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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
This might not be a big problem yet, but perhaps something that should be on the radar.
Forbes is now blocking users who have ad-blocking plugins enabled in their web browsers. The message shown to users is that they must whitelist Forbes' website in order to see the content; it's an all-or-nothing deal. If citations link to this site, or other sites that employ the same tactic, it becomes an accessibility issue much like a
WP:PAYWALL. Using |subscription=
or |registration=
seems a bit misleading. Any ideas on how this could be handled? --
Drm310 (
talk) 15:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
|format=
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC){{
Cite web}} is throwing an error on
National Memorial Arboretum (the "Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service 2010" reference) because, it says, "|archive-url=
requires |archive-date=
". However, the archive cited does not give the date of archiving. The template should be able to cater for such cases.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 10:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
citation needed
. And what of other such cases?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 14:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
citation needed
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Documentation lists a |separator=
parameter, but this parameter is unknown. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 06:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
Cite journal}}
, not {{
Cite book}}
. So, which templates are you finding this on? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
|separator=
is in listed under "Full parameter set in horizontal format", under "Full parameter set in vertical format", and in the TemplateData table. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
|separator=
from the documentation of all of the CS1 templates. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
|separator=
related help from
Help:Citation Style 1 (
[2]).
Shouldn't a speech be in quotation marks rather than italics? — Torchiest talk edits 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite speech}}
should require both the title of the speech and the title of the enclosing work – like a chapter in a book. If the speech is published stand-alone as a pamphlet, then use {{
cite book}}
.|event=
because it makes no mention of an enclosing work.|title=
as an alias of
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist 'work' which to my knowledge is always italicized. In other templates, |title=
does not refer to 'work', but to a part enclosed in the work, such as an article in a magazine. So things outside the template must change for your request to be applied.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Recycled url
The Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) Campaign lobbied from 2007 for a new UN gender equality entity, with a website at http://www.gearcampaign.org. It achieved its goals in 2010 and dissolved, letting the domain name lapse. Now the domain name is being used by a blog about electric battery technology. The effect is that links in the Gender Equality Architecture Reform article point to the home page of the electric battery blog. Two suggestions have been made:
|archiveurl=
. Problem: there may be no archive copy. And in this case the robots.txt on the electric battery blog is preventing access to archive copies (if they exist).The url should be preserved. The source page was there once, and quite possibly it is preserved in an archive somewhere which may become accessible in the future. Perhaps the citation template should have a parameter like |usurped-url=yes/no
that would suppress the url link and add a message like (page no longer at original location). I am not sure if it should display the url, which is not useful to the general reader.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=usurped
, so that it points to the archive even when the non-applicable url is live. I suggest a search for the original page at the various online archives, maybe there is a capture somewhere.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 21:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Does this excerpt from the {{ cite web}} documentation help?
dead-url: When the URL is still live, but pre-emptively archived, then set
|dead-url=no
. This changes the display order with the title retaining the original link and the archive linked at the end. When the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting|dead-url=unfit
or|dead-url=usurped
will not link to the original URL in the rendered citation;|url=
is still required. Other accepted values are y, yes, or true. Alias: deadurl.
I think that "usurped" was designed for this situation. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=usurped
was intended for the similar case where the original |url=
points to something inappropriate and there is an archive of the source that is available through |archive-url=
. In this case, the original |url=
points to something inappropriate but there is no archive of the source for |archive-url=
.|url=
from linking |title=
like we do with |dead-url=usurped
. This preserves the record of the source url, but the rendered title isn't linked. We might accomplish this with |dead-url=usurped no archive
or |dead-url=unfit no archive
.Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"GEAR Campaign Working Group" (PDF). {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"GEAR Campaign Working Group" (PDF). {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
|dead-url=
is to substitute the url when an archive exists. The function of {{
dead-link}} is to signal editors that there is a problem url. If that url reputedly contained a source, and there is no other substitute for the url and/or the source, then the source does not exist.If it's unchallenged, and is not a quotation, and is not a contentious claim concerning a living person, it implicitly satisfies WP:V. It might not satisfy other policies though (not just WP:BLP), but that's not the issue here. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiableambiguous? This is not a matter of choice. The material
mustbe verifiable. Also,
Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Any material that needs a source. This discussion is about a statement relying a source that does not exist (some say it existed in the past, but this cannot be verified). Where exactly is the misunderstanding? 72.43.99.146 ( talk) 15:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This comment moved from Help talk:Citation Style 1#duplicated styling:
If a
|dead-url=usurped no archive
value is added (bad practice btw), then its superset|dead-url=no archive
must be added. And then logically,|dead-url=
must stop being dependent on|archive-url=
. 65.88.88.200 ( talk) 14:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Because I don't read any of the above as a definite 'yes, do this' or 'no, don't do this', and so that I can update the live modules, I have hidden the code that supports |dead-url=usurped no archive
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm working through some of the Module talk:Citation/CS1 subpages in order to centralize those talk pages (as decided earlier) and Module talk:Citation/CS1/Updates exists. It has no main page and it's only linked to by ~10 pages. Should anything be done with it? -- Izno ( talk) 14:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
central}}
template and just have a simple box in its place with a link to
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions? That box is a big contributor to not landing at the anchor when you click into a section of this talk page.Nah. Because this page is primarily concerned with current topics, I don't see much reason to keep either of those lists here. We can have the bare-bones {{
central}}
template here like this:
{{central|text=the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 templates and modules redirect here.<br />A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions]].}}
To help
centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions. |
At
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions we remove {{central}}
, {{
hidden}}
and {{
big}}
templates, keep the <div>...</div>
tags, and Bob's your uncle, ne?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite act/core has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm using Template talk:Cite act in Academic ranks (Portugal and Brazil)#Federal level with lang=pt, which is being converted to the native name "Português" instead of the name in English "Portuguese"; I traced Template:Cite act/core and believe the problem is linked to Template:Citation Style 1. Could you please check. Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 22:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Following discussion at Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 2#Quarterly date issues, I am raising the issue here of providing support for the use of quarterly date formats in citations. There are publications that use this date format, and I can't see any reason not to provide support for this. Some earlier discussions:
I've been told that an RfC is needed to make this sort of change. Is that really true? Is it not just common sense to add support for a date format that is used a fair amount, even if not widely used? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
it would be best if [ WP:MOSNUM] had something more definitive than a single mention (which refers to seasons and not to quarterly dates, per se).
