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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Books can be uniquely identified by ISBN, and journals by DOI and other identifiers, which are included in citations. Distinct identification of authors, where names may change, be abbreviated or even misspelled, or variously translated, has been a problem, but is now being addressed by databases such as ORCID, which provide unique identifiers as well as comprehensive information on an author and his or her work. As such identifiers provide valuable bibliographic data I have developed a template to provide links to an author's databae entry.
The {{
Authorid}}
template, given the proper identfiers, generates links to an author's information in the form of one or more superscripted letters. Example:
Josiah Carberry . This can be used now in citation templates by appending it to the |first=
parameter. However, that is not suitable, as 1) it pollutes the COINS data, and 2) the links fail when used with |author-link=
.
I propose we have an |author-id=
parameter (and the corresponding |authorn-id=
parameters) to provide a place for author identifiers such as
ORCID,
ResearcherID, etc. Note: this is not to generate the links, nor to display the identifiers directly (which would overwhelm a citation), but to display links generated by Authorid (or similar templates) in the proper place following an author's name.
Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that what I am proposing here is to provide a place for author identifiers in the citation templates, however such identifiers are provided. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
|at=
for authors? --
Izno (
talk) 23:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
So is this proposal non-controversial? Or should the discussion be expanded, or possibly an RfC started? I suspect the real criterion for getting this implemented is simply getting Trappist on board. Trappist the monk, what do you think of this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
(which is a wikilink), while my concept of |author-id=
is for a space (platform?) that could accommodate a variety of features. Even a link to Wikidata that is independent of |author-link=
. Wikidata links could even be accommodated in my {{
authorid}} template. But whether Wikidata links are a good thing is entirely a matter of the other discussion, and not pertinent here. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC){{
authorid}}
:
|author-links=
, as they also do nothing to identify or locate the source, and all those splashes of blue may (in some people's opinion) be just too distracting. And your objection to {{
authorid}} seems tautologically impossible to satisfy: how can the result be both more informative and less intrusive? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 02:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)|author-id=
parameter. If you don't want to use that for the {{
authorid}} template feel free not to. Or devise a better way of linking to author information. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 18:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Kanguole having nothing further to add, let us review Headbomb's objections. Particularly, that (19:36, 13 April)
[not] Wikipedia's role to further clutter our editing window with ORCID data", and
[t]he information is virtually pointless, and does no service to the reader."
He also elaborated a view that
the journal's website."
Re #1: As I have previously stated (21:40, 13 April), if one's edit window has gotten too cluttered to readily follow the text then the biggest improvement is to pull out all of the citation templates. Not to dispense with them entirely, but to move them into their own section, where they can be organized neatly and without clutter, then use short cites in the text. ORCID data is not more cluttering than any other data used in a citation, and cutting that out on the basis of "clutter" is as sensible as cutting off one's feet because the blanket is too short.
Re #2: I and Andy have already explained how authoritative identification of authors, and the information thus available about an author, can be a valuable service to both the reader and the editor. At the very least this provides a basis for assessing an author's reliability. Such information generally includes a bibliography, which is extremely useful in seeing if the author has changed his position, or simply finding the latest work on the subject.
Re #3: Headbomb fails to recognize that not all works that might be cited are done under the auspices of a journal, and that not all journal websites provide author id links such as are proposed here. Having to follow such multi-step and possibly broken links disconnects readers and editors from potentially important information.
I believe all of the objections raised so far have been addressed, and are found lacking in substance. If there are no other objections I will proceed to a broader RfC. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
|wikidata=WIKIDATA-ID#
is fine like we do with our other citation identifiers like |bibcode=1935JChPh...3..764W
creates a link to the ADSABS database (
Bibcode:
1935JChPh...3..764W). Then you can shove all the ORCIDS for every author in there. Cluttering our articles with a bunch Smith, J
ORCID or
Smith, J. or some such is not.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)with a bunch [of] Smith, J ORCID". The specific use contemplated is more like: Smith, J. . Hardly a clutter. Nor, to anticipate Boghog's objection, a "sea of blue". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
|author-linkn=
will link to either an article (perferred) or a wikidata node. The citation template could automatically detect the target site. If the target is Wikidata, our citation template could slightly change the display of the link so that users can distinguish them from normal article links without having to click on them. Or the citation template could use the link as a handle to link to a special intermediate page rather than Wikidata directly.|author-linkn=
, we could introduce a |author-wdidn=
parameter holding a Wikidata node number. Since these parameters are mutually exclusive, we could simply ignore |author-wdidn=
if |author-linkn=
is present as well. Alternatively, we could use |author-wdidn=
to display a single additional link following an author's name (perhaps in the superscript format suggested by JJ), so we'd have at most two links per author. We don't have to decide on the specifics now, because for as long as all this is handled inside of the citation template, the actual behaviour and display format could be easily changed alongside the long migration process to Wikidata. However, in order to avoid potential misuse, the |author-wdidn=
parameter should neither accept free-flow text as argument (as suggested by JJ) nor a free-flow url, but only the raw Wikidata node number itself.|author-link=
and the like duplicated many times, but these are more transparent than Wikidata IDs, and thus more feasible for editors to create, check and maintain.|author-wdidn=
parameter (perhaps that would be better as |author-wdn=
?) linking to Wikidata is interesting, and parallel to what I am proposing here, except for being more limited. Note (as I have pointed out
elsewhere, 21:49, 18 April) that {{
authorid}} could be easily extended to provide links to Wikidata, which removes any need for a separate parameter.all the ORCIDS for every author" (but let's not forget Scopus, ResearcherID, and the rest). Details of just how that would be done might be interesting, if he would so enlighten us. But why stop there? It would certainly remove a lot of clutter (and blue) from the citations - which has been the most prominent concern of some of you - if we had a single link to similarly cover all the source links, such as axriv, asin, bibcode, doi, eissn, isbn, issn, jstor, lccn, ocic, pmc, pmid, ssrn, and zbl. But until we have concurrence for such "single links", and perhaps some concept of how that would be done, provisioning of an
|author-idN=
parameter is the most reasonable way of accommodating things like ORICD links, however that might be done. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)|wididata=WIKIDATA-ID#
which would produce a link at the end of the citation
|author-link=
is behavior we should not be altering. Though I would mention that if the author-link processing was smart to exclude any kind of templating from the wikilink, but append it instead, then what I have proposed here would not be needed. But probably better to have separate parameters lest there be any confusion.Are you legitimately unable to understand the phrase Everything would be stored in Wikidata. All authors, all full names (even if we cite them as Smith, J. on Wikipedia), author affiliations, emails, author ids, etc.? Or unable to fathom that citations with multiple authors would work just the same, except would have more than one author listed? Like Smith, J., Thomson, K. (2010). "Article of Stuff". Journal of Stuff 50 (4): 40 doi: 10.1234/56789. SSRN 0123456798. Wikidata: Q123456798? And that the Wikidata entry would contain the full names of both authors?
