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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This is in relation to two reversions by Codename Lisa of my edits: to Template:Cite news/doc and to Template:Cite web/doc. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
I'll get right to the point: It is quite okay to use a mixture of both only for news sources. The problem starts when {{Cite news}} is used along with {{Cite web}} to cite news websites on the web. It happened to me in one FA nomination: They said my citation style was inconsistent because some publishers were in parentheses and some were not. Actually, the main objector was User:Nikkimaria and she put it much vaguer terms. Of course, later I discovered she and others have done this in other FAs as well.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
|url=
parameter had been added to all the
Citation Style 1 templates, the intention of {{
cite web}}
has been that it should only be used for web sources that don't fit one of the other templates. That is, for news sources, {{
cite news}}
should be used - even where the article is only available online, such as with
The Huffington Post. Where a website is used as a source, and that web page is not a news page, the use of {{
cite web}}
is quite in order, even when {{
cite news}}
has been used elsewhere on the page.{{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
- or indeed any templates that concern citations. Also, none of them have anything about publishers in (or not in) parentheses.consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes
Silverman, Dwight (July 15, 2011). " Microsoft envisions a universal OS, but it might not be called Windows". Houston Chronicle. Hearst Corporation. Retrieved May 26, 2015.
Silverman, Dwight (July 15, 2011). " Microsoft envisions a universal OS, but it might not be called Windows". Houston Chronicle. (Hearst Corporation). Retrieved May 26, 2015.
{{
cite news}}
for a webpage that isn't news. Accordingly, I have brought the thread to wider attention, at the (redirected) talk pages of the two templates concerned. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Redrose: You have apparently had some very silly reviews on the point.
That said, I would support changing cite web to be more like cite news on this point. What do the other citation template do in a similar instance? Do any of the others add parentheses around the publisher? -- Izno ( talk) 18:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I called the review silly, not the reviewer.
I just checked your specific reference and it produced problematic output (to me):
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)|work=
is set and the template is not {{
cite encyclopaedia}}
, {{
cite web}}
, {{
cite pressrelease}}
, or {{
cite podcast}}
.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)|work=
set:
|work=
not set:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|work=
and those four templates. The questions I have are: Why are parentheses added when |work=
is set? Why were those four templates excluded? I can answer the last question for {{cite podcast}}
: to be the same as {{cite web}}
because it is the same except for the parenthetical annotation.{{
cite book}}
templates with and without |work=
and with (I think) all of the publication specific parameters:
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Cite book |work=Work |location=Location |publication-place=Publication Place |publication-date=2016 |date=2010 |publisher=Publisher}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Cite book |location=Location |publication-place=Publication Place |publication-date=2016 |date=2010 |publisher=Publisher}}
|work=
include it and when there is not, don't include it. Must I start an explicit RFC? —
Codename Lisa (
talk) 22:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
|mode=cs1
does not change {{
citation}}
to another kind of template. The only things that change are the separator character, terminal punctuation, and enable/disable automatic |ref=harv
. The template is still {{citation}}
so it obeys the rules that I stated earlier.citation
class, but those in the
Citation Style 1 group apply a second class as well - for {{
cite book}}
, this is book
; for {{
cite news}}
, this is news
; and for {{
cite web}}
, this is web
. These may be found by examining the HTML source, or by checking the template - go to the template page, click "View source" (or "Edit" if you are an admin), and look for the |CitationClass=
parameter. The value of that is the extra class that is applied. These extra classes are not used by English Wikipedia, but other organisations may make use of them when examining the references in our web pages. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
$(".web")
There is an inconsistency that seems more significant to me; there was a consensus to fix it a long time ago but the fix has never been done. Consider these cites without an author:
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)Notice how, for all the cites that have an author, the date is right after the author and in parentheses, but when there is no author the date moves to nearly the end of the citation, and there are no parentheses. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 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.