I have encountered as similar issue with a publication date of "1-14 April 2016", at Symphony No. 7 (Arnold). Note that this could easily be, say, "29 April - 12 May 2016", or indeed "22 December 2016 - 4 January 2017". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=
and |access-date=
do exactly the same thing, so editors are free to use whichever they prefer. Or did you mean you wanted the heading "Access date" on the Help page to be renamed?|accessdate=
.|accessdate=16 April 2016
when some page broke down on 11 April 2016 and was archived on 5 April 2016 (|archivedate=5 April 2016
) i.e. it is not accessble via original URL on 16 April 2016 but only archive one?|accessdate=
and |access-date=
do same thing but I guess former is much more used and more correct form. Please see the question above... --
Obsuser (
talk) 23:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
So do you want the header to be changed? We won't be changing the template itself, and the header doesn't need to be changed either, because that's not how English works.
There is no way to programmatically tell that a page can no longer be accessed even if it has an archive, and this change would not change that fact. So no, it's not okay, and yes, that's just fine. I don't see a need to change this functionality either. -- Izno ( talk) 00:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=
. --
Obsuser (
talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=
and |access-date=
do the same thing; and yes, the former is much more commonly used - but it is not because it is the "more correct form". The reason for |accessdate=
being much more commonly used is simply because |access-date=
was added comparatively recently, when it was decided to introduce hyphenated forms for many parameters. They are fully interchangeable, and you may use whichever you prefer. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)How to handle revised documents?
<ref>{{cite web| title = LM117/LM317A/LM317-N 3-Terminal Adjustable Regulator| url = http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm117.pdf| date = 2004 May, Revised 2013 August| accessdate = 2013-10-02}}</ref>
"date = 2004 May, Revised 2013 August"
Bytesock ( talk) 13:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose to update the cs1|2 modules over the weekend of 16–17 April 2016. The changes are:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|ignore-isbn-error=yes
; improved isbn error messages;
discussionto Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
|embargo=
date validation;
discussionto Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|ignore-isbn-error=yes
; improved isbn error messages;
discussion— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
|editor=
is singular, the annotation that the module adds is also singular. If the cite uses multiple enumerated |editorn=
parameters or |veditors=
or |editors=
then the module adds the plural annotation.Done. I discovered and fixed a bug in fix archive_url_check()
. Archive.org accepts urls in the form https://web.archive.org/YYYYMMDDhhmmss/...
This form is remapped to https://web.archive.org/web/YYYYMMDDhhmmss/...
which is what the code was looking for so the former caused a timestamp error.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|archive-url=
s so I updated
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to allow for valid |archive-url=
s that have three extra characters after the timestamp (they are id_
, im_
, cs_
, and js_
). See an example at the top of
Template:Cite web/testcases and broken references 20 and 60 in the
Haitian Creole article. —
LLarson (
said &
done) 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Tous les Haïtiens sont unis par une Langue commune : le Créole.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)So I didn't get the archive.org url test quite right. There are a handful of variants that I hadn't considered. First there is an old url and a new url. These two are mostly compatible:
Archive.org's servers automatically map old form urls to new form urls so both of the above links will work.
The new form url also supports certain flags or modifiers that can be appended to the url's timestamp. These do not work with the old form urls. Adding the flags to the old form urls will result in a 404 error message:
I have modified the code in the sandbox.
The save command:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: save command (
help)timestamp length:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help)wildcard character ('*') in place of a timestamp:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help)new form with flags (known flags are: 'id_', 'js_', 'cs_', 'im_')
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help)old form with flags for completeness:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we don't care about the exact content of the timestamp flag other than to make sure that it is three characters, two letters and an underscore. For example, this url works even though xx_
is not a valid flag:
As long as archive.org doesn't throw a 404 error then we can relax this part of the test and I have done so.
Because this test is hiding legitimate archive urls from readers, I expect to update the live module after 1800 UTC. — Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that this template does not have an entry field for the Publisher Item Identifier (PII). I was citing an article from the Journal of Civil Engineering and Urbanism which had a PII, but no DOI (digital object identifier). Is there a conversion table/website? -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
|id=
if you can't figure out the DOI. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)|id=
parameter will do the job, it is more cumbersome than using a dedicated parameter, and might create inconsistent formatting, if more than one id will have to be put into the |id=
parameter. Do we put a colon or space (or both) between an id's name and value, or does that depend on the corresponding id? Do multiple ids have to be separated by comma, semicola or full stops, or does that depend on the type of the surrounding identifiers? Adding dedicated parameters for more such ids would help to streamline this (and easily change it, would this become necessary in the future) - and since they aren't all used at the same time it wouldn't add clutter to citations at all, just make life easier for all, authors, maintainers, and readers (even machines, when they try to read ids).|pii=
parameter.So right now in the month field it can handle individual months (and seasons) only. That is, it can handle "January", "Jan", and "Summer" (and "Christmas") etc. but cannot handle "January-February" or "January-March" or "January-April" and so forth, and assorted publications do use those publication dates. So this is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to have to leave the month blank or put in a false month.
Hmm, coding for each possible month seperator (-, —, :, /, and with and without spaces, and then separate cases for each reasonably possible month combination (January-February, January-March, February-March, etc. etc. etc.) -- this would be require a large hand-written table...
Erm let's see...
