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Mathematical Logic''. <q>By an ''alphabet'' '"`UNIQ--math-00000029-QINU`"' we mean a nonempty set of ''symbols''.</q></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Mathematical+Logic&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+13" class="Z3988"></span>
''alphabet''
(the last part of the italic markup) to the 'w' in we
and paste it into the green box a this
unicode decoder. Click the 'Convert' button and look at the content of the 'Percent encoding for URIs' box. You should see something like this:
%20%7F%27%22%60UNIQ--math-00000006-QINU%60%22%27%7F%20
%20%7FUNIQ--math-00000006-QINU%7F%20
<math>...</math>
tags. The issue is fixed in the sandbox:
By an alphabet we mean a nonempty set of symbols.
Ha! That's a cite and quote I added. Small world. Jason Quinn ( talk) 17:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I vaguely remember seeing a template to cite software, but can't find it. The key thing that seems missing is a parameter to give the version number, which is often critical for software. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
|edition=v. xx.xx
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 20:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
. Citation includes |version=
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed a typo in the "Template:Cite web" article when I was reading it for help. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be requesting edits, but I'd thought I'd let anyone who is able to edit the article know about the typo.
The typo is right under the "Choosing between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}" subheading. Currently, it states, "Before 2014, editors needed to decided whether to use {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} based on their features." The word "decided" should be changed to "decide" no? 104.10.252.77 ( talk) 04:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite book has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Cite book" template misses any suitable parameter for books that uses the Swedish LIBRIS system. These codes looks like 2219566. My suggestion is a parameter in accordance with the MARC Code for the Swedish Union Catalog "selibr". Ie .. Cite book | selibr=2219566 Ferrofield ( talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
misses any suitable parameter for books that uses the Swedish LIBRIS system?
{{
LIBRIS}}
and 246 pages that use the libris url (
insource:http://libris.kb.se/bib/
).Is there any parameter that can harbor free text? Ferrofield ( talk) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
|id=
|id={{LIBRIS|2219566}}
.
Imzadi 1979
→ 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Where should I ask about which template to use if it is not clear from the documentation in the article? I'm specifically interested in how to cite a regulatory agencies FAQ's and other published opinions. I have seen these variations (the first four are for the exact same source):
References
I prefer style #1 and #2's order, because it makes clear the author is the World Health Organization, and is consistent with MLA's style here, but I found no template for it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
|publisher=World Health Organization
with |author=World Health Organization
in {{
cite web}}.
[1]
Boghog (
talk) 07:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)References
For an individual page on a Web site, list the author or alias if known, followed by the information covered above for entire Web sites. Remember to use n.p. if no publisher name is available and n.d. if no publishing date is given.where the information above is
Editor, author, or compiler name (if available). Name of Site. Version number. Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site (sponsor or publisher), date of resource creation (if available). Medium of publication. Date of access.
--
Izno (
talk) 11:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised this is not more straightforward and established, given how common government documents must be in citations. I will agree with you that Wikipedia citations are not MLA, especially since MLA does not even require a URL. And I won't contest the guidelines for proper use of this or the other templates are without more information. My feeling is the templates support the use of citations rather than dictate what form the citations should take in the final product. So, as in my original question, perhaps this is just the wrong template to use for producing the correct citation form.
The definition of "author" and "publisher" is not so straightforward, without further evidence of an established definition on Wikipedia. Part of the reason I have been inclined to the form with Government Agency first (whether by using a template or otherwise) is because, unlike a book, a journal article, or conference presentation, the agency is taking responsibility for it, not whatever specific persons worked on preparing it. In fact, those who prepared the first version of the FAQ above might have been fired or reassigned and someone else became responsible for it--but these things are not transparent to the readers--by design. The agency often takes responsibility and credit for the document, not the author(s). That's one of the reasons the document has more authority and weight than other sources. So, it makes sense to me to put that first, rather than have the first thing be the title, which could be authored by anyone. So, I tend to agree with MLA that the author is the agency, even though this does not meet our normal understanding of an author.