As for as your anonymous example, you look at the publication or its publisher. Anonymous paper hosted in a random forum? Likely unreliable. In The Economist (in which all articles are anonymous, last I heard)? Likely reliable. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ J. Johnson: to return to the question you asked me. If I look at UCERF3, I have no idea who any of the authors of the sources given are, and I don't care. I do care that the sources are papers in reputable scientific journals; they might just as well be anonymous. I work regularly with secondary sources such as the World Spider Catalog or the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, where authorship is irrelevant. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
adding an id for every author", it is about adding links to authors (may be only one) individually. As to "clutter" (as I have previously noted): having a single, superscripted small-letter appended after half-a-dozen author names is a third less clutter (and less blue) than the twenty characters of Headbomb's " Wikidata: Q123456798" example. Your objection of "clutter" really should run against the provided Wikidata example.
avoiding repeated links": what are you talking about? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
. A given author should only have one id link in the article (more definitely is clutter). But this is difficult to ensure when refs get added incrementally and change position as the text changes.|author-links=
, and also in wikilinking publishers and cities of publication, there is a broader issue: where a wiki-notable author (or publisher) appears more than once in a bibliography, it does seem excessive to have that name highlighted multiple times. E.g. (to strip matters to the essentials), something like:
|authorid=
parameter that could reduce the flood of blue created by author-links. In the issue raised here |authorid=
is less of the problem, and more of an opportunity for a solution. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Oppose—at this time, I'm not in favor of adding author ID numbers to citations. Maybe in the future we can use Wikidata as a sort of intermediary repository for them, but we're far from that point. In the interim, adding these would add visual clutter without an immediate tangible benefit. (If there were such a benefit, other style guides would have determined a way to add such ID numbers to citations, but they have yet to do so.) ID numbers for the actual sources (ISBN, ISSN, OCLC, DOI, etc), yes, but not for authors. Imzadi 1979 → 07:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I see that multiple authors in the author field is classed now as an error. However this is my preferred way of coding, as, in my opinion, attempts to break down authorship field more granularly are not the province of citation templates.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC).
the province of citation templates"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
|ref=harv
doesn't work and can't work unless the authors are separated. (Attempts to do the separation automatically in software are doomed because of the too-great variety of names and of ways that template users might try to format them.) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
: it is an up-front indication that the rest of the article may suffer from the same lack of care and diligence. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)|author=
) where he should clearly have used the multiple-person version (|authors=
). And then makes the contradictory statement that "granularity" regarding authors is not the province of CS1.
65.88.88.200 (
talk) 13:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
. The content of |authors=
is not made part of the citation's metadata because we can't necessarily parse the parameter's contents into the appropriate metadata keywords rft.au
, rft.aufirst
, rft.aulast
.|authors=
along with |coauthors=
? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
|editors=
or |people=
. Although I've rarely used them, not everything can be put in a straightjacket.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 23:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
parameter is a reasonable solution: could you offer any examples? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|orig-name=
. Putting all such names into |author=
or |authorn=
is semantically incorrect – there are many names, not many authors. |authors=
is not correct either, but it is better (author-separation is not explicit). Also the parameters can be useful when roles may have to be designated, for example with authors of creative works such as (director), (producer), (scriptwriter) etc. Using |first=
to add these roles is also semantically incorrect. If and when an |author-id=
is established, then these free-form parameters can be revisited – assuming that |author-link=
or |author-id=
are filled-in, and correctly so.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 14:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|author=
, but of putting multiple authors into |authors=
. So like I asked before: do we have any examples of where stuffing multiple authors into an |authors=
parameter is a reasonable solution? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
or |author-id=
. The temporary solution for me would be to use |authors=
for the reasons stated above, to hold both author names. And as also stated above, there is the other situation, where author roles may be indicated.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 00:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
can "hold both author names", it is evident you are talking about multiple names for a single author. But!! 1) All of that, being applicable to a single author, could be done in the singular
|author1=
. (Or even better in |first1=
and |last1=
.) 2) what we are discussing here is not a single author with multiple names, but the use of the plural |authors=
parameter for multiple authors. E.g.: |authors=Smith, M.; Jones, Jim, Jr.; Miller, Richard
. Do you understand that? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 19:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
is free-form. By definition more flexible, and though not perfect, can handle such situations better. Here's some pseudocode: {{cite book|authors=Penname [pen-name of Author]|title=Title}}
.
64.134.69.85 (
talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
is the plural form, not the possessive form. (|author's=
??)|vauthors=
;-)
Boghog (
talk) 20:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter does not require "[l]umping all the authors together", it is the means by which that is achieved in accordance with the Vancouver style of citation, and which is done on the expectaton of a specific structuring that is not expected with
|authors=
. Aside from that, "vauthors" is entirely parallel with "authors" in that the "s" means the plural form, not the possessive form. Nor whatever fantastical form this anonymous IP has in mind.If people wish to see multiple authors listed in an "authors" parameter, then I can understand that. I think, though, that cite templates should be easy to use. It is really cool that people can rip data from WP in structured ways, but what I primarily care about is making the encyclopaedia easy to read and write. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
|authors=
for as long as we don't delete it. It is convenient to have in the first run of a conversion job of free-flow citations to use the citation templates (or when translating citations from other Wikipedias), in particular in articles outside one's own interest or when in a hurry. Deprecating the parameter would not be in conflict with this usage, we could even track its usage in some maintenance category. Perhaps someone will write a tool to semi-automate the process of splitting |authors=
into separate parameters. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 00:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
presents the citation in exactly the same way as splitting up the information into |last1=
, |first1=
, etc., where's the problem in deprecating |authors=
? Anyone can use this short form and then other editors can tidy up behind them.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
in way that appears the same as using |last/first=
. But why go to that much trouble instead of just using last/first? Not to mention that CITEREFs, COinS, and any other current and futuristic uses of the metadata are broken. In the long run last/first is indeed easier than using |authors=
, which is little more than a means of shifting some necessary work on to someone else. I see no place for it. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|author=
should be replaced with |authors=
?