Extended coding content
|
---|
There's no reasons to change function "get_month_number" as it works fine... thinking about the problem I came up with a couple different ways to implement function "get_month_number" which I am NOT suggesting and which I doubt would actually work... these are just byproducts of thinking about ways to find month ranges... alternate 1 function get_month_number (month)
legal_months = 'JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember'
month_name_loc = {1, 6, 16, 21, 26, 29, 33, 40, 37, 56, 63, 71}
month_name_length = {7, 8, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 6, 9, 7, 8, 7}
start_match, match_length = string.find(legal_months, month)
if start_match -- we found a month name in the input
for i 1=1,12 do
for j=1,12 do
if start_match==month_name_loci -- starting with January
if match_length=month_name_lengthj -- check input string length against month name length
return i
end
end
return 0
alternate 2 local function get_month_number (month)
legal_months = 'JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember'
month_name_length = {7, 8, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 6, 9, 7, 8, 7}
ok = strfind (legal_months, months) -- compare the list of months to the input
if ok // -- found a possible good input, still need to make sure its not "uaryFeb" or "a" and so on
for i = 1 to 12
if ok==ai -- if yes, our input matches the start of a legal month name, at least
if strlen(month)==3 return i -- 3 character input, match, its a shorty such as "Jan", we're good
else
if strlen(month)==month_name_lengthi
return(i) -- matching beginning and length of a legal month name, we're good
else -- we did NOT find a legal month name in the input -- could be garbage, or "January-February"
return false
So now lets see.... what if you had... let's assume that month ranges are going to be divided by a dash, hyphen, long hyphen, slash, colon, or space, e.g. "January/April" or whatever (that's not going to cover instances with words or extra spaces, such as "January and February" or "January - February", but let's live with that for now)... Let's see... local function is_valid_month_range -- only called if the month has been spit out as illegal
token{}
token1='-'
token2='–'
token3='—'
token4='/'
token5=':'
token6=' '
for i = 1 to 6 do
ok = strfind (month, tokeni])
if ok -- we have found one of the tokens
month_range_start_month=strsub (month, 1, ok-1) -- get all of the string before the token
month_range_end_month=strsub(month, ok+1); -- then all of the string after the token
m1=get_month_number (month_range_start_month)) if m1 else return false -- if ok so far, do nothing
m2=get_month_number (month_range_end_month)) if m2 else return false -- if still ok so far do nothing
if m2 > m1 return true else return false; -- still ok? we're good
end
return false -- never found a token
|
Wouldn't this work? You find a token such as "/"... you send the (already existing) function "get_month_number" all of the original string before the token, and (if that's accepted) all of the original string after the token, and if that's accepted you must have a "legal month name" and "token" and "legal month name"... then check to make sure the range is not "December-December" or "December-March" (which is possible, but would require two years in the years field which I don't think we accept or probably need to)...
All right, that was fun, I haven't written code in decades, and I'll bet that there are many bugs, errors, and impossibilities there, but couldn't something sort of like that work? Herostratus ( talk) 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)As most keyboards don't have proper dashes, and picking a dash off the menu is irksome for those of us who generally prepare text off-line, couldn't we have the software simply replace hyphens found in date ranges with the preferred en-dash? Rather than failing with a message to text that doesn't quite explain what the problem is. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have made a proposal ( below) for automatic replacement of hyphens in date ranges. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The following was originally posted at Template talk:Cite tweet:
Can someone look into the CS1 maint checks. This template has recently been complaining about "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Cite tweet uses cite web to format citations, and in the case of an author name and twitter username, passes them through as {{cite web |author={{{author}}} [{{{user}}}] | ... }}
, which has recently started throwing up the maintenance message. Here's an example:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | Real Name [username].
"Tweet contents".{{
cite web}} : CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Real Name [username].
"Tweet contents".{{
cite web}} : CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
- Evad37 [ talk 23:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that the square brackets are actually encoded as [
and ]
because of
Help:CS1_errors#bad_paramlink -
Evad37 [
talk 23:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
that won't accept plain brackets in |author=
? Here is the example from your {{
cite compare}}
but intead of html entities it uses plain brackets. No error message:
{{ cite web | title=Tweet contents | url=https://twitter.com | author=Real Name [username]}}
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
Sandbox | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
Sandbox | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
With regards to Help:CS1_errors#bad_paramlink: From playing around with different combinations, it looks like the "Check |param= value" now only comes up when there is a wikilink in param= AND param-link= is also specified. Eg.
{{cite book |title=title |author=[[Author]]
:
Author. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) → no error message{{cite book |title=title |author=[[Author]] |author-link=Author }}
:
Author. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |author=
value (
help) → error message{{cite book |title=title |author=[http://example.com Author] }}
:
Author. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help) → no error message{{cite book |title=title |author=[http://example.com Author] |author-link=Author }}
:
[http://example.com Author]. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help) → no error message{{cite book |title=title |author=Author <{Author}> |author-link=Author }}
:
Author <{[Author]}>. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) → no error messageIs this how the error checking is intended to work? Either way, Help:CS1_errors#bad_paramlink should be updated to match the new reality. - Evad37 [ talk 04:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
|<param>-link=
parameters. For your examples:
|author-link=
so no error|title=
, |chapter=
, |work=
, and |publisher=
.|author-link=
is supposed to hold the title of an article, the illegal characters test applies to it not to |author=
(this is why #3 and #4 do not show errors):
From the archive Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#External link in publisher=:
We are now flagging external links in |publisher=
as an error. I have been unable to locate consensus discussion to start doing that.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title.
Publisher. {{
cite book}} : External link in (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title.
Publisher. {{
cite book}} : External link in (
help)
|
Can someone please enlighten me? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|publisher=
was added to the list of parameters tested because of this
discussion et seq.The link given under discussion is now archived Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#Publisher plus.google.com.
Trappist the monk you used as justification for turning on logging of this "error" on some obscure sentence in Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher " If the publisher is notable and has an article independent of the "work", the "publisher" parameter can include a wiki-link to that article, but should never externally link to the publisher's website."
This was added by user:SMcCandlish at 16:05, 16 December 2011 ( diff). Where was the consensus gained for the addition of this prescription? I ask because the very first entry on the talk page is: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 1#This help page not for novel rules and was written by user:Jc3s5h at 21:21, 23 December 2011 (several days after the addition of this obscure novel rule).
So I suggest unless there is a clear consensus to the contrary (and I do not mean two or three comments here) that this "rule" is removed and not acted upon until such time as an RfC is run that shows that this is a prohibition that has a consensus. -- PBS ( talk) 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with both SMcCandlish's addition and Trappist's software check. I think this is an error (or, sometimes, not so much an error as intentional spam) and should be flagged as an error. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:
- The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
- The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
- The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
- All three can affect reliability.