As regards to publisher, this is not so straightforward either. My understanding of publisher is an entity like Random House or the Government Printing Office. These entities are somewhat independent of the author of the documents. If you look at some of the MLA references I gave you can see that they distinguish this [3]:
The U.S. Congress is the author and the GPO is the publisher. This is less clear for documents that are self-published on the web, including the FAQ I presented.
I would like to bring this issue to the appropriate forum for dealing with standardization of Wiki-references, assuming we have one. After reviewing the MLA guidelines at the various universities, I am more firm in my belief that it makes more sense for us to follow MLA in putting the agency name first--as the "author"--than when I first wrote the post. Yet, I might agree that using an agency for author with this template may be a bad idea based on whatever assumptions the template has about the form of authors. I would like to know where to get the form I am suggesting confirmed, and how to use a template--if it exists--to accomplish the goal of getting it to produce as the end product with government agency first, as "author" and not misuse the template. I do think it is better to use a template whenever possible so our bots can review and check the citations, etc., which is why I came here rather than just doing the citation by hand in the form that I think is best. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line-->
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 20:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
[A]rticles without a by-line in news sources are considered as fully backed by the publishersays nothing about opinion. The New York Times commonly did not attribute articles to a particular author: example. No doubt other newspapers did, and perhaps still do, the same.
|author=
gets the author; |publisher=
gets the publisher, |date=
gets a date, etc. Beneath the bonnet, these parameters and their data are made available as metadata to reference management tools. It is important that that information be correct.|author=
organizational citation when the cited source, such as a committee report, specifically names an official body or a sub-unit of the publisher as the collective author of the work, e.g. |author=Commission on Headphone Safety
or |author=Rules Sub-committee
.|author=
avoid citations like {{
cite news|work=Weekday Times|author=Weekday Times editors|title=...}}
, unless the article is on a field in which the majority of professional journals covering that field use such a citation style.FAO/WHO. 2000. Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Geneva, Switzerland. 29 May-2 June 2000 (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/gmreport.pdf; accessed March 2004)
In playing around with the code to support |dead-url=usurped no archive
, I discovered that the styling used for the bad url error message is being added twice:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation web cs1">[http//www.exampl.com "Title"].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%2F%2Fwww.exampl.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+13" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite web|cite web]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code> value ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_url|help]])</span>
I have fixed that with a minor change to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004D-QINU`"'<cite class="citation web cs1">[http//www.exampl.com "Title"].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%2F%2Fwww.exampl.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+13" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite web|cite web]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code> value ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_url|help]])</span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Cite magazine}} doesn't get a mention on the help page itself and the {{Cite journal}} use description includes magazines. Does this need updating or is there a reason? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 19:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
to the table and tweaked |work=
to include it.There are some editors who say archiveurl
should not be used. Archive URL's should be placed directly in the url
argument replacing the original URL. There is an
open RfC on this question. --
Green
C 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
vs. |archive-date=
output.Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book|title=Title|url=http://dummy-url.com|archive-url=http://archive-of-dummy-url.com|access-date=2016|archive-date=2016}} |
Title. Archived from
the original on 2016. Retrieved 2016. |
Should they both render the same? (Either with or without "on" before the date). 72.43.99.130 ( talk) 17:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
The Wikipedia Library's recommended citations often request that {{ open access}} ( ) be appended at the end of the citation. Is there a reason why this (and {{ closed access}} ) isn't baked into the citation template itself? I would think the metadata alone would be worthwhile. czar 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
open access}}
and {{
closed access}}
templates are just pictures. Are you looking for some sort of parameter support?|url-free=
/|doi-free=
(and similar for the other identifiers), which could either be set to yes/no, or used instead of |url=
/|doi=
? This when a free link is identified, then it can be used to automatically populate the url field, like
PMC
{{{1}}} already does.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 02:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
|via=
?|open=y
) could work, or Headbomb's solution works too—the idea is just to get the lock icon at the end of the citation so users don't need to add a template outside the main one. TWL recommends the db identifiers when they fit, I believe, and they appear to use {{
via}} (separate template) sometimes and |via=
in others. I use the latter. Are you suggesting that certain ISSNs automatically generate the lock icon in their citations? As for orange, after a quick search, I have no idea, but it is the standard icon.