Hello everyone,
According to
a test case compiled by User:Trappist the monk, out of 23 templates that implement the
CS1 citation sytle, 17 of them place the publisher name (from |publisher=
) between parentheses when there is a work title (from |work=
or its numerous aliases like |newspaper=
, |website=
, etc.) In addition, {{
Citation}} also does this (with or without |mode=cs1
.) In all 24 cases, the parentheses do not appear when there is no work title.
The question is: Should we change the remaining 6 to adhere to this already-dominant style? In this discussion your verdicts may be:
|mode=cs1
is set)I'd like to invite the people already in the discussion to participate: Jonesey95, Jc3s5h, Redrose64, Trappist the monk, Imzadi1979, Izno, Nikkimaria
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
|work=
is included, and I think it makes sense to be consistent in that way as well. I would also anecdotally suggest that |publisher=
currently appears far more often without parentheses, given that it is most often filled in {{
cite web}} (which never puts it in parentheses) and {{
cite book}} (which puts it in parentheses only when |work=
is present, which is rare for book citations). The other templates are for the most part far less common, or in some cases use of |publisher=
is not as prevalent (eg. journals or newspapers) as it is for books.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 19:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) So I would prefer having them present in all cases even when |work=
isn't used like in the example I mention. My example would become Author (1990). "Chapter". Title. Series. (Publisher). If that can't be done, then remove them everywhere.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)"parentheses mean publication date and brackets mean publisher."
design a new, universal and consistent citation formatting style for use by all Wikipedia articles.
In addition, {{
Citation}} also does this when |mode=cs1
is set.
|mode=
does not change how
Module:Citation/CS1 renders |publisher=
.—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
|mode=cs1
is set. Only a case-effect relationship is absent. But nevertheless, it is true. —
Codename Lisa (
talk) 18:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)@ Trappist the monk: Hi. Do you think it is okay to implement the result of the RFC now? Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 15:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
|location=
) must be edited too (see ln #2048) because it is also formatted within parentheses, and 'Publisher' is included in them (ln #2902). So just changing 'PublisherName'/'Publisher' (ln #2894) won't work in all cases.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 14:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)|publisher=
and certain parameters (such as |location=
) that could affect display of the citation, over and above the presence/absence of |work=
. Since the result of the RFC specifies a new design consensus for an area of CS1, its implementation should avoid introducing possible new inconsistencies.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)unnamed refs | 282 | ||
---|---|---|---|
named refs | 92 | ||
self closed | 111 | ||
cs1 refs | 388 | ||
cs1 templates | 404 | ||
cs1-like refs | 1 | ||
cs1-like templates | 1 | ||
sfn templates | 136 | ||
refbegin templates | 2 | ||
use xxx dates | mdy | ||
cs1|2 df mdy | 1 | ||
cs1|2 mdy dates | 179 | ||
cs1|2 last/first | 159 | ||
cs1|2 author | 2 | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
explanations |
This is not strictly a CS1 question, but I got no answer at WP:HD, apparently because there is not enough referencing expertise watching that page. If there is a better place for questions of this ilk, I'd like to know where it is for future reference (oops).
Princeton University contains 6 references to a book, all in need of page numbers. I don't have the book, and I'm not inclined to trudge down to the library and do the necessary research. How would you code this, assuming only one occurrence of {{ Cite book}}?
Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
ref info}}
at the top of this topic.{{
sfn}}
link to an in-line citation when the article does not have a separate bibliography section – §Further reading is not a reference bibliography.Whereas the en-dashes that MOS prescribes for date ranges are special characters, not generally found on standard keyboards, and whereas the error message the cs code emits on finding a hyphen is not clear that the hyphen is the basis for the complaint, I propose that where the cs code finds hyphens in date ranges it should automatically convert them to en-dashes, without complaint.