Is someone going to fix this or am I going to have to do it myself? -- PBS ( talk) 09:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Get consensus for your suggested change. Myself, David, SMC, Keith D all obviously agree with the test, Jonesey95 voiced no disagreement when Trappist indicated that this may be an issue, and Trappist either agrees or at least believes that it should be enforced in the software. So, if you would like it to change, WP:RFC is how you're going to get what you want, though with at least 4 people lined up to disagree with you, good luck. Responding to your comment in-full:
I disagree there are/were hundreds (thousands?) of such links in the citation templates
Your "disagreement" is evidently false; see
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#Publisher plus.google.com.
link is more useful, (for readers and editors), for a less notable publisher than for a notable one
I do not dispute this. I dispute that it is necessary to link to the publisher, and in the same field as the publisher. My concern certainly would be in use of a less well-known publisher per
what a reliable source is.
You should perhaps review #Sources (or authors) with a Wikidata item, but no article and #Proposal: addition of 'author-id' parameter, since those are very similar cases and are meeting with similar objections from even more people than those listed in my first paragraph. -- Izno ( talk) 11:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The "|quote=" parameter would really need a complementary "|trans-quote=" such that readers and editors don't need to translate everytime they need to understand the reference. This also aids in preserving a good translation instead of an impromptu one that easily looses the real meaning. Bytesock ( talk) 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
|quote=
is a free-form parameter so its content is not restricted. That means you can include both the original and the translation in the same parameter. Keep it brief. If the quote is lengthy, consider putting it in an end note and referencing that.|quote=
is a free-form parameter, which would accept translations as well, providing a dedicated |trans-quote=
parameter would help enforcing a consistent format and allow us to adjust the format centrally would this become necessary in the future. At present, I would suggest to just put the translation in [square brackets] following the original quote, but who knows what might be preferable in a decade (perhaps we're using colors, or we would want to suppress one but not the other information depending on output device, speech output?), so I think it's generally best to keep logically separable info in separate parameters (this applies to a number of other parameters as well). --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Having worked on fixing date errors for some time I have a few suggestions for improving the checking that takes place in the templates. Keith D ( talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Accessdates are supposed to show the full date the item was accessed so the check should be tightened to allow only single full dates.
{{cite news |title=title |accessdate=June 2015 }}
should give a date error.
Keith D (
talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Check that the dates are in the correct order. |date=
and |publication-date=
should always be before |archivedate=
and |accessdate=
.
{{cite news |title=title |accessdate=12 June 2015 |date=12 April 2016}}
should give a date error.
Keith D (
talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the all numeric ISO style dates, all of the other date fields in a cite should be in the same format. All using short or long months and all either day first or month first format.
{{cite news |title=title |accessdate=12 Apr 2016|date=12 June 2015 }}
should give a date error.
Keith D (
talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
|df=
is set. --
Izno (
talk) 01:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD.Which I expect is what is meant by "ignoring the all numeric ISO style dates"? -- Izno ( talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
date=April 2016 | access-date = May 1, 2016
or date=2016 | access-date = May 1, 2016
? That would fail the above test, but it is perfectly valid when the source is dated "April 2016" or "2016", with no day, or even month, provided. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently there have been many pages using {{
EB1911|pagename}}
with parameter 1 intended as "title=pagename" or also {{
cite EB1911}}. However, other changes to those templates keeping rejecting parameter 1 as error: Text "pagename" ignored. There has been just enough confusion so that it worked ok for a while, and people used {EB1911|page} many times to get "{cite encyclopedia|title=page|...}" but now is broken again. People seem to want to use {EB1911|page}, and so I think it should work again. Any plans?
Wikid77 (
talk) 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
In some website citations, I've found they offer a handful of "free views" before locking it down with subscription required. How should this be handled? Mark it as subscription=yes? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
(as is the case with doi links, for example).
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 23:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Should the parent page add guidance regarding Specific source templates? Randomly going through Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates, I notice some of them are not based on CS1 templates (e.g. {{ cite OCLC}}). Others are not based on Module:Citation/CS1 (e.g. {{ cite IETF}}, {{ cite wikisource}}. Either case may result in presentation/display differences when compared with the general-use templates.
With all the noise about WP:CITEVAR and adhering to the established/consistent presentation style for citations, it would be prudent to caution editors wishing to consistently use CS1 that some of the specific-source templates may violate that wish. Or add some basic compliance criteria that specific-source templates must follow in order to be included to the category. 65.88.88.214 ( talk) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
. I recently removed {{citation/core}}
from the definition at
H:CS1#Style but perhaps I was a bit hasty. Clearly, {{
cite IETF}}
and {{
cite wikisource}}
use {{citation/core}}
so, by the old definition, these two at least, are cs1 compliant.{{citation/core}}
to the definition.{{citation/core}}
would display differently than templates built on the Lua module? Since CS1 is an exercise on arriving at a uniform style.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 00:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
version rendered. For the most part, that has held true but changes were and have been made since the last {{citation/core}}
-rendered template was integrated into
Module:Citation/CS1. You can use {{
cite compare}}
to see how similar or different the renderings old v. new are.CITEREF
creation disabled, 'compliance with the 'style' can be determined by inspection. It may, though, be necessary to read the code because it is possible that these specific-source templates misuse {{citation/core}}
parameters to achieve certain visual effects; this was true in some of the cs1 templates so you will sometimes see a different ordering of the citation elements when comparing the module rendering to that of {{citation/core}}
.{{citation/core}}
{{citation/core}}
{{
cite IETF}}
and {{
cite Wikisource}}
are cs1 if we restore the {{
citation/core}}
rule; {{
cite QPN}}
is cs1 even though it uses {{
citation}}
(cs2) because it sets |mode=cs1
; {{
yahoo maps}}
is cs1 because it uses {{
cite map}}
, a cs1 template; {{
BoM Aust stats/sandbox}}
(and its parent) is cs1 because it uses {{
cite web}}
, a cs1 template. Don't really care about the subpages – there is code in a lot of template doc pages that will exclude these kinds of pages from the category; it's just a matter of hunting it down.{{
cite QPN}}
is not compliant, because it is not based on a cs1 template (the only current requirement). The relevant section says nothing about display mode/delimiters. So either the help page has to be edited, or the specific-source category.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 19:07, 27 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
This might not be a big problem yet, but perhaps something that should be on the radar.