czar 15:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
that only uses |url=
and |title=
? What about {{
cite web}}
?Does this icon only apply to TWL-partnered databases?If all external links in §References are marked with little orange locks, no real usable information is conveyed.
|url=
and |title=
(out of laziness), I doubt the OA icon will be the third used (over |work=
, etc.)
czar 14:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
is it appropriate to apply the oa icon to aYes, I'd say. It's for any link the editor wants to specify as open. It isn't restricted to DOI or identifier use. If the New Yorker made its pre-1990 archives publicly available, I'd want to note that they were open access. (Also I didn't mean that you made that statement re: ISSNs—I was just affirming it as a neat possibility, if it could be implemented.) czar 22:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC){{ cite journal}}
that only uses|url=
and|title=
? What about{{ cite web}}
?
{{
cite journal}}
from
Apatosaurus with all links to the source text marked:
|oa-icon=<parameter>
<parameter>
is one of only a handful of parameter names that can be associated with the lock: doi, jstor, pmc. Writing |oa-icon=doi
would append the identifier to the doi external link:
Thinking a bit upon my idea, here's a few ways my option could work, if it's implemented. If we have a free identifier, then the url is automatically generated from it. For arxiv (always free, but not official version), bibcode (sometimes free), and doi (sometimes free), we would have something like this. I'm assuming that the doi is free, but the bibcode isn't.
{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |year=2012 |title=Awesome stuff is awesome |journal=Journal of Stuff |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3-4 |arxiv=1001.1001 |bibcode=2012JStuf...1....3S |doi-free=10.1234/0123456789}}
Or alternatively
{{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |year=2012 |title=Awesome stuff is awesome |journal=Journal of Stuff |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3-4 |arxiv=1001.1001 |bibcode=2012JStuf...1....3S |doi=10.1234/0123456789 |doi-free=yes}}
Option A) Autogenerate, mark everything that is open access.
Option B) Autogenerate, and only mark the link.
Option C) Autogenerate, and only mark the identifiers.
Obviously a hierarchy of identifiers should be established, with some always generating links (pmc), others only when their foobar-free version is declared (bibcode, doi), and others disallowed (e.g. issn/isbn) because they will never point to a free version. This hierarchy should be customizable, at least in the case of cite arxiv, where an autogenerated link from |arxiv=
is desirable while it would not be desirable in others.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 15:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
In the general case, I would be somewhat concerned with adding these links to e.g. DOI, because while the identifier is permanent, the redirected website may not be, and the requirements for access to documents at a changed website may make a document unavailable to open access. -- Izno ( talk) 16:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the link target of a doi may depend on where you access it from. So some people may see an open access version while others with access to a subscription-only collection may see it there instead. So I think decorating doi's with temporary and contingent information may be a mistake, and goes against the very purpose of identifying things by dois. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Going to ping @ DGG: for his input here. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
In
MOS:DATERANGE 1011–922 BC
is given as an example of a legitimate range. There was a discussion in
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6#Time to show date error messages?, which is self explanatory. The archived talk section ends with:
I am running an AWB script and in passing I came across an article ( Aristotle) in which there is a citation:
{{cite web | last =Cicero | first =Marcus Tullius | title =flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles | work =Academica Priora | date =106–43 BC | url = http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/9/7/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm#BkII_119 | accessdate =25 January 2007}}
It seems to me that as the date given meets the requirements of MOS:DATERANGE one of three things ought to be done. Add code to parse BC dates correctly, or BC dates ought to be silently ignored and not reported as an error, or the advise given by Jonesey95 should be added to the CS1/CS2 documentation. I don't mind which approach is adopted, but it is out of order to flag an error on a correctly formatted (MOS compliant) date without an explanation.-- PBS ( talk) 13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Add code to parse BC dates correctly, or BC dates ought to be silently ignored and not reported as an error, or the advise given by Jonesey95 should be added to the CS1/CS2 documentation. Not reporting the error (which doesn't mean it is ignored) seems like the least confusing/cumbersome option at present. It is not incompatible with adding proper advice to the doc. 65.88.88.69 ( talk) 18:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. In
this edit the article creator acknowledges the article was compiled by cutting and pasting from other Wikipedia articles without reading the citations. My current proposal is to delete the article for lack of sources. But if instead editors step forward to read and verify the sources, those editors could mark the sources they read with |accessdate=
. Then other editors could keep track of which sources have been verified, and which have not.