Dcirovic (
talk ·
contribs) is making edits
like this at the rate of 12 per minute, or one every five seconds, and are effectively acting as a
WP:BOT despite not being a bot account. I left
a talk page message, but they continue unabated. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
is not made part of a cs1|2 template's metadata, single name |author=
which were correct and were creating author metadata are no longer doing so.As a possible summary: are we generally in accord that (aside from the structured vauthors parameter), it is preferable to not put multiple authors into a single |authors=
parameter? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | Prins, Harald E.L. (1986). "The Most Convenientest Place for Trade; a Discussion of the Kenibec/Cushnoc Controversy". The Kennebec Proprietor. Vol. 3, no. 1. pp. 4–9(magazine of the Fort Western Museum).{{
cite magazine}} : CS1 maint: postscript (
link)
|
Sandbox | Prins, Harald E.L. (1986). "The Most Convenientest Place for Trade; a Discussion of the Kenibec/Cushnoc Controversy". The Kennebec Proprietor. Vol. 3, no. 1. pp. 4–9(magazine of the Fort Western Museum).{{
cite magazine}} : CS1 maint: postscript (
link)
|
I found citation 5 in
this revision of "Cushnoc Archeological Site" misuses |postscript=
. Should there be a test for the use of a punctuation character? I would suggest that the module output 1) an error if this parameter is set to anything more than one character in length, and 2) a maintenance notification if the character is not a punctuation mark (in English). --
Izno (
talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
|postscript=
does not stand for
postscript, but for terminal punctuation. Renaming the parameter according to its purpose would be the first (and perhaps the only necessary) step.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)|postscript=
for this purpose myself (although I was tempted to do so many times), a lot of editors use it to store visible notes related to the citation. I would therefore oppose enforcing stricter checks for the |postscript=
parameter for as long as we don't have a |comment=
or |note=
parameter as was repeatedly proposed by various editors already and is supported by the citation templates in some other Wikipedias. The contents of that optional parameter would be shown following the optional output of the |quote=
(and the proposed |script-quote=
and |trans-quote=
) parameter(s), and ideally it would be framed in parenthesis (like: "(<text>)" or "(Note: <text>)" or "(NB. <text>)"), so that the |postscript=
parameter can still be used to define the leadout character in order to blend it in with the text surrounding the template. Keeping the various texts in separate parameters (and spans) would allow us to bidir-protect the contents of the script parameter, possibly add language metadata, dynamically filter specific contents based on output media (monitor, screen, printer, data stream), style (CSS) and user preferences, and let the template adjust the leadout semi-automatically. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 14:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|comment=
or equivalent. I have seen a number of users advocate such a parameter but no
WP:RFC to support it.Regardless, this is a misuse of the parameter. Any further discussion regarding |comment=
deserves its own thread (again); blocking the implementation of a test for misuse of this parameter for a "I want this other parameter" would be
pointed though not-particularly disruptive (and probably falls in the
WP:OTHERSTUFF bucket of issues). --
Izno (
talk) 14:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|ps=
. And I wonder if anything other than a comma or a period is valid. I think we should also consider whether the name should be changed. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Following up on the suggestion by 72.43.99.146: anyone have any ideas for a better name for this parameter, that would avoid the association with PostScript, and better communicate that this is about choice of punctuation? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The suggestion in Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions for Italian parameter names are all wrong (except for "volume" and "titolo"). I have prepared an updated file with the name used in it.wiki, can I upload in the sandbox Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox ? -- Moroboshi ( talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Asking this here b/c I don't see it addressed on Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style (so I was forced to guess).
The module prefers |vauthors=Gower Jr WR, Carr MC
over |vauthors=Gower WR Jr, Carr MC
(my emphasis) (see
here and
here). The latter emits an error and fails to render the r
in Jr
. However, I've seen that the latter is more common than the former (only anecdotally; I haven't done any research into their relative frequency). Are there any plans to allow this? If not, it should be stated somewhere on the error category. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=((Gower WR Jr)), Carr MC
([JS]r\s)?[A-Z]+(\s[JS]r)?
, which must exist after a last name [A-Z][a-z]+
to not emit an error. I can't speak to the difficulty/ease of implententation, however. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 19:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)|vauthors=Last Sr. FM
is allowed (period is removed prior to rendering) but |vauthors=Last RM Sr
isn't. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)|vauthors=Last Sr. FM
is malformed. Vancouver style requires that the suffix to be placed at the end after the initials.
Module:Citation/CS1 treats 'Sr.' as part of the last name. The disappearance of the dot in rendering is part of the reason I want to rewrite the name handling code. At the next update, a dot appearing in any |vauthors=
parameter will cause an error message:
One of the obstacles to adopting |vauthors=
usage on pages using Vancouver style authors seems to be no option for
a trailing period at the end of the rendered author list (even though a period appears after the date). I'm not sure why this extra period would be desired (pinging
Sasata, who supports it), but is it something that we want to implement? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 19:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
and the other cs1 templates will terminate the author name list with a period regardless of the punctuation that separates the individual names. Likewise, {{
citation}}
(or cs1 templates with |mode=cs2
) will terminate the name list with a comma:
{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM}}
{{citation |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM}}
|mode=cs2
:
{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM |mode=cs2}}
|authors=
to get the job done, since |vauthors=
emits an error when a trailing period is present. If this were doable via |vauthors=
(or some other parameter (|postscript=
comes to mind)) that would solve the problem (removing the desire to have a trailing author period when |date=
/|year=
is listed would solve it too, but that doesn't seem possible given the adamance of the above linked discussion). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 19:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC){{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM|year=1999}}
{{cite book |title=Title |last=Last|first= FM|last2= Last|first2= FM|year=1999}}
|authors=
, |last1=
etc., and |vauthors=
are handled the same. Adding a period to the list of authors will make it inconsistent with the CS1 style, such as it is. An editor who wants a period after the author list and before the year may need to use hand-rendered citations.–
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)( edit conflict) great minds?