Any objections? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
list the valid date formatsrequest taken from the date validation code:
|date=2008-03
and |date=March 27-April 3, 2002
, for example, should still cause errors to be emitted and should not be auto-converted. We need to think this through. Maybe only dates that would be otherwise valid if the hyphens were en dashes should be auto-converted. Would that cover the whole list of possibilities? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
|date=
should require |df=
(where |df=[full list of allowable date formats]
). So a user would first have to specify a particular |df=
choice, and then |date=
could only be filled accordingly. Beforehand, I can't tell which programmatic approach would be optimal or easier.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 13:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
|date=
and doesn't have |df=
. Besides, |df=
has a specific purpose which we should be changing without a bunch of deep thinking.|df=
(functioning as explained above) is devised. Just throwing around ideas.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 15:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
From the list above, these use hyphens:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)these use ndashes:
ymd dates and |df=
are not broken:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
So where are we at with this? If the code is smart enough to declare an error in regard of hyphens, should it fix it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
... templates are not allowed to modify wiki text"? Bullcrap. We are not talking about modifying the text, but processing the input. Which is already done in regards of italicization, and even the replacement of hyphens in page ranges. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed a bunch of edits in which correct use of ignore-isbn-error is being removed. The as-printed ISBN has been replaced with an ASIN (IMO bad to add this so really bad to also remove the ISBN) an OCLC (IMO good to add this but bad to remove the ISBN) or a different ISBN (IMO not necessarily OK but not necessarily bad either):
So my concern is that the new category is being misused to blindly remove all use of ignore-isbn-error and removing correct information about the source in the process. The removed ISBNs are confirmed to be as-printed either directly or based on library records which indicate that this is the case.
TuxLibNit ( talk) 17:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
isbn=0-9536475-4-8|ignore-isbn-error=yes <!-- invalid ISBN 0-9536475-4-8 is as used by british national library via worldcat -->
This is a self published book. A 9 digit ISBN was used. No way to find it. ASIN was used, but this is a last resort.isbn=978-88-8446-157-X|ignore-isbn-error=yes<!-- invalid ISBN 978-88-8446-157-X is as used by Harvard University library and more via worldcat -->
Why use a made up ISBN (13 digits don't have X) that is only good at Harvard? Worldcat number was used so everybody can find it. Next item on the above list was also another Harvard one.isbn= 90-286-0573-1| ignore-isbn-error=yes <!-- invalid ISBN 90-286-0573-1 appears on back cover of work -->
This is a long series of books. Those before the late 1970's had bogus ISBNs, after that, they used correct ISBNs.|=978-5-903368-45-0|ignore-isbn-error=yes
It is a bad ISBN. It was replaced by the correct one.|ignore-isbn-error=
is being used. Here are the ones I can think of and how I recommend dealing with them, after fixing a few thousand ISBN errors.
|ignore-isbn-error=
used with a valid ISBN. In this case, remove the "ignore" parameter.|ignore-isbn-error=
used with an invalid ISBN that links through to WorldCat and that is sometimes even listed in WorldCat with the book. In this case, insert a comment that the ISBN is invalid but that it is listed in WorldCat.|ignore-isbn-error=
used with an invalid ISBN that is listed in the LCCN database as an invalid ISBN. This means that the invalid ISBN was printed in the book and should be left. Add a comment explaining why the invalid ISBN is there, with a reference to LCCN, and add the |LCCN=
parameter if it is there.|ignore-isbn-error=
used with an invalid ISBN that does not link through to WorldCat and that cannot be verified. In this case, if you can locate an OCLC for the source, add it, and comment out (but do not remove) the invalid ISBN.|ignore-isbn-error=
takes a number of "yes/no" arguments only. Why don't we define a wider set of predefined tokens so that editors could systematically specify what's actually up with an invalid ISBN?|ignore-isbn-error=
parameter to record the other ISBN as well. Alternatively, the |isbn=
parameter could be changed to accept more than one value. As some databases may list the book under one ISBN, and others under the other, this is important information to know, and omitting one of the ISBNs may reduce chances to locate a copy of the book.|edition=
is useful for that situation. As for multiple ISBNs in the template, that will lead to all sorts of trouble; the idea of citing a source is to cite the specific item from which you got the information. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Just a quick note. In some cases the invalid ISBN was used by worldcat at some point. That does not make it valid nor it provides any proof that this ISBN was ever actually connected to the book. In these cases the ISBN was only used to find the book in worldcat. OCLC is a better choice for that.