The presence of accessdate parameters is also useful in detecting this approach to creating an article in the first place; if the access dates are earlier than the creation date of the article, that raises a red flag. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
Verify source}}
, that is better suited. Mark each reference in the article under discussion. As each reference is checked, remove the tag. By this means, the task that needs to be accomplished is obvious to editors not familiar with the AfD. This method does not require a change at cs1|2.Mentioning the printing batch of a work has come out of fashion in recent years, but many older books mention both, an edition and a printing, and it may be even important to mention both since simple fixes of typographical errors and other slight corrections were often more or less "silently" incorporated into newer print runs, without marking this as a new edition. At present, both information would have to be put into the |edition=
free-flow parameter, but this results in inconsistent formatting and more difficult (automatic) parsing, therefore a separate parameter |printing=
appears beneficial to me. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 18:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
because of the wide variety of ways publishers may describe their editions. Automatic parsing would just be a stumbling stone to mess up editors.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 19:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|printing=
parameter, not about adding any automatic parsing.|edition=
is and |printing=
should be free-flow parameters accepting any text. At most, I would add a special case for the case where the value given is a single numerical character ("1".."9"), as this cannot conflict with any other reasonable free-flow text (even not with other short forms like "3rd" or "3." discussed in a thread further above).|edition=
isn't parsed, then printing information can be included in the edition parameter.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 20:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
parameter (it would be way too complicated for the template to sort it out). However, I also don't propose to put printing information into the |edition=
parameter. While in lack of a proper parameter for this, |edition=
might be the next-best place to put printing information, I don't think it is wise to mix together semantically separate information, this just creates the "mess" (non-standardized and difficult to parse text) you are complaining about. Editions and printings are different properties of a work, therefore we should have different parameters for them, in particular as the |edition=
parameter automatically adds "(? ed.)", which clearly does not work for printings.|edition=
(and |printing=
), both parameters should, of course, (continue to) accept any free-flow text and pass it along unaltered. So, I don't see how my proposal could in any way get in the way of your or another editor's edit style.I would like to repeat my proposal to add a parameter for print runs like |printing=
. To illustrate the fact, why it may sometimes useful/necessary to indicate a particular printing in addition to an edition, the well-known Handbook of mathematical functions by
Abramowitz and Stegun was published in 1964 and saw only a single edition (not counting various reprint editions), but went through many printings with a large and growing number of corrections, so, if this work is used to source a formula it might be necessary to indicate the exact print run. Since |edition=
automatically appends "ed.", it is difficult to put printing information into the |edition=
parameter; it also violates the principle of trying not to combine various information into a single parameter. The idea is to display the contents of the optional |printing=
free-flow parameter, if present, following the contents of the |edition=
parameter (and separated by a comma), as in this example:
The parameter may also be convenient to indicate reprints / facsimilies in a more organized way, as in this example:
If the contents of the |edition=
parameter is put into meta-data and there is no meta-data entry for printing information, the whole string "1st ed., 9th reprint with additional corrections of 10th original printing with corrections" rather than only "1st ed." should be put into the meta data, so no information gets lost in the transition, regardless of how the information is given in our template.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 15:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
parameter, as I don't know how it's tracked elsewhere, I think an easy workaround to accommodate the "ed." suffix would be to precede the edition number with print run information, rather than trying to place it after the edition number:{{cite book |first1=Milton |last1=Abramowitz |first2=Irena A. |last2=Stegun |title=Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables |publisher=United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards |location=Washington D.C. |edition=10th printing with corrections; 1st |lccn=64-60036 |year=December 1972 |orig-year=June 1964 |series=Applied Mathematics Series 55}}