{{
citation}}
; first without date:
|vauthors=
.hand-rendered citationsthat Jonesey95 mentions, and
free-form citationsthat you mention referring to the same thing, and to, for example, something like
<ref>Last FM, Last FM. (1999). Title.</ref>
? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)It seems that DOIs are rendered as:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2F2009JD012104 https://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F31543
These links are from
Lowest temperature recorded on Earth, using {{
cite journal}}, and
Nikolaus Pevsner, using {{
cite ODNB}}. In both, a slash (/
) is rendered as %2F
, and in the second a colon (:
) is rendered as %3A
. Both use the unencoded form (10.1029/2009JD012104
& 10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F3154
) in the wikitext. It seems, as far as I can tell, to affect anything in the CS1 family.
Is there a particular reason for doing this? URLs, etc, that come through CS1 seem to be unencoded. Andrew Gray ( talk) 11:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Module:Citation/CS1 is not supposed to create a CITEREF anchor id from |authors=
:
{{citation |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors''</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>
{{cite book |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000053-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">|ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>
But, there is a bug that causes it to do so when the template has a date:
{{citation |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000057-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors'', 1995</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>
{{cite book |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''. 1995.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">|ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>
I have fixed the bug in the sandbox:
{{citation/new |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors'', 1995</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Unknown parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ignored ([[Help:CS1 errors#parameter_ignored|help]])</span>
{{cite book/new |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000063-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''. 1995.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">|ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Unknown parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ignored ([[Help:CS1 errors#parameter_ignored|help]])</span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
was mentioned in the harv/CITEREF section, and I did not find it, so I don't think this will introduce any changes that contravene the documentation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
*
|ref=harv
: Creates an anchor of the formatCITEREFauthorslastnameyear
suitable for a{{ harv}}
,{{ sfn}}
etc.
— H:CS1#Anchors
CITEREFauthorslastnameyear
to CITEREFauthorlastnameyear
or CITEREFauthor(s)lastnameyear
The new code that renders date ranges with an endash when the template-source uses a hyphen separator, revealed this bug where a date value beginning with 'n.d.' is accepted regardless of any additional stuff that may be in the parameter value. That is remedied in the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Anonymous (n.d. (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Anonymous (n.d. (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
The 'nd' version does not suffer the same problem:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Anonymous (nd (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Anonymous (nd (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It steals has he same sample date, and it's been a week. Eurocus47 ( talk) 17:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Following up on
this conversation, I have added support for generational suffixes in Vancouver style when cs1|2 templates use |lastn=
/ |firstn=
with |name-list-format=vanc
or use |vauthors=
:
|vauthors=
:
|lastn=
/ |firstn=
with |name-list-format=vanc
The code accepts ordinals 2nd–9th.
As part of this change, I've tweaked the Vancouver error messaging a bit so that error messages attempt to indicate why something is not right:
{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: suffix in name 1 (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: suffix in name 1 (
help) – 22nd not valid but the code can't tell if FM is part of a multi-word 'last' name or first & middle initials because there is no last name mixed case requirement{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)– an error but not an error; could be a case where |first=
has a name that is written in all uppercase{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help) – |vauthors=
too many uppercase initials is an error{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help){{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help) – |vauthors=Last F M|vauthors=
only):
{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 2 (
help) – |vauthors=Last FM, 3rd
– because the comma indicates the start of a new name; '3' is not a letter{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (
help) – |vauthors=Last ЕМ 1st
– Cyrillic characters in this example which look remarkably like Latin characters|vauthors=[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln A]]
|vauthors=
name list:
Not altogether successful but not a complete failure either. What I think this does mean is that the whole name-handling is a mess. I've been wondering if all of the name-handling code shouldn't be moved out of
Module:Citation/CS1 into its own page and be given a good rethink with the goal of eliminating redundancies and improving (especially for Vancouver style) error handling, detection, and reporting; metadata support; add a semantically correct |vauthor=
when a template lists only one name in that format; perhaps other stuff. Perhaps after the next update.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
{{cite journal | vauthors = Pometto AL 3rd, Crawford DL, Last FM | title = Blah}}
3rd
" to each subsequent author:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)3rd
" from the first author to the second author:
{{cite journal | vauthors = Pometto AL, Crawford DL 3rd, Last FM | title = Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Something has gone wrong with {{ citation}}, {{ cite journal}}, etc., in the last few minutes. Whenever I use them, I get a big red error message "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3231: attempt to index global 'cs1' (a nil value)." — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=
bug fix turned ugly.Both |authors=
and |last=
correctly give the 'multiple-author-lists' error when |vauthors=
is present, but |first=
does not ~
Using |authors=
:
{{cite journal|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|author=Lastoneauthor FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)Using |last=
:
{{cite journal|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|last=Lastonelast FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)Using |first=
:
{{cite journal|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|first=Lastonefirst FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)The same is true for |editor-first=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|first=
without |last=
test should be displayed also, but is likely relying on the same bit of code that identifies the duplication in |last=
and |vauthors=
. --
Izno (
talk) 14:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|last=
(and aliases). If none are found, the module looks for |vauthors=
and finally |authors=
. |first=
is not examined. There is only one list type rendered according to the priority order just described.|firstn=
where n
is one of the set [nil, 1, 2]. The previous examples using the sandbox:
{{cite journal/new|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|author=Lastoneauthor FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help){{cite journal/new|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|last=Lastonelast FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help){{cite journal/new|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|first=Lastonefirst FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)Are there any plans to extend the multi-author error checks for only 2 authors? I'm guessing this hasn't been done yet in order to avoid misidentifying single authors like |author=Charles II, William W
as 2 authors. Can the current multi-author error check be made to only flag single-comma author/editor fields which don't contain Roman-numeral-like initials [IV]+
, but which otherwise follow Vancouver format? I'm currently migrating these cases (where appropriate) to |vauthors=
, but I only happen on them if they populate
Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list by some other means.
Currently no 2-author error:
{{cite journal|author=Last FM, Last FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In the article New World wine the book by José del Pozo Historia del vino chileno is cited two times: one time pages 24–34 and the other 35–45. Is there a way to cite it only one time specifying different pages intervals, or should I use {{ cite book}} two times separately?-- Carnby ( talk) 15:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
<ref>{{
harvnb}}
</ref>
or {{
sfn}}
in place of the <ref>{{
cite book}}
</ref>
references; if necessary create a bibliography section and place the {{cite book}}
template there (without page number information which properly belongs in the short-form templates); and Bob's yer Uncle.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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Books can be uniquely identified by ISBN, and journals by DOI and other identifiers, which are included in citations. Distinct identification of authors, where names may change, be abbreviated or even misspelled, or variously translated, has been a problem, but is now being addressed by databases such as ORCID, which provide unique identifiers as well as comprehensive information on an author and his or her work. As such identifiers provide valuable bibliographic data I have developed a template to provide links to an author's databae entry.