Forbes is now blocking users who have ad-blocking plugins enabled in their web browsers. The message shown to users is that they must whitelist Forbes' website in order to see the content; it's an all-or-nothing deal. If citations link to this site, or other sites that employ the same tactic, it becomes an accessibility issue much like a
WP:PAYWALL. Using |subscription=
or |registration=
seems a bit misleading. Any ideas on how this could be handled? --
Drm310 (
talk) 15:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
|format=
.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC){{
Cite web}} is throwing an error on
National Memorial Arboretum (the "Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service 2010" reference) because, it says, "|archive-url=
requires |archive-date=
". However, the archive cited does not give the date of archiving. The template should be able to cater for such cases.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 10:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
citation needed
. And what of other such cases?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 14:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
citation needed
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Documentation lists a |separator=
parameter, but this parameter is unknown. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 06:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
Cite journal}}
, not {{
Cite book}}
. So, which templates are you finding this on? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
|separator=
is in listed under "Full parameter set in horizontal format", under "Full parameter set in vertical format", and in the TemplateData table. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
|separator=
from the documentation of all of the CS1 templates. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
|separator=
related help from
Help:Citation Style 1 (
[2]).
Shouldn't a speech be in quotation marks rather than italics? — Torchiest talk edits 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite speech}}
should require both the title of the speech and the title of the enclosing work – like a chapter in a book. If the speech is published stand-alone as a pamphlet, then use {{
cite book}}
.|event=
because it makes no mention of an enclosing work.|title=
as an alias of
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist 'work' which to my knowledge is always italicized. In other templates, |title=
does not refer to 'work', but to a part enclosed in the work, such as an article in a magazine. So things outside the template must change for your request to be applied.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Recycled url
The Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) Campaign lobbied from 2007 for a new UN gender equality entity, with a website at http://www.gearcampaign.org. It achieved its goals in 2010 and dissolved, letting the domain name lapse. Now the domain name is being used by a blog about electric battery technology. The effect is that links in the Gender Equality Architecture Reform article point to the home page of the electric battery blog. Two suggestions have been made:
|archiveurl=
. Problem: there may be no archive copy. And in this case the robots.txt on the electric battery blog is preventing access to archive copies (if they exist).The url should be preserved. The source page was there once, and quite possibly it is preserved in an archive somewhere which may become accessible in the future. Perhaps the citation template should have a parameter like |usurped-url=yes/no
that would suppress the url link and add a message like (page no longer at original location). I am not sure if it should display the url, which is not useful to the general reader.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 14:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=usurped
, so that it points to the archive even when the non-applicable url is live. I suggest a search for the original page at the various online archives, maybe there is a capture somewhere.
72.43.99.130 (
talk) 21:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Does this excerpt from the {{ cite web}} documentation help?
dead-url: When the URL is still live, but pre-emptively archived, then set
|dead-url=no
. This changes the display order with the title retaining the original link and the archive linked at the end. When the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting|dead-url=unfit
or|dead-url=usurped
will not link to the original URL in the rendered citation;|url=
is still required. Other accepted values are y, yes, or true. Alias: deadurl.
I think that "usurped" was designed for this situation. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=usurped
was intended for the similar case where the original |url=
points to something inappropriate and there is an archive of the source that is available through |archive-url=
. In this case, the original |url=
points to something inappropriate but there is no archive of the source for |archive-url=
.|url=
from linking |title=
like we do with |dead-url=usurped
. This preserves the record of the source url, but the rendered title isn't linked. We might accomplish this with |dead-url=usurped no archive
or |dead-url=unfit no archive
.Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"GEAR Campaign Working Group" (PDF). {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"GEAR Campaign Working Group" (PDF). {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
|dead-url=
is to substitute the url when an archive exists. The function of {{
dead-link}} is to signal editors that there is a problem url. If that url reputedly contained a source, and there is no other substitute for the url and/or the source, then the source does not exist.If it's unchallenged, and is not a quotation, and is not a contentious claim concerning a living person, it implicitly satisfies WP:V. It might not satisfy other policies though (not just WP:BLP), but that's not the issue here. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiableambiguous? This is not a matter of choice. The material
mustbe verifiable. Also,
Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Any material that needs a source. This discussion is about a statement relying a source that does not exist (some say it existed in the past, but this cannot be verified). Where exactly is the misunderstanding? 72.43.99.146 ( talk) 15:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This comment moved from Help talk:Citation Style 1#duplicated styling:
If a
|dead-url=usurped no archive
value is added (bad practice btw), then its superset|dead-url=no archive
must be added. And then logically,|dead-url=
must stop being dependent on|archive-url=
. 65.88.88.200 ( talk) 14:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Because I don't read any of the above as a definite 'yes, do this' or 'no, don't do this', and so that I can update the live modules, I have hidden the code that supports |dead-url=usurped no archive
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm working through some of the Module talk:Citation/CS1 subpages in order to centralize those talk pages (as decided earlier) and Module talk:Citation/CS1/Updates exists. It has no main page and it's only linked to by ~10 pages. Should anything be done with it? -- Izno ( talk) 14:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
central}}
template and just have a simple box in its place with a link to
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions? That box is a big contributor to not landing at the anchor when you click into a section of this talk page.Nah. Because this page is primarily concerned with current topics, I don't see much reason to keep either of those lists here. We can have the bare-bones {{
central}}
template here like this:
{{central|text=the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 templates and modules redirect here.<br />A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found at [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions]].}}
To help
centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions. |
At
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Centralized discussions we remove {{central}}
, {{
hidden}}
and {{
big}}
templates, keep the <div>...</div>
tags, and Bob's your uncle, ne?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite act/core has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm using Template talk:Cite act in Academic ranks (Portugal and Brazil)#Federal level with lang=pt, which is being converted to the native name "Português" instead of the name in English "Portuguese"; I traced Template:Cite act/core and believe the problem is linked to Template:Citation Style 1. Could you please check. Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 22:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Following discussion at Help talk:CS1 errors/Archive 2#Quarterly date issues, I am raising the issue here of providing support for the use of quarterly date formats in citations. There are publications that use this date format, and I can't see any reason not to provide support for this. Some earlier discussions:
I've been told that an RfC is needed to make this sort of change. Is that really true? Is it not just common sense to add support for a date format that is used a fair amount, even if not widely used? Carcharoth ( talk) 16:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
it would be best if [ WP:MOSNUM] had something more definitive than a single mention (which refers to seasons and not to quarterly dates, per se).