yields:{{cite book |first1=Milton |last1=Abramowitz |first2=Irena A. |last2=Stegun |title=Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables |isbn=978-0-486-61272-0 |publisher=Dover Publications |location=New York |edition=9th reprint with additional corrections of 10th original printing with corrections; 1st |lccn=65-12253 |year=2005 |orig-year=1965 |series=Applied Mathematics Series 55}}
yields:|orig-year=
, |series=
, nor |lccn=
are parameters that are included in any of the citation tools to my knowledge.I just found this template:
{{cite news |ref={{sfnRef|The Jakarta Post, 2002}} |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=June 5, 2002 |title=Medan loses its historical buildings |url=http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/06/05/medan-loses-its-historical-buildings.html |dead-url= |newspaper=The Jakarta Post |location=Jakarta |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/save/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/06/05/medan-loses-its-historical-buildings.html |archive-date=May 3, 2016 |access-date=May 3, 2016 }}
The May archive and access dates were causing error messages. When I looked at fixing them, I clicked on the citation's title but landed on a page that didn't look like a standard archived page: the header along the top that I usually see was missing. Assuming that I had misclicked, I backtracked and tried again landing in the same place.
Looking at the |archive-url=
again, I noticed the 'save' in the path. I wonder then, does that cause archive.org to save a copy of the target url? If it does, we should not be making that kind of link active in cs1|2 templates.
I propose then, to create a test for the content of |archive-url=
that looks for |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/save/
(and also https:...) When found, the module will emit an error message and disable the link.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
|archive-url=
as it is a moving target, whilst |archive-date=
specifies a specific date. If this was meant as an example, it should be replaced by "/web/20160503/".|url=
contains a well-formed link and it finds an |archive-url=
containing either only "http[s]://web.archive.org/" (that is, an incomplete link indicating intended usage of archive.org), or a link starting with "http[s]://web.archive.org/save/", or - if we assume archive.org is our default archiving service - a |archive-url=
parameter with empty content "", the template could display its error message but additionally provide a number of dynamically constructed links to archive.org to help editors select an existing snapshot link from archive.org or create a new snapshot:
|archive-date=
contains a parseable date the template could convert it into ISO 8601 format (without separators) and implant it in the url as well:
|archive-url=
parameter, and use the error message then displayed in edit preview as a tool to create and/or select a snapshot and date then to be stuffed into the |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters before saving their contribution.https://web.archive.org/web/1/...
doesn't always select the oldest snapshot:
|archive-date=
. That may not be the right thing to do because, apparently, archive.org will select the most recent snapshot from that date which may be wrong. This link shows that the last snapshot taken on 2016-03-05 was at 23:56:38:
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: save command (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)|archive-url=
links to snapshots should be non-ambiguous. Yes, they should use all digits provided by archive.org. I never stated anything different for the normal rendering; those suggested links were only meant as part of the error message (that is, semantically outside normal reader context).|archive-date=
is present, this should be stuffed into <iso date> (with the count of digits depending on what was provided by |archive-date=
). The pending * causes archive.org not to select the nearest snapshot but to show all snapshots matching <iso date>. The oldest and newest snapshots (optionally narrowed down by <iso date>) are available from archive.org's list, so we don't need direct links. If the page wasn't archived at all, archive.org will display the dialogue to save the current page (similar to /save/). This doesn't cover the case of saving a new snapshot for pages of which some older snapshots exist already, but it would still be helpful in the majority of other cases, whilst not disturbing the error message display much.|archive-url=
cause an error message when it is the save command url and when the timestamp is not 14 digits:
I haven't looked at the sandbox, Trappist, but have you included uses of url=//web.archive.org/web/...