Moreover, we mainly need ISBNs to help readers retrieve a reference. We should use the way that makes it easier to spot a book. An invalid ISBN could rarerly be of any help. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
|ignore-isbn-error=
. The only authoritative ISBN error-checking is the one indicated here:
I've been working on an AWB script to cleanup Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. In the process I've discovered and, I think, remedied a bug in the Vancouver style validation code.
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Wiebe S, Blume WT, Girvin JP, Eliasziw M A (2001). "A randomized, controlled trial of surgery for temporal-lobe epilepsy". New England J Medicine. 345 (5): 311–318.
doi:
10.1056/NEJM200108023450501.
PMID
11484687. {{
cite journal}} : Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 4 (
help)
|
Sandbox | Wiebe S, Blume WT, Girvin JP, Eliasziw M A (2001). "A randomized, controlled trial of surgery for temporal-lobe epilepsy". New England J Medicine. 345 (5): 311–318.
doi:
10.1056/NEJM200108023450501.
PMID
11484687. {{
cite journal}} : Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 4 (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The new code to validate the format of an embargo date is flawed. I've fixed it in the sandbox. I left in a line of code that preset the embargo date to the year 9999. The purpose of that was debug test in the development of the code. I neglected to remove it. So, all |pmc=
identifiers are being treated as if the cs1|2 template has |embargo=9999
.
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
fixed in live module.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
That functionality has never been part of cs2:
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
Sandbox | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
(hmm, there is a bug in the page rendering code; but that's a different topic).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
and set |mode=cs2
:
When {{
citation}}
is used to cite a journal (or any alias of |work=
) and the template does not have |author=
or |editor=
parameters then it renders page numbers out of order. This is fixed in the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
Sandbox | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:23, 16 May 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
This is in relation to two reversions by Codename Lisa of my edits: to Template:Cite news/doc and to Template:Cite web/doc. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 08:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
I'll get right to the point: It is quite okay to use a mixture of both only for news sources. The problem starts when {{Cite news}} is used along with {{Cite web}} to cite news websites on the web. It happened to me in one FA nomination: They said my citation style was inconsistent because some publishers were in parentheses and some were not. Actually, the main objector was User:Nikkimaria and she put it much vaguer terms. Of course, later I discovered she and others have done this in other FAs as well.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 10:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
|url=
parameter had been added to all the
Citation Style 1 templates, the intention of {{
cite web}}
has been that it should only be used for web sources that don't fit one of the other templates. That is, for news sources, {{
cite news}}
should be used - even where the article is only available online, such as with
The Huffington Post. Where a website is used as a source, and that web page is not a news page, the use of {{
cite web}}
is quite in order, even when {{
cite news}}
has been used elsewhere on the page.{{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
- or indeed any templates that concern citations. Also, none of them have anything about publishers in (or not in) parentheses.consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes
Silverman, Dwight (July 15, 2011). " Microsoft envisions a universal OS, but it might not be called Windows". Houston Chronicle. Hearst Corporation. Retrieved May 26, 2015.
Silverman, Dwight (July 15, 2011). " Microsoft envisions a universal OS, but it might not be called Windows". Houston Chronicle. (Hearst Corporation). Retrieved May 26, 2015.
{{
cite news}}
for a webpage that isn't news. Accordingly, I have brought the thread to wider attention, at the (redirected) talk pages of the two templates concerned. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Redrose: You have apparently had some very silly reviews on the point.
That said, I would support changing cite web to be more like cite news on this point. What do the other citation template do in a similar instance? Do any of the others add parentheses around the publisher? -- Izno ( talk) 18:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I called the review silly, not the reviewer.