The {{
Authorid}}
template, given the proper identfiers, generates links to an author's information in the form of one or more superscripted letters. Example:
Josiah Carberry . This can be used now in citation templates by appending it to the |first=
parameter. However, that is not suitable, as 1) it pollutes the COINS data, and 2) the links fail when used with |author-link=
.
I propose we have an |author-id=
parameter (and the corresponding |authorn-id=
parameters) to provide a place for author identifiers such as
ORCID,
ResearcherID, etc. Note: this is not to generate the links, nor to display the identifiers directly (which would overwhelm a citation), but to display links generated by Authorid (or similar templates) in the proper place following an author's name.
Comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that what I am proposing here is to provide a place for author identifiers in the citation templates, however such identifiers are provided. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
|at=
for authors? --
Izno (
talk) 23:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
So is this proposal non-controversial? Or should the discussion be expanded, or possibly an RfC started? I suspect the real criterion for getting this implemented is simply getting Trappist on board. Trappist the monk, what do you think of this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
(which is a wikilink), while my concept of |author-id=
is for a space (platform?) that could accommodate a variety of features. Even a link to Wikidata that is independent of |author-link=
. Wikidata links could even be accommodated in my {{
authorid}} template. But whether Wikidata links are a good thing is entirely a matter of the other discussion, and not pertinent here. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC){{
authorid}}
:
|author-links=
, as they also do nothing to identify or locate the source, and all those splashes of blue may (in some people's opinion) be just too distracting. And your objection to {{
authorid}} seems tautologically impossible to satisfy: how can the result be both more informative and less intrusive? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 02:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)|author-id=
parameter. If you don't want to use that for the {{
authorid}} template feel free not to. Or devise a better way of linking to author information. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 18:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Kanguole having nothing further to add, let us review Headbomb's objections. Particularly, that (19:36, 13 April)
[not] Wikipedia's role to further clutter our editing window with ORCID data", and
[t]he information is virtually pointless, and does no service to the reader."
He also elaborated a view that
the journal's website."
Re #1: As I have previously stated (21:40, 13 April), if one's edit window has gotten too cluttered to readily follow the text then the biggest improvement is to pull out all of the citation templates. Not to dispense with them entirely, but to move them into their own section, where they can be organized neatly and without clutter, then use short cites in the text. ORCID data is not more cluttering than any other data used in a citation, and cutting that out on the basis of "clutter" is as sensible as cutting off one's feet because the blanket is too short.
Re #2: I and Andy have already explained how authoritative identification of authors, and the information thus available about an author, can be a valuable service to both the reader and the editor. At the very least this provides a basis for assessing an author's reliability. Such information generally includes a bibliography, which is extremely useful in seeing if the author has changed his position, or simply finding the latest work on the subject.
Re #3: Headbomb fails to recognize that not all works that might be cited are done under the auspices of a journal, and that not all journal websites provide author id links such as are proposed here. Having to follow such multi-step and possibly broken links disconnects readers and editors from potentially important information.
I believe all of the objections raised so far have been addressed, and are found lacking in substance. If there are no other objections I will proceed to a broader RfC. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
|wikidata=WIKIDATA-ID#
is fine like we do with our other citation identifiers like |bibcode=1935JChPh...3..764W
creates a link to the ADSABS database (
Bibcode:
1935JChPh...3..764W). Then you can shove all the ORCIDS for every author in there. Cluttering our articles with a bunch Smith, J
ORCID or
Smith, J. or some such is not.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)with a bunch [of] Smith, J ORCID". The specific use contemplated is more like: Smith, J. . Hardly a clutter. Nor, to anticipate Boghog's objection, a "sea of blue". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
|author-linkn=
will link to either an article (perferred) or a wikidata node. The citation template could automatically detect the target site. If the target is Wikidata, our citation template could slightly change the display of the link so that users can distinguish them from normal article links without having to click on them. Or the citation template could use the link as a handle to link to a special intermediate page rather than Wikidata directly.|author-linkn=
, we could introduce a |author-wdidn=
parameter holding a Wikidata node number. Since these parameters are mutually exclusive, we could simply ignore |author-wdidn=
if |author-linkn=
is present as well. Alternatively, we could use |author-wdidn=
to display a single additional link following an author's name (perhaps in the superscript format suggested by JJ), so we'd have at most two links per author. We don't have to decide on the specifics now, because for as long as all this is handled inside of the citation template, the actual behaviour and display format could be easily changed alongside the long migration process to Wikidata. However, in order to avoid potential misuse, the |author-wdidn=
parameter should neither accept free-flow text as argument (as suggested by JJ) nor a free-flow url, but only the raw Wikidata node number itself.|author-link=
and the like duplicated many times, but these are more transparent than Wikidata IDs, and thus more feasible for editors to create, check and maintain.|author-wdidn=
parameter (perhaps that would be better as |author-wdn=
?) linking to Wikidata is interesting, and parallel to what I am proposing here, except for being more limited. Note (as I have pointed out
elsewhere, 21:49, 18 April) that {{
authorid}} could be easily extended to provide links to Wikidata, which removes any need for a separate parameter.all the ORCIDS for every author" (but let's not forget Scopus, ResearcherID, and the rest). Details of just how that would be done might be interesting, if he would so enlighten us. But why stop there? It would certainly remove a lot of clutter (and blue) from the citations - which has been the most prominent concern of some of you - if we had a single link to similarly cover all the source links, such as axriv, asin, bibcode, doi, eissn, isbn, issn, jstor, lccn, ocic, pmc, pmid, ssrn, and zbl. But until we have concurrence for such "single links", and perhaps some concept of how that would be done, provisioning of an
|author-idN=
parameter is the most reasonable way of accommodating things like ORICD links, however that might be done. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)|wididata=WIKIDATA-ID#
which would produce a link at the end of the citation
|author-link=
is behavior we should not be altering. Though I would mention that if the author-link processing was smart to exclude any kind of templating from the wikilink, but append it instead, then what I have proposed here would not be needed. But probably better to have separate parameters lest there be any confusion.Are you legitimately unable to understand the phrase Everything would be stored in Wikidata. All authors, all full names (even if we cite them as Smith, J. on Wikipedia), author affiliations, emails, author ids, etc.? Or unable to fathom that citations with multiple authors would work just the same, except would have more than one author listed? Like Smith, J., Thomson, K. (2010). "Article of Stuff". Journal of Stuff 50 (4): 40 doi: 10.1234/56789. SSRN 0123456798. Wikidata: Q123456798? And that the Wikidata entry would contain the full names of both authors?