? For quite some time, there was an effort to make all web.archive.org
urls relative, as they weren't accessible in countries blocking https. It's now a moot point, since both Wikipedia and the Internet Archive have adopted secure protocols, but there may be leftovers, although I have no idea how many.
As for making it easier for editors to save a cited page or find an archive of it, there are handy tools available at Help:Using the Wayback Machine#JavaScript bookmarklet that allow editors to add scripts to their toolbars that make both tasks simple. Where should we propose that these archiving tools be added to citation tools; I don't think it's a function of the citation templates but also wonder if there's some help that could be given via the templates? Evidently the availability of these scripts is not well-known; nor is proactive archiving of sites much promoted, to our detriment, I think. So, is there a way that the templates can help?
— D'Ranged 1 | VTalk : 19:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
|archive-url=
parameter. If the link target hasn't been archived at all but exists in the live net, archive.org will ask the user if s/he wants to save a snapshot. If the link is invalid and does not exist in the live net, archive.org will ask if the user wants to broaden the scope to other snapshots at the target site. So, this trivial enhancement would already make it much easier for editors to select the desired snapshot and fix an error. In contrast to providing "/save/" links, there is no risk for abuse, as archive.org will only ask to save snapshots if no snapshots exist (so it will happen only once) and it will not save snapshots without explicit confirmation by the user, anyway (whereas "/save/" saves snapshots without user confirmation).|url=
parameter to the |archive-url=
parameter if the template detects that the given |archive-url=
does not contain a link target already. If the timestamp is not present at all, but |archive-date=
is given, it would use the contents of |archive-date=
to create an incomplete timestamp to be implanted into the resulting check url link. The extension would still insert the "*" as described further above.|archive-url=
http://web.archive.org/web/
(and optionally some form of |archive-date=
) to the citation template, invoke edit preview, and click on the "auto-completed" check link in the resulting error message in order to select the proper snapshot at archive.org and copy the resulting url back into the |archive-url=
parameter before saving their contribution. It would thereby making it trivially easy to select and/or create archive snapshots without external tools - while the "user interface" would remain completely unobtrusive (a single link in an error message typically displayed only in preview mode) and allow no abuse at all.When using {{
harvnb}}
within the |in=
parameter of {{
cite book}}
, the page is incorrectly appended following the word "and", while there should be just a comma. Outside {{
cite book}}
it works fine. See these examples:
{{harvnb|DNC|2016|pages=100–159}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |in=
ignored (
help)Unfortunately I'm not enough into the whole CS1 module to find the bug, but am hopeful someone else does. Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 18:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
|in=
is an alias of the parameter |language=
.{{
harvnb}}
parameter doesn't belong inside {{
cite book}}
. Instead, do this:
{{cite book |last=Clinton |first=Hillary |year=2016 |title=Who would trust a secret Neocon? |ref={{sfnref|DNC|2016}}}}
|ref=harv
is the proper way to create a link from a shortened form to the full citation. It can be confusing to the reader to have differing author-date combinations for the two, which is why a non-"harv" value for |ref=
is recommended when the author is unknown or cannot be determined. It may be that you are trying to cite a work (Clinton) that was included in another work (DNC). There are native template parameters that can handle these situations.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)In the citation (from Alphabet (formal languages))
By an alphabet we mean a nonempty set of symbols.