I just checked your specific reference and it produced problematic output (to me):
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help){{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)|work=
is set and the template is not {{
cite encyclopaedia}}
, {{
cite web}}
, {{
cite pressrelease}}
, or {{
cite podcast}}
.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)|work=
set:
|work=
not set:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|work=
and those four templates. The questions I have are: Why are parentheses added when |work=
is set? Why were those four templates excluded? I can answer the last question for {{cite podcast}}
: to be the same as {{cite web}}
because it is the same except for the parenthetical annotation.{{
cite book}}
templates with and without |work=
and with (I think) all of the publication specific parameters:
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Cite book |work=Work |location=Location |publication-place=Publication Place |publication-date=2016 |date=2010 |publisher=Publisher}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Cite book |location=Location |publication-place=Publication Place |publication-date=2016 |date=2010 |publisher=Publisher}}
|work=
include it and when there is not, don't include it. Must I start an explicit RFC? —
Codename Lisa (
talk) 22:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
|mode=cs1
does not change {{
citation}}
to another kind of template. The only things that change are the separator character, terminal punctuation, and enable/disable automatic |ref=harv
. The template is still {{citation}}
so it obeys the rules that I stated earlier.citation
class, but those in the
Citation Style 1 group apply a second class as well - for {{
cite book}}
, this is book
; for {{
cite news}}
, this is news
; and for {{
cite web}}
, this is web
. These may be found by examining the HTML source, or by checking the template - go to the template page, click "View source" (or "Edit" if you are an admin), and look for the |CitationClass=
parameter. The value of that is the extra class that is applied. These extra classes are not used by English Wikipedia, but other organisations may make use of them when examining the references in our web pages. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
$(".web")
There is an inconsistency that seems more significant to me; there was a consensus to fix it a long time ago but the fix has never been done. Consider these cites without an author:
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)Notice how, for all the cites that have an author, the date is right after the author and in parentheses, but when there is no author the date moves to nearly the end of the citation, and there are no parentheses. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:38, 29 March 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.
Hello everyone,
According to
a test case compiled by User:Trappist the monk, out of 23 templates that implement the
CS1 citation sytle, 17 of them place the publisher name (from |publisher=
) between parentheses when there is a work title (from |work=
or its numerous aliases like |newspaper=
, |website=
, etc.) In addition, {{
Citation}} also does this (with or without |mode=cs1
.) In all 24 cases, the parentheses do not appear when there is no work title.
The question is: Should we change the remaining 6 to adhere to this already-dominant style? In this discussion your verdicts may be:
|mode=cs1
is set)I'd like to invite the people already in the discussion to participate: Jonesey95, Jc3s5h, Redrose64, Trappist the monk, Imzadi1979, Izno, Nikkimaria
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
|work=
is included, and I think it makes sense to be consistent in that way as well. I would also anecdotally suggest that |publisher=
currently appears far more often without parentheses, given that it is most often filled in {{
cite web}} (which never puts it in parentheses) and {{
cite book}} (which puts it in parentheses only when |work=
is present, which is rare for book citations). The other templates are for the most part far less common, or in some cases use of |publisher=
is not as prevalent (eg. journals or newspapers) as it is for books.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 19:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) So I would prefer having them present in all cases even when |work=
isn't used like in the example I mention. My example would become Author (1990). "Chapter". Title. Series. (Publisher). If that can't be done, then remove them everywhere.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)"parentheses mean publication date and brackets mean publisher."
design a new, universal and consistent citation formatting style for use by all Wikipedia articles.
In addition, {{
Citation}} also does this when |mode=cs1
is set.