As for as your anonymous example, you look at the publication or its publisher. Anonymous paper hosted in a random forum? Likely unreliable. In The Economist (in which all articles are anonymous, last I heard)? Likely reliable. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ J. Johnson: to return to the question you asked me. If I look at UCERF3, I have no idea who any of the authors of the sources given are, and I don't care. I do care that the sources are papers in reputable scientific journals; they might just as well be anonymous. I work regularly with secondary sources such as the World Spider Catalog or the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, where authorship is irrelevant. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
adding an id for every author", it is about adding links to authors (may be only one) individually. As to "clutter" (as I have previously noted): having a single, superscripted small-letter appended after half-a-dozen author names is a third less clutter (and less blue) than the twenty characters of Headbomb's " Wikidata: Q123456798" example. Your objection of "clutter" really should run against the provided Wikidata example.
avoiding repeated links": what are you talking about? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
. A given author should only have one id link in the article (more definitely is clutter). But this is difficult to ensure when refs get added incrementally and change position as the text changes.|author-links=
, and also in wikilinking publishers and cities of publication, there is a broader issue: where a wiki-notable author (or publisher) appears more than once in a bibliography, it does seem excessive to have that name highlighted multiple times. E.g. (to strip matters to the essentials), something like:
|authorid=
parameter that could reduce the flood of blue created by author-links. In the issue raised here |authorid=
is less of the problem, and more of an opportunity for a solution. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Oppose—at this time, I'm not in favor of adding author ID numbers to citations. Maybe in the future we can use Wikidata as a sort of intermediary repository for them, but we're far from that point. In the interim, adding these would add visual clutter without an immediate tangible benefit. (If there were such a benefit, other style guides would have determined a way to add such ID numbers to citations, but they have yet to do so.) ID numbers for the actual sources (ISBN, ISSN, OCLC, DOI, etc), yes, but not for authors. Imzadi 1979 → 07:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I see that multiple authors in the author field is classed now as an error. However this is my preferred way of coding, as, in my opinion, attempts to break down authorship field more granularly are not the province of citation templates.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC).
the province of citation templates"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
|ref=harv
doesn't work and can't work unless the authors are separated. (Attempts to do the separation automatically in software are doomed because of the too-great variety of names and of ways that template users might try to format them.) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
: it is an up-front indication that the rest of the article may suffer from the same lack of care and diligence. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)|author=
) where he should clearly have used the multiple-person version (|authors=
). And then makes the contradictory statement that "granularity" regarding authors is not the province of CS1.
65.88.88.200 (
talk) 13:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
. The content of |authors=
is not made part of the citation's metadata because we can't necessarily parse the parameter's contents into the appropriate metadata keywords rft.au
, rft.aufirst
, rft.aulast
.|authors=
along with |coauthors=
? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
|editors=
or |people=
. Although I've rarely used them, not everything can be put in a straightjacket.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 23:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
parameter is a reasonable solution: could you offer any examples? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 00:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|orig-name=
. Putting all such names into |author=
or |authorn=
is semantically incorrect – there are many names, not many authors. |authors=
is not correct either, but it is better (author-separation is not explicit). Also the parameters can be useful when roles may have to be designated, for example with authors of creative works such as (director), (producer), (scriptwriter) etc. Using |first=
to add these roles is also semantically incorrect. If and when an |author-id=
is established, then these free-form parameters can be revisited – assuming that |author-link=
or |author-id=
are filled-in, and correctly so.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 14:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|author=
, but of putting multiple authors into |authors=
. So like I asked before: do we have any examples of where stuffing multiple authors into an |authors=
parameter is a reasonable solution? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
or |author-id=
. The temporary solution for me would be to use |authors=
for the reasons stated above, to hold both author names. And as also stated above, there is the other situation, where author roles may be indicated.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 00:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
can "hold both author names", it is evident you are talking about multiple names for a single author. But!! 1) All of that, being applicable to a single author, could be done in the singular
|author1=
. (Or even better in |first1=
and |last1=
.) 2) what we are discussing here is not a single author with multiple names, but the use of the plural |authors=
parameter for multiple authors. E.g.: |authors=Smith, M.; Jones, Jim, Jr.; Miller, Richard
. Do you understand that? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 19:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
is free-form. By definition more flexible, and though not perfect, can handle such situations better. Here's some pseudocode: {{cite book|authors=Penname [pen-name of Author]|title=Title}}
.
64.134.69.85 (
talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
is the plural form, not the possessive form. (|author's=
??)|vauthors=
;-)
Boghog (
talk) 20:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter does not require "[l]umping all the authors together", it is the means by which that is achieved in accordance with the Vancouver style of citation, and which is done on the expectaton of a specific structuring that is not expected with
|authors=
. Aside from that, "vauthors" is entirely parallel with "authors" in that the "s" means the plural form, not the possessive form. Nor whatever fantastical form this anonymous IP has in mind.If people wish to see multiple authors listed in an "authors" parameter, then I can understand that. I think, though, that cite templates should be easy to use. It is really cool that people can rip data from WP in structured ways, but what I primarily care about is making the encyclopaedia easy to read and write. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
|authors=
for as long as we don't delete it. It is convenient to have in the first run of a conversion job of free-flow citations to use the citation templates (or when translating citations from other Wikipedias), in particular in articles outside one's own interest or when in a hurry. Deprecating the parameter would not be in conflict with this usage, we could even track its usage in some maintenance category. Perhaps someone will write a tool to semi-automate the process of splitting |authors=
into separate parameters. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 00:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
presents the citation in exactly the same way as splitting up the information into |last1=
, |first1=
, etc., where's the problem in deprecating |authors=
? Anyone can use this short form and then other editors can tidy up behind them.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
in way that appears the same as using |last/first=
. But why go to that much trouble instead of just using last/first? Not to mention that CITEREFs, COinS, and any other current and futuristic uses of the metadata are broken. In the long run last/first is indeed easier than using |authors=
, which is little more than a means of shifting some necessary work on to someone else. I see no place for it. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
|author=
should be replaced with |authors=
?