I see the red error text "delete character in |quote= at position 20 (help)" at the end of the citation. Position 20 of the quote is the math formula, which should not be deleted (it is an essential part of the quote), and formatting it as a math formula is necessary in order to accurately convey the quote (the fact that it is shown as a script font is a meaningful piece of mathematical notation and changing the font would change the meaning). So the error message is itself erroneous. In addition this is putting the article into the "CS1 errors: invisible characters" error category. I assume this is something to do with the wikimedia math formatting, since I don't think this passage actually has any invisible characters (I tried copying and pasting into an editor that would show me the fnords, and then back to here again, but this made no change, and I get the same behavior whenever I have math in a quote even when I type it myself with no invisible characters). The same problem also happens with math in titles; see e.g. two examples in squared triangular number. Can this be fixed, please? — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This may be related to recent changes to how wikimedia handles math, in order to fix https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T103269 — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
<gallery>...</gallery>
, <math>...</math>
, <nowiki>...</nowiki>
, <pre>...</pre>
, and <ref>...</ref>
tags with strip markers. The first and last characters in a stripmarker are
delete characters. The error message identifies the first delete character in the strip marker. Here is a highly simplified version of your citation as the module renders it for further processing by MediaWiki:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000002A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Mathematical Logic''. <q>By an ''alphabet'' '"`UNIQ--math-00000029-QINU`"' we mean a nonempty set of ''symbols''.</q></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Mathematical+Logic&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+13" class="Z3988"></span>
''alphabet''
(the last part of the italic markup) to the 'w' in we
and paste it into the green box a this
unicode decoder. Click the 'Convert' button and look at the content of the 'Percent encoding for URIs' box. You should see something like this:
%20%7F%27%22%60UNIQ--math-00000006-QINU%60%22%27%7F%20
%20%7FUNIQ--math-00000006-QINU%7F%20
<math>...</math>
tags. The issue is fixed in the sandbox:
By an alphabet we mean a nonempty set of symbols.
Ha! That's a cite and quote I added. Small world. Jason Quinn ( talk) 17:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I vaguely remember seeing a template to cite software, but can't find it. The key thing that seems missing is a parameter to give the version number, which is often critical for software. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
|edition=v. xx.xx
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 20:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
|edition=
. Citation includes |version=
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed a typo in the "Template:Cite web" article when I was reading it for help. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be requesting edits, but I'd thought I'd let anyone who is able to edit the article know about the typo.
The typo is right under the "Choosing between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}" subheading. Currently, it states, "Before 2014, editors needed to decided whether to use {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} based on their features." The word "decided" should be changed to "decide" no? 104.10.252.77 ( talk) 04:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite book has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Cite book" template misses any suitable parameter for books that uses the Swedish LIBRIS system. These codes looks like 2219566. My suggestion is a parameter in accordance with the MARC Code for the Swedish Union Catalog "selibr". Ie .. Cite book | selibr=2219566 Ferrofield ( talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
misses any suitable parameter for books that uses the Swedish LIBRIS system?
{{
LIBRIS}}
and 246 pages that use the libris url (
insource:http://libris.kb.se/bib/
).Is there any parameter that can harbor free text? Ferrofield ( talk) 22:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
|id=
|id={{LIBRIS|2219566}}
.
Imzadi 1979
→ 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Where should I ask about which template to use if it is not clear from the documentation in the article? I'm specifically interested in how to cite a regulatory agencies FAQ's and other published opinions. I have seen these variations (the first four are for the exact same source):
References
I prefer style #1 and #2's order, because it makes clear the author is the World Health Organization, and is consistent with MLA's style here, but I found no template for it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
|publisher=World Health Organization
with |author=World Health Organization
in {{
cite web}}.
[1]
Boghog (
talk) 07:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)References
For an individual page on a Web site, list the author or alias if known, followed by the information covered above for entire Web sites. Remember to use n.p. if no publisher name is available and n.d. if no publishing date is given.where the information above is
Editor, author, or compiler name (if available). Name of Site. Version number. Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site (sponsor or publisher), date of resource creation (if available). Medium of publication. Date of access.
--
Izno (
talk) 11:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm surprised this is not more straightforward and established, given how common government documents must be in citations. I will agree with you that Wikipedia citations are not MLA, especially since MLA does not even require a URL. And I won't contest the guidelines for proper use of this or the other templates are without more information. My feeling is the templates support the use of citations rather than dictate what form the citations should take in the final product. So, as in my original question, perhaps this is just the wrong template to use for producing the correct citation form.