I have encountered as similar issue with a publication date of "1-14 April 2016", at Symphony No. 7 (Arnold). Note that this could easily be, say, "29 April - 12 May 2016", or indeed "22 December 2016 - 4 January 2017". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=
and |access-date=
do exactly the same thing, so editors are free to use whichever they prefer. Or did you mean you wanted the heading "Access date" on the Help page to be renamed?|accessdate=
.|accessdate=16 April 2016
when some page broke down on 11 April 2016 and was archived on 5 April 2016 (|archivedate=5 April 2016
) i.e. it is not accessble via original URL on 16 April 2016 but only archive one?|accessdate=
and |access-date=
do same thing but I guess former is much more used and more correct form. Please see the question above... --
Obsuser (
talk) 23:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
So do you want the header to be changed? We won't be changing the template itself, and the header doesn't need to be changed either, because that's not how English works.
There is no way to programmatically tell that a page can no longer be accessed even if it has an archive, and this change would not change that fact. So no, it's not okay, and yes, that's just fine. I don't see a need to change this functionality either. -- Izno ( talk) 00:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=
. --
Obsuser (
talk) 01:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=
and |access-date=
do the same thing; and yes, the former is much more commonly used - but it is not because it is the "more correct form". The reason for |accessdate=
being much more commonly used is simply because |access-date=
was added comparatively recently, when it was decided to introduce hyphenated forms for many parameters. They are fully interchangeable, and you may use whichever you prefer. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)How to handle revised documents?
<ref>{{cite web| title = LM117/LM317A/LM317-N 3-Terminal Adjustable Regulator| url = http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm117.pdf| date = 2004 May, Revised 2013 August| accessdate = 2013-10-02}}</ref>
"date = 2004 May, Revised 2013 August"
Bytesock ( talk) 13:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I propose to update the cs1|2 modules over the weekend of 16–17 April 2016. The changes are:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|ignore-isbn-error=yes
; improved isbn error messages;
discussionto Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
|embargo=
date validation;
discussionto Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|ignore-isbn-error=yes
; improved isbn error messages;
discussion— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
|editor=
is singular, the annotation that the module adds is also singular. If the cite uses multiple enumerated |editorn=
parameters or |veditors=
or |editors=
then the module adds the plural annotation.Done. I discovered and fixed a bug in fix archive_url_check()
. Archive.org accepts urls in the form https://web.archive.org/YYYYMMDDhhmmss/...
This form is remapped to https://web.archive.org/web/YYYYMMDDhhmmss/...
which is what the code was looking for so the former caused a timestamp error.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|archive-url=
s so I updated
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to allow for valid |archive-url=
s that have three extra characters after the timestamp (they are id_
, im_
, cs_
, and js_
). See an example at the top of
Template:Cite web/testcases and broken references 20 and 60 in the
Haitian Creole article. —
LLarson (
said &
done) 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Tous les Haïtiens sont unis par une Langue commune : le Créole.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)So I didn't get the archive.org url test quite right. There are a handful of variants that I hadn't considered. First there is an old url and a new url. These two are mostly compatible:
Archive.org's servers automatically map old form urls to new form urls so both of the above links will work.
The new form url also supports certain flags or modifiers that can be appended to the url's timestamp. These do not work with the old form urls. Adding the flags to the old form urls will result in a 404 error message:
I have modified the code in the sandbox.
The save command:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: save command (
help)timestamp length:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help)wildcard character ('*') in place of a timestamp:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: timestamp (
help)new form with flags (known flags are: 'id_', 'js_', 'cs_', 'im_')
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help)old form with flags for completeness:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help){{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
is malformed: flag (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we don't care about the exact content of the timestamp flag other than to make sure that it is three characters, two letters and an underscore. For example, this url works even though xx_
is not a valid flag:
As long as archive.org doesn't throw a 404 error then we can relax this part of the test and I have done so.
Because this test is hiding legitimate archive urls from readers, I expect to update the live module after 1800 UTC. — Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that this template does not have an entry field for the Publisher Item Identifier (PII). I was citing an article from the Journal of Civil Engineering and Urbanism which had a PII, but no DOI (digital object identifier). Is there a conversion table/website? -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
|id=
if you can't figure out the DOI. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)|id=
parameter will do the job, it is more cumbersome than using a dedicated parameter, and might create inconsistent formatting, if more than one id will have to be put into the |id=
parameter. Do we put a colon or space (or both) between an id's name and value, or does that depend on the corresponding id? Do multiple ids have to be separated by comma, semicola or full stops, or does that depend on the type of the surrounding identifiers? Adding dedicated parameters for more such ids would help to streamline this (and easily change it, would this become necessary in the future) - and since they aren't all used at the same time it wouldn't add clutter to citations at all, just make life easier for all, authors, maintainers, and readers (even machines, when they try to read ids).|pii=
parameter.So right now in the month field it can handle individual months (and seasons) only. That is, it can handle "January", "Jan", and "Summer" (and "Christmas") etc. but cannot handle "January-February" or "January-March" or "January-April" and so forth, and assorted publications do use those publication dates. So this is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to have to leave the month blank or put in a false month.
Hmm, coding for each possible month seperator (-, —, :, /, and with and without spaces, and then separate cases for each reasonably possible month combination (January-February, January-March, February-March, etc. etc. etc.) -- this would be require a large hand-written table...
Erm let's see...