|mode=
does not change how
Module:Citation/CS1 renders |publisher=
.—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
|mode=cs1
is set. Only a case-effect relationship is absent. But nevertheless, it is true. —
Codename Lisa (
talk) 18:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)@ Trappist the monk: Hi. Do you think it is okay to implement the result of the RFC now? Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 15:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
|location=
) must be edited too (see ln #2048) because it is also formatted within parentheses, and 'Publisher' is included in them (ln #2902). So just changing 'PublisherName'/'Publisher' (ln #2894) won't work in all cases.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 14:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)|publisher=
and certain parameters (such as |location=
) that could affect display of the citation, over and above the presence/absence of |work=
. Since the result of the RFC specifies a new design consensus for an area of CS1, its implementation should avoid introducing possible new inconsistencies.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)unnamed refs | 282 | ||
---|---|---|---|
named refs | 92 | ||
self closed | 111 | ||
cs1 refs | 388 | ||
cs1 templates | 404 | ||
cs1-like refs | 1 | ||
cs1-like templates | 1 | ||
sfn templates | 136 | ||
refbegin templates | 2 | ||
use xxx dates | mdy | ||
cs1|2 df mdy | 1 | ||
cs1|2 mdy dates | 179 | ||
cs1|2 last/first | 159 | ||
cs1|2 author | 2 | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
explanations |
This is not strictly a CS1 question, but I got no answer at WP:HD, apparently because there is not enough referencing expertise watching that page. If there is a better place for questions of this ilk, I'd like to know where it is for future reference (oops).
Princeton University contains 6 references to a book, all in need of page numbers. I don't have the book, and I'm not inclined to trudge down to the library and do the necessary research. How would you code this, assuming only one occurrence of {{ Cite book}}?
Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
ref info}}
at the top of this topic.{{
sfn}}
link to an in-line citation when the article does not have a separate bibliography section – §Further reading is not a reference bibliography.Whereas the en-dashes that MOS prescribes for date ranges are special characters, not generally found on standard keyboards, and whereas the error message the cs code emits on finding a hyphen is not clear that the hyphen is the basis for the complaint, I propose that where the cs code finds hyphens in date ranges it should automatically convert them to en-dashes, without complaint.
Any objections? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
list the valid date formatsrequest taken from the date validation code:
|date=2008-03
and |date=March 27-April 3, 2002
, for example, should still cause errors to be emitted and should not be auto-converted. We need to think this through. Maybe only dates that would be otherwise valid if the hyphens were en dashes should be auto-converted. Would that cover the whole list of possibilities? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
|date=
should require |df=
(where |df=[full list of allowable date formats]
). So a user would first have to specify a particular |df=
choice, and then |date=
could only be filled accordingly. Beforehand, I can't tell which programmatic approach would be optimal or easier.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 13:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
|date=
and doesn't have |df=
. Besides, |df=
has a specific purpose which we should be changing without a bunch of deep thinking.|df=
(functioning as explained above) is devised. Just throwing around ideas.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 15:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
From the list above, these use hyphens:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)these use ndashes:
ymd dates and |df=
are not broken:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
So where are we at with this? If the code is smart enough to declare an error in regard of hyphens, should it fix it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
... templates are not allowed to modify wiki text"? Bullcrap. We are not talking about modifying the text, but processing the input. Which is already done in regards of italicization, and even the replacement of hyphens in page ranges. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed a bunch of edits in which correct use of ignore-isbn-error is being removed. The as-printed ISBN has been replaced with an ASIN (IMO bad to add this so really bad to also remove the ISBN) an OCLC (IMO good to add this but bad to remove the ISBN) or a different ISBN (IMO not necessarily OK but not necessarily bad either):
So my concern is that the new category is being misused to blindly remove all use of ignore-isbn-error and removing correct information about the source in the process. The removed ISBNs are confirmed to be as-printed either directly or based on library records which indicate that this is the case.
TuxLibNit ( talk) 17:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
isbn=0-9536475-4-8|ignore-isbn-error=yes <!-- invalid ISBN 0-9536475-4-8 is as used by british national library via worldcat -->
This is a self published book. A 9 digit ISBN was used. No way to find it. ASIN was used, but this is a last resort.isbn=978-88-8446-157-X|ignore-isbn-error=yes<!-- invalid ISBN 978-88-8446-157-X is as used by Harvard University library and more via worldcat -->
Why use a made up ISBN (13 digits don't have X) that is only good at Harvard? Worldcat number was used so everybody can find it. Next item on the above list was also another Harvard one.isbn= 90-286-0573-1| ignore-isbn-error=yes <!-- invalid ISBN 90-286-0573-1 appears on back cover of work -->
This is a long series of books. Those before the late 1970's had bogus ISBNs, after that, they used correct ISBNs.|=978-5-903368-45-0|ignore-isbn-error=yes
It is a bad ISBN. It was replaced by the correct one.|ignore-isbn-error=
is being used. Here are the ones I can think of and how I recommend dealing with them, after fixing a few thousand ISBN errors.