The definition of "author" and "publisher" is not so straightforward, without further evidence of an established definition on Wikipedia. Part of the reason I have been inclined to the form with Government Agency first (whether by using a template or otherwise) is because, unlike a book, a journal article, or conference presentation, the agency is taking responsibility for it, not whatever specific persons worked on preparing it. In fact, those who prepared the first version of the FAQ above might have been fired or reassigned and someone else became responsible for it--but these things are not transparent to the readers--by design. The agency often takes responsibility and credit for the document, not the author(s). That's one of the reasons the document has more authority and weight than other sources. So, it makes sense to me to put that first, rather than have the first thing be the title, which could be authored by anyone. So, I tend to agree with MLA that the author is the agency, even though this does not meet our normal understanding of an author.
As regards to publisher, this is not so straightforward either. My understanding of publisher is an entity like Random House or the Government Printing Office. These entities are somewhat independent of the author of the documents. If you look at some of the MLA references I gave you can see that they distinguish this [3]:
The U.S. Congress is the author and the GPO is the publisher. This is less clear for documents that are self-published on the web, including the FAQ I presented.
I would like to bring this issue to the appropriate forum for dealing with standardization of Wiki-references, assuming we have one. After reviewing the MLA guidelines at the various universities, I am more firm in my belief that it makes more sense for us to follow MLA in putting the agency name first--as the "author"--than when I first wrote the post. Yet, I might agree that using an agency for author with this template may be a bad idea based on whatever assumptions the template has about the form of authors. I would like to know where to get the form I am suggesting confirmed, and how to use a template--if it exists--to accomplish the goal of getting it to produce as the end product with government agency first, as "author" and not misuse the template. I do think it is better to use a template whenever possible so our bots can review and check the citations, etc., which is why I came here rather than just doing the citation by hand in the form that I think is best. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line-->
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 20:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
[A]rticles without a by-line in news sources are considered as fully backed by the publishersays nothing about opinion. The New York Times commonly did not attribute articles to a particular author: example. No doubt other newspapers did, and perhaps still do, the same.
|author=
gets the author; |publisher=
gets the publisher, |date=
gets a date, etc. Beneath the bonnet, these parameters and their data are made available as metadata to reference management tools. It is important that that information be correct.|author=
organizational citation when the cited source, such as a committee report, specifically names an official body or a sub-unit of the publisher as the collective author of the work, e.g. |author=Commission on Headphone Safety
or |author=Rules Sub-committee
.|author=
avoid citations like {{
cite news|work=Weekday Times|author=Weekday Times editors|title=...}}
, unless the article is on a field in which the majority of professional journals covering that field use such a citation style.FAO/WHO. 2000. Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Geneva, Switzerland. 29 May-2 June 2000 (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/food/gmreport.pdf; accessed March 2004)
In playing around with the code to support |dead-url=usurped no archive
, I discovered that the styling used for the bad url error message is being added twice:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation web cs1">[http//www.exampl.com "Title"].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%2F%2Fwww.exampl.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+13" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite web|cite web]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code> value ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_url|help]])</span>
I have fixed that with a minor change to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004D-QINU`"'<cite class="citation web cs1">[http//www.exampl.com "Title"].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%2F%2Fwww.exampl.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+13" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite web|cite web]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code> value ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_url|help]])</span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
{{Cite magazine}} doesn't get a mention on the help page itself and the {{Cite journal}} use description includes magazines. Does this need updating or is there a reason? -- Cavrdg ( talk) 19:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
to the table and tweaked |work=
to include it.There are some editors who say archiveurl
should not be used. Archive URL's should be placed directly in the url
argument replacing the original URL. There is an
open RfC on this question. --
Green
C 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
vs. |archive-date=
output.Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book|title=Title|url=http://dummy-url.com|archive-url=http://archive-of-dummy-url.com|access-date=2016|archive-date=2016}} |
Title. Archived from
the original on 2016. Retrieved 2016. |
Should they both render the same? (Either with or without "on" before the date). 72.43.99.130 ( talk) 17:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)