Extended coding content
|
---|
There's no reasons to change function "get_month_number" as it works fine... thinking about the problem I came up with a couple different ways to implement function "get_month_number" which I am NOT suggesting and which I doubt would actually work... these are just byproducts of thinking about ways to find month ranges... alternate 1 function get_month_number (month)
legal_months = 'JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember'
month_name_loc = {1, 6, 16, 21, 26, 29, 33, 40, 37, 56, 63, 71}
month_name_length = {7, 8, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 6, 9, 7, 8, 7}
start_match, match_length = string.find(legal_months, month)
if start_match -- we found a month name in the input
for i 1=1,12 do
for j=1,12 do
if start_match==month_name_loci -- starting with January
if match_length=month_name_lengthj -- check input string length against month name length
return i
end
end
return 0
alternate 2 local function get_month_number (month)
legal_months = 'JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember'
month_name_length = {7, 8, 5, 5, 3, 4, 4, 6, 9, 7, 8, 7}
ok = strfind (legal_months, months) -- compare the list of months to the input
if ok // -- found a possible good input, still need to make sure its not "uaryFeb" or "a" and so on
for i = 1 to 12
if ok==ai -- if yes, our input matches the start of a legal month name, at least
if strlen(month)==3 return i -- 3 character input, match, its a shorty such as "Jan", we're good
else
if strlen(month)==month_name_lengthi
return(i) -- matching beginning and length of a legal month name, we're good
else -- we did NOT find a legal month name in the input -- could be garbage, or "January-February"
return false
So now lets see.... what if you had... let's assume that month ranges are going to be divided by a dash, hyphen, long hyphen, slash, colon, or space, e.g. "January/April" or whatever (that's not going to cover instances with words or extra spaces, such as "January and February" or "January - February", but let's live with that for now)... Let's see... local function is_valid_month_range -- only called if the month has been spit out as illegal
token{}
token1='-'
token2='–'
token3='—'
token4='/'
token5=':'
token6=' '
for i = 1 to 6 do
ok = strfind (month, tokeni])
if ok -- we have found one of the tokens
month_range_start_month=strsub (month, 1, ok-1) -- get all of the string before the token
month_range_end_month=strsub(month, ok+1); -- then all of the string after the token
m1=get_month_number (month_range_start_month)) if m1 else return false -- if ok so far, do nothing
m2=get_month_number (month_range_end_month)) if m2 else return false -- if still ok so far do nothing
if m2 > m1 return true else return false; -- still ok? we're good
end
return false -- never found a token
|
Wouldn't this work? You find a token such as "/"... you send the (already existing) function "get_month_number" all of the original string before the token, and (if that's accepted) all of the original string after the token, and if that's accepted you must have a "legal month name" and "token" and "legal month name"... then check to make sure the range is not "December-December" or "December-March" (which is possible, but would require two years in the years field which I don't think we accept or probably need to)...
All right, that was fun, I haven't written code in decades, and I'll bet that there are many bugs, errors, and impossibilities there, but couldn't something sort of like that work? Herostratus ( talk) 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)As most keyboards don't have proper dashes, and picking a dash off the menu is irksome for those of us who generally prepare text off-line, couldn't we have the software simply replace hyphens found in date ranges with the preferred en-dash? Rather than failing with a message to text that doesn't quite explain what the problem is. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I have made a proposal ( below) for automatic replacement of hyphens in date ranges. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The following was originally posted at Template talk:Cite tweet:
Can someone look into the CS1 maint checks. This template has recently been complaining about "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Cite tweet uses cite web to format citations, and in the case of an author name and twitter username, passes them through as {{cite web |author={{{author}}} [{{{user}}}] | ... }}
, which has recently started throwing up the maintenance message. Here's an example:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | Real Name [username].
"Tweet contents".{{
cite web}} : CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Real Name [username].
"Tweet contents".{{
cite web}} : CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
- Evad37 [ talk 23:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Note that the square brackets are actually encoded as [
and ]
because of
Help:CS1_errors#bad_paramlink -
Evad37 [
talk 23:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
that won't accept plain brackets in |author=
? Here is the example from your {{
cite compare}}
but intead of html entities it uses plain brackets. No error message:
{{ cite web | title=Tweet contents | url=https://twitter.com | author=Real Name [username]}}
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
Sandbox | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
Sandbox | Real Name [username]. "Tweet contents". |
With regards to Help:CS1_errors#bad_paramlink: From playing around with different combinations, it looks like the "Check |param= value" now only comes up when there is a wikilink in param= AND param-link= is also specified. Eg.
{{cite book |title=title |author=[[Author]]
:
Author. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) → no error message{{cite book |title=title |author=[[Author]] |author-link=Author }}
:
Author. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |author=
value (
help) → error message{{cite book |title=title |author=[http://example.com Author] }}
:
Author. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help) → no error message{{cite book |title=title |author=[http://example.com Author] |author-link=Author }}
:
[http://example.com Author]. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); External link in |author=
(
help) → no error message{{cite book |title=title |author=Author <{Author}> |author-link=Author }}
:
Author <{[Author]}>. title. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) → no error messageIs this how the error checking is intended to work? Either way, Help:CS1_errors#bad_paramlink should be updated to match the new reality. - Evad37 [ talk 04:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
|<param>-link=
parameters. For your examples:
|author-link=
so no error|title=
, |chapter=
, |work=
, and |publisher=
.|author-link=
is supposed to hold the title of an article, the illegal characters test applies to it not to |author=
(this is why #3 and #4 do not show errors):
From the archive Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#External link in publisher=:
We are now flagging external links in |publisher=
as an error. I have been unable to locate consensus discussion to start doing that.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title.
Publisher. {{
cite book}} : External link in (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title.
Publisher. {{
cite book}} : External link in (
help)
|
Can someone please enlighten me? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|publisher=
was added to the list of parameters tested because of this
discussion et seq.The link given under discussion is now archived Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#Publisher plus.google.com.
Trappist the monk you used as justification for turning on logging of this "error" on some obscure sentence in Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher " If the publisher is notable and has an article independent of the "work", the "publisher" parameter can include a wiki-link to that article, but should never externally link to the publisher's website."
This was added by user:SMcCandlish at 16:05, 16 December 2011 ( diff). Where was the consensus gained for the addition of this prescription? I ask because the very first entry on the talk page is: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 1#This help page not for novel rules and was written by user:Jc3s5h at 21:21, 23 December 2011 (several days after the addition of this obscure novel rule).
So I suggest unless there is a clear consensus to the contrary (and I do not mean two or three comments here) that this "rule" is removed and not acted upon until such time as an RfC is run that shows that this is a prohibition that has a consensus. -- PBS ( talk) 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with both SMcCandlish's addition and Trappist's software check. I think this is an error (or, sometimes, not so much an error as intentional spam) and should be flagged as an error. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:
- The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
- The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
- The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
- All three can affect reliability.