Dcirovic (
talk ·
contribs) is making edits
like this at the rate of 12 per minute, or one every five seconds, and are effectively acting as a
WP:BOT despite not being a bot account. I left
a talk page message, but they continue unabated. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
is not made part of a cs1|2 template's metadata, single name |author=
which were correct and were creating author metadata are no longer doing so.As a possible summary: are we generally in accord that (aside from the structured vauthors parameter), it is preferable to not put multiple authors into a single |authors=
parameter? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | Prins, Harald E.L. (1986). "The Most Convenientest Place for Trade; a Discussion of the Kenibec/Cushnoc Controversy". The Kennebec Proprietor. Vol. 3, no. 1. pp. 4–9(magazine of the Fort Western Museum).{{
cite magazine}} : CS1 maint: postscript (
link)
|
Sandbox | Prins, Harald E.L. (1986). "The Most Convenientest Place for Trade; a Discussion of the Kenibec/Cushnoc Controversy". The Kennebec Proprietor. Vol. 3, no. 1. pp. 4–9(magazine of the Fort Western Museum).{{
cite magazine}} : CS1 maint: postscript (
link)
|
I found citation 5 in
this revision of "Cushnoc Archeological Site" misuses |postscript=
. Should there be a test for the use of a punctuation character? I would suggest that the module output 1) an error if this parameter is set to anything more than one character in length, and 2) a maintenance notification if the character is not a punctuation mark (in English). --
Izno (
talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
|postscript=
does not stand for
postscript, but for terminal punctuation. Renaming the parameter according to its purpose would be the first (and perhaps the only necessary) step.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)|postscript=
for this purpose myself (although I was tempted to do so many times), a lot of editors use it to store visible notes related to the citation. I would therefore oppose enforcing stricter checks for the |postscript=
parameter for as long as we don't have a |comment=
or |note=
parameter as was repeatedly proposed by various editors already and is supported by the citation templates in some other Wikipedias. The contents of that optional parameter would be shown following the optional output of the |quote=
(and the proposed |script-quote=
and |trans-quote=
) parameter(s), and ideally it would be framed in parenthesis (like: "(<text>)" or "(Note: <text>)" or "(NB. <text>)"), so that the |postscript=
parameter can still be used to define the leadout character in order to blend it in with the text surrounding the template. Keeping the various texts in separate parameters (and spans) would allow us to bidir-protect the contents of the script parameter, possibly add language metadata, dynamically filter specific contents based on output media (monitor, screen, printer, data stream), style (CSS) and user preferences, and let the template adjust the leadout semi-automatically. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 14:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|comment=
or equivalent. I have seen a number of users advocate such a parameter but no
WP:RFC to support it.Regardless, this is a misuse of the parameter. Any further discussion regarding |comment=
deserves its own thread (again); blocking the implementation of a test for misuse of this parameter for a "I want this other parameter" would be
pointed though not-particularly disruptive (and probably falls in the
WP:OTHERSTUFF bucket of issues). --
Izno (
talk) 14:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|ps=
. And I wonder if anything other than a comma or a period is valid. I think we should also consider whether the name should be changed. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Following up on the suggestion by 72.43.99.146: anyone have any ideas for a better name for this parameter, that would avoid the association with PostScript, and better communicate that this is about choice of punctuation? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The suggestion in Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions for Italian parameter names are all wrong (except for "volume" and "titolo"). I have prepared an updated file with the name used in it.wiki, can I upload in the sandbox Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox ? -- Moroboshi ( talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Asking this here b/c I don't see it addressed on Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style (so I was forced to guess).
The module prefers |vauthors=Gower Jr WR, Carr MC
over |vauthors=Gower WR Jr, Carr MC
(my emphasis) (see
here and
here). The latter emits an error and fails to render the r
in Jr
. However, I've seen that the latter is more common than the former (only anecdotally; I haven't done any research into their relative frequency). Are there any plans to allow this? If not, it should be stated somewhere on the error category. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=((Gower WR Jr)), Carr MC
([JS]r\s)?[A-Z]+(\s[JS]r)?
, which must exist after a last name [A-Z][a-z]+
to not emit an error. I can't speak to the difficulty/ease of implententation, however. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 19:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)|vauthors=Last Sr. FM
is allowed (period is removed prior to rendering) but |vauthors=Last RM Sr
isn't. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)|vauthors=Last Sr. FM
is malformed. Vancouver style requires that the suffix to be placed at the end after the initials.
Module:Citation/CS1 treats 'Sr.' as part of the last name. The disappearance of the dot in rendering is part of the reason I want to rewrite the name handling code. At the next update, a dot appearing in any |vauthors=
parameter will cause an error message:
One of the obstacles to adopting |vauthors=
usage on pages using Vancouver style authors seems to be no option for
a trailing period at the end of the rendered author list (even though a period appears after the date). I'm not sure why this extra period would be desired (pinging
Sasata, who supports it), but is it something that we want to implement? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 19:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
and the other cs1 templates will terminate the author name list with a period regardless of the punctuation that separates the individual names. Likewise, {{
citation}}
(or cs1 templates with |mode=cs2
) will terminate the name list with a comma:
{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM}}
{{citation |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM}}
|mode=cs2
:
{{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM |mode=cs2}}
|authors=
to get the job done, since |vauthors=
emits an error when a trailing period is present. If this were doable via |vauthors=
(or some other parameter (|postscript=
comes to mind)) that would solve the problem (removing the desire to have a trailing author period when |date=
/|year=
is listed would solve it too, but that doesn't seem possible given the adamance of the above linked discussion). ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 19:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC){{cite book |title=Title |vauthors=Last FM, Last FM|year=1999}}
{{cite book |title=Title |last=Last|first= FM|last2= Last|first2= FM|year=1999}}
|authors=
, |last1=
etc., and |vauthors=
are handled the same. Adding a period to the list of authors will make it inconsistent with the CS1 style, such as it is. An editor who wants a period after the author list and before the year may need to use hand-rendered citations.–
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)( edit conflict) great minds?
{{
citation}}
; first without date:
|vauthors=
.hand-rendered citationsthat Jonesey95 mentions, and
free-form citationsthat you mention referring to the same thing, and to, for example, something like
<ref>Last FM, Last FM. (1999). Title.</ref>
? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)It seems that DOIs are rendered as:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2F2009JD012104 https://dx.doi.org/10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F31543
These links are from
Lowest temperature recorded on Earth, using {{
cite journal}}, and
Nikolaus Pevsner, using {{
cite ODNB}}. In both, a slash (/
) is rendered as %2F
, and in the second a colon (:
) is rendered as %3A
. Both use the unencoded form (10.1029/2009JD012104
& 10.1093%2Fref%3Aodnb%2F3154
) in the wikitext. It seems, as far as I can tell, to affect anything in the CS1 family.