|ignore-isbn-error=
used with a valid ISBN. In this case, remove the "ignore" parameter.|ignore-isbn-error=
used with an invalid ISBN that links through to WorldCat and that is sometimes even listed in WorldCat with the book. In this case, insert a comment that the ISBN is invalid but that it is listed in WorldCat.|ignore-isbn-error=
used with an invalid ISBN that is listed in the LCCN database as an invalid ISBN. This means that the invalid ISBN was printed in the book and should be left. Add a comment explaining why the invalid ISBN is there, with a reference to LCCN, and add the |LCCN=
parameter if it is there.|ignore-isbn-error=
used with an invalid ISBN that does not link through to WorldCat and that cannot be verified. In this case, if you can locate an OCLC for the source, add it, and comment out (but do not remove) the invalid ISBN.|ignore-isbn-error=
takes a number of "yes/no" arguments only. Why don't we define a wider set of predefined tokens so that editors could systematically specify what's actually up with an invalid ISBN?|ignore-isbn-error=
parameter to record the other ISBN as well. Alternatively, the |isbn=
parameter could be changed to accept more than one value. As some databases may list the book under one ISBN, and others under the other, this is important information to know, and omitting one of the ISBNs may reduce chances to locate a copy of the book.|edition=
is useful for that situation. As for multiple ISBNs in the template, that will lead to all sorts of trouble; the idea of citing a source is to cite the specific item from which you got the information. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)Just a quick note. In some cases the invalid ISBN was used by worldcat at some point. That does not make it valid nor it provides any proof that this ISBN was ever actually connected to the book. In these cases the ISBN was only used to find the book in worldcat. OCLC is a better choice for that.
Moreover, we mainly need ISBNs to help readers retrieve a reference. We should use the way that makes it easier to spot a book. An invalid ISBN could rarerly be of any help. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
|ignore-isbn-error=
. The only authoritative ISBN error-checking is the one indicated here:
I've been working on an AWB script to cleanup Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list. In the process I've discovered and, I think, remedied a bug in the Vancouver style validation code.
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Wiebe S, Blume WT, Girvin JP, Eliasziw M A (2001). "A randomized, controlled trial of surgery for temporal-lobe epilepsy". New England J Medicine. 345 (5): 311–318.
doi:
10.1056/NEJM200108023450501.
PMID
11484687. {{
cite journal}} : Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 4 (
help)
|
Sandbox | Wiebe S, Blume WT, Girvin JP, Eliasziw M A (2001). "A randomized, controlled trial of surgery for temporal-lobe epilepsy". New England J Medicine. 345 (5): 311–318.
doi:
10.1056/NEJM200108023450501.
PMID
11484687. {{
cite journal}} : Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 4 (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The new code to validate the format of an embargo date is flawed. I've fixed it in the sandbox. I left in a line of code that preset the embargo date to the year 9999. The purpose of that was debug test in the development of the code. I neglected to remove it. So, all |pmc=
identifiers are being treated as if the cs1|2 template has |embargo=9999
.
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
fixed in live module.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
That functionality has never been part of cs2:
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
Sandbox | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
(hmm, there is a bug in the page rendering code; but that's a different topic).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
and set |mode=cs2
:
When {{
citation}}
is used to cite a journal (or any alias of |work=
) and the template does not have |author=
or |editor=
parameters then it renders page numbers out of order. This is fixed in the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
Sandbox | "Preface: Situating...", Medical History, 43 (3): 283–85, 1999a, PMC 1044146, PMID 16562317 |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)