Is someone going to fix this or am I going to have to do it myself? -- PBS ( talk) 09:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Get consensus for your suggested change. Myself, David, SMC, Keith D all obviously agree with the test, Jonesey95 voiced no disagreement when Trappist indicated that this may be an issue, and Trappist either agrees or at least believes that it should be enforced in the software. So, if you would like it to change, WP:RFC is how you're going to get what you want, though with at least 4 people lined up to disagree with you, good luck. Responding to your comment in-full:
I disagree there are/were hundreds (thousands?) of such links in the citation templates
Your "disagreement" is evidently false; see
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10#Publisher plus.google.com.
link is more useful, (for readers and editors), for a less notable publisher than for a notable one
I do not dispute this. I dispute that it is necessary to link to the publisher, and in the same field as the publisher. My concern certainly would be in use of a less well-known publisher per
what a reliable source is.
You should perhaps review #Sources (or authors) with a Wikidata item, but no article and #Proposal: addition of 'author-id' parameter, since those are very similar cases and are meeting with similar objections from even more people than those listed in my first paragraph. -- Izno ( talk) 11:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The "|quote=" parameter would really need a complementary "|trans-quote=" such that readers and editors don't need to translate everytime they need to understand the reference. This also aids in preserving a good translation instead of an impromptu one that easily looses the real meaning. Bytesock ( talk) 00:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
|quote=
is a free-form parameter so its content is not restricted. That means you can include both the original and the translation in the same parameter. Keep it brief. If the quote is lengthy, consider putting it in an end note and referencing that.|quote=
is a free-form parameter, which would accept translations as well, providing a dedicated |trans-quote=
parameter would help enforcing a consistent format and allow us to adjust the format centrally would this become necessary in the future. At present, I would suggest to just put the translation in [square brackets] following the original quote, but who knows what might be preferable in a decade (perhaps we're using colors, or we would want to suppress one but not the other information depending on output device, speech output?), so I think it's generally best to keep logically separable info in separate parameters (this applies to a number of other parameters as well). --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Having worked on fixing date errors for some time I have a few suggestions for improving the checking that takes place in the templates. Keith D ( talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Accessdates are supposed to show the full date the item was accessed so the check should be tightened to allow only single full dates.
{{cite news |title=title |accessdate=June 2015 }}
should give a date error.
Keith D (
talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Check that the dates are in the correct order. |date=
and |publication-date=
should always be before |archivedate=
and |accessdate=
.
{{cite news |title=title |accessdate=12 June 2015 |date=12 April 2016}}
should give a date error.
Keith D (
talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the all numeric ISO style dates, all of the other date fields in a cite should be in the same format. All using short or long months and all either day first or month first format.
{{cite news |title=title |accessdate=12 Apr 2016|date=12 June 2015 }}
should give a date error.
Keith D (
talk) 22:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
|df=
is set. --
Izno (
talk) 01:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD.Which I expect is what is meant by "ignoring the all numeric ISO style dates"? -- Izno ( talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
date=April 2016 | access-date = May 1, 2016
or date=2016 | access-date = May 1, 2016
? That would fail the above test, but it is perfectly valid when the source is dated "April 2016" or "2016", with no day, or even month, provided. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently there have been many pages using {{
EB1911|pagename}}
with parameter 1 intended as "title=pagename" or also {{
cite EB1911}}. However, other changes to those templates keeping rejecting parameter 1 as error: Text "pagename" ignored. There has been just enough confusion so that it worked ok for a while, and people used {EB1911|page} many times to get "{cite encyclopedia|title=page|...}" but now is broken again. People seem to want to use {EB1911|page}, and so I think it should work again. Any plans?
Wikid77 (
talk) 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
In some website citations, I've found they offer a handful of "free views" before locking it down with subscription required. How should this be handled? Mark it as subscription=yes? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
(as is the case with doi links, for example).
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 23:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Should the parent page add guidance regarding Specific source templates? Randomly going through Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates, I notice some of them are not based on CS1 templates (e.g. {{ cite OCLC}}). Others are not based on Module:Citation/CS1 (e.g. {{ cite IETF}}, {{ cite wikisource}}. Either case may result in presentation/display differences when compared with the general-use templates.
With all the noise about WP:CITEVAR and adhering to the established/consistent presentation style for citations, it would be prudent to caution editors wishing to consistently use CS1 that some of the specific-source templates may violate that wish. Or add some basic compliance criteria that specific-source templates must follow in order to be included to the category. 65.88.88.214 ( talk) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
. I recently removed {{citation/core}}
from the definition at
H:CS1#Style but perhaps I was a bit hasty. Clearly, {{
cite IETF}}
and {{
cite wikisource}}
use {{citation/core}}
so, by the old definition, these two at least, are cs1 compliant.{{citation/core}}
to the definition.{{citation/core}}
would display differently than templates built on the Lua module? Since CS1 is an exercise on arriving at a uniform style.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 00:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
version rendered. For the most part, that has held true but changes were and have been made since the last {{citation/core}}
-rendered template was integrated into
Module:Citation/CS1. You can use {{
cite compare}}
to see how similar or different the renderings old v. new are.CITEREF
creation disabled, 'compliance with the 'style' can be determined by inspection. It may, though, be necessary to read the code because it is possible that these specific-source templates misuse {{citation/core}}
parameters to achieve certain visual effects; this was true in some of the cs1 templates so you will sometimes see a different ordering of the citation elements when comparing the module rendering to that of {{citation/core}}
.{{citation/core}}
{{citation/core}}
{{
cite IETF}}
and {{
cite Wikisource}}
are cs1 if we restore the {{
citation/core}}
rule; {{
cite QPN}}
is cs1 even though it uses {{
citation}}
(cs2) because it sets |mode=cs1
; {{
yahoo maps}}
is cs1 because it uses {{
cite map}}
, a cs1 template; {{
BoM Aust stats/sandbox}}
(and its parent) is cs1 because it uses {{
cite web}}
, a cs1 template. Don't really care about the subpages – there is code in a lot of template doc pages that will exclude these kinds of pages from the category; it's just a matter of hunting it down.{{
cite QPN}}
is not compliant, because it is not based on a cs1 template (the only current requirement). The relevant section says nothing about display mode/delimiters. So either the help page has to be edited, or the specific-source category.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)