Is there a particular reason for doing this? URLs, etc, that come through CS1 seem to be unencoded. Andrew Gray ( talk) 11:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Module:Citation/CS1 is not supposed to create a CITEREF anchor id from |authors=
:
{{citation |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors''</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>
{{cite book |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000053-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">|ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>
But, there is a bug that causes it to do so when the template has a date:
{{citation |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000057-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors'', 1995</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>
{{cite book |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''. 1995.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">|ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>
I have fixed the bug in the sandbox:
{{citation/new |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation cs2">''authors'', 1995</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:citation|citation]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Unknown parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ignored ([[Help:CS1 errors#parameter_ignored|help]])</span>
{{cite book/new |title=authors |authors=Last FM, Last FM |ref=harv |year=1995}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000063-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''authors''. 1995.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=authors&rft.date=1995&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+18" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Invalid <code class="cs1-code">|ref=harv</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#invalid_param_val|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Unknown parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ignored ([[Help:CS1 errors#parameter_ignored|help]])</span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
was mentioned in the harv/CITEREF section, and I did not find it, so I don't think this will introduce any changes that contravene the documentation. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
*
|ref=harv
: Creates an anchor of the formatCITEREFauthorslastnameyear
suitable for a{{ harv}}
,{{ sfn}}
etc.
— H:CS1#Anchors
CITEREFauthorslastnameyear
to CITEREFauthorlastnameyear
or CITEREFauthor(s)lastnameyear
The new code that renders date ranges with an endash when the template-source uses a hyphen separator, revealed this bug where a date value beginning with 'n.d.' is accepted regardless of any additional stuff that may be in the parameter value. That is remedied in the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Anonymous (n.d. (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Anonymous (n.d. (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
The 'nd' version does not suffer the same problem:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Anonymous (nd (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Anonymous (nd (1814-1818)).
The Holly & Ivy. Birmingham: H. Wadsworth. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It steals has he same sample date, and it's been a week. Eurocus47 ( talk) 17:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Following up on
this conversation, I have added support for generational suffixes in Vancouver style when cs1|2 templates use |lastn=
/ |firstn=
with |name-list-format=vanc
or use |vauthors=
:
|vauthors=
:
|lastn=
/ |firstn=
with |name-list-format=vanc
The code accepts ordinals 2nd–9th.
As part of this change, I've tweaked the Vancouver error messaging a bit so that error messages attempt to indicate why something is not right:
{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: suffix in name 1 (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: suffix in name 1 (
help) – 22nd not valid but the code can't tell if FM is part of a multi-word 'last' name or first & middle initials because there is no last name mixed case requirement{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)– an error but not an error; could be a case where |first=
has a name that is written in all uppercase{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help) – |vauthors=
too many uppercase initials is an error{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help){{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 1 (
help) – |vauthors=Last F M|vauthors=
only):
{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 2 (
help) – |vauthors=Last FM, 3rd
– because the comma indicates the start of a new name; '3' is not a letter{{
cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (
help) – |vauthors=Last ЕМ 1st
– Cyrillic characters in this example which look remarkably like Latin characters|vauthors=[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln A]]
|vauthors=
name list:
Not altogether successful but not a complete failure either. What I think this does mean is that the whole name-handling is a mess. I've been wondering if all of the name-handling code shouldn't be moved out of
Module:Citation/CS1 into its own page and be given a good rethink with the goal of eliminating redundancies and improving (especially for Vancouver style) error handling, detection, and reporting; metadata support; add a semantically correct |vauthor=
when a template lists only one name in that format; perhaps other stuff. Perhaps after the next update.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
{{cite journal | vauthors = Pometto AL 3rd, Crawford DL, Last FM | title = Blah}}
3rd
" to each subsequent author:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)3rd
" from the first author to the second author:
{{cite journal | vauthors = Pometto AL, Crawford DL 3rd, Last FM | title = Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Something has gone wrong with {{ citation}}, {{ cite journal}}, etc., in the last few minutes. Whenever I use them, I get a big red error message "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3231: attempt to index global 'cs1' (a nil value)." — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|vauthors=
bug fix turned ugly.Both |authors=
and |last=
correctly give the 'multiple-author-lists' error when |vauthors=
is present, but |first=
does not ~
Using |authors=
:
{{cite journal|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|author=Lastoneauthor FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)Using |last=
:
{{cite journal|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|last=Lastonelast FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)Using |first=
:
{{cite journal|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|first=Lastonefirst FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)The same is true for |editor-first=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 14:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|first=
without |last=
test should be displayed also, but is likely relying on the same bit of code that identifies the duplication in |last=
and |vauthors=
. --
Izno (
talk) 14:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|last=
(and aliases). If none are found, the module looks for |vauthors=
and finally |authors=
. |first=
is not examined. There is only one list type rendered according to the priority order just described.|firstn=
where n
is one of the set [nil, 1, 2]. The previous examples using the sandbox:
{{cite journal/new|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|author=Lastoneauthor FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help){{cite journal/new|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|last=Lastonelast FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help){{cite journal/new|vauthors=Lastone FM, Lasttwo FM|first=Lastonefirst FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); More than one of author-name-list parameters specified (
help)Are there any plans to extend the multi-author error checks for only 2 authors? I'm guessing this hasn't been done yet in order to avoid misidentifying single authors like |author=Charles II, William W
as 2 authors. Can the current multi-author error check be made to only flag single-comma author/editor fields which don't contain Roman-numeral-like initials [IV]+
, but which otherwise follow Vancouver format? I'm currently migrating these cases (where appropriate) to |vauthors=
, but I only happen on them if they populate
Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list by some other means.
Currently no 2-author error:
{{cite journal|author=Last FM, Last FM|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 20:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
In the article New World wine the book by José del Pozo Historia del vino chileno is cited two times: one time pages 24–34 and the other 35–45. Is there a way to cite it only one time specifying different pages intervals, or should I use {{ cite book}} two times separately?-- Carnby ( talk) 15:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
<ref>{{
harvnb}}
</ref>
or {{
sfn}}
in place of the <ref>{{
cite book}}
</ref>
references; if necessary create a bibliography section and place the {{cite book}}
template there (without page number information which properly belongs in the short-form templates); and Bob's yer Uncle.