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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
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.
This may have been discussed previously, too lazy to search now.
"Dummy webpage". Website. Retrieved 2016-06-06.
However in my time-zone ( UTC-5) it is still 2016-06-05. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 16:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
is no more than 1 day ahead of UTC±00:00 then there is no error. This allows anyone in time zones east of UTC to add |access-date=
for their own current local date without errors popping up."Dummy webpage". Website. Retrieved 2016-06-06..
However in my time-zone ( UTC-5) it is still 2016-06-05. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 16:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
{{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-07}}
|access-date=
is intended to establish the date on which an editor read a web-based source. If that source subsequently changes, we might be able to use an archive to see the older revision. Because there are always two dates somewhere in the world, it is impossible to insist on a single access date that works for all editors and web publishers. A web page could be published on June 6 in India and read on June 5 in the U.S., for example. In that case, an access date of June 6 or June 5 is equally valid for the purposes of later verification. It is not reasonable to expect additional precision (unless we support UTC date stamps for access dates, which seems pointless to me, mostly because editors won't use it or won't use it accurately). –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
does not really mean access date (24-hour period). It means an interval that can encompasses two days. If this is to remain, a note should be entered in the doc.
65.88.88.200 (
talk) 15:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC){{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-08}}
{{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-08}}
{{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-07}}
Wikipedia start date <= accessdate < tomorrow's date
— line 47
$wgLocaltimezone
does. According to the documentation, $wgLocaltimezone
is a configuration setting in the WikiMedia php code that "[Fakes] out the timezone that the server thinks it's in." For this wiki, it appears that $wgLocaltimezone
is set to UTC:
{{#time: Y-m-dTH:i:s }}
→ 2024-04-27UTC07:26:09{{#timel: Y-m-dTH:i:s }}
→ 2024-04-27UTC07:26:09$wgLocaltimezone
were set to something other than UTC, that Japanese editor's edits may very well happen one day ahead of edits made by a Canadian editor even though the edits occurred seconds apart in 'server' time.|access-date=
values compares the values against server time (UTC), not against local time. If is_valid_accessdate ()
is "clumsy", here is a link to the
sandbox. Go thou and make it better.Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation includes a routine that checks access dates, by comparing the entered access date to today's (local) date.
|access-date=
value is checked against current server time which is defined as UTC{{LOCALTIMESTAMP}}
magic word but, on en.wiki, it returns the same time as {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
which shows that $wgLocaltimezone
is not set to a time zone other than UTC (if it is set at all):
{{LOCALTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20240427072609{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20240427072609{{#time:}}
and {{#timel:}}
produce the same results which shows that $wgLocaltimezone
is not set to a time zone other than UTC (if it is set at all)that there are facilities at the API level to access the current (local) time) is correct only in the sense that those magic words and parser functions support the server's own local time when
$wgLocaltimezone
is set to something other than UTC. It only applies to the server. There is no knowledge of user local time.Anyway, I won't edit a sandbox when I can't apply the code.
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
but, that magic word returns the same time as {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
so that doesn't give us any information that we didn't already have:
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20220911131451{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20240427072609{{#time:U|today}}
or 1714176000) adding 48 hours. Unless I totally misread the protected call to
mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#mw.language:formatDate, there is no need to know where the edit took place; only that the revision timestamp value is smaller than the access date timestamp value. So fine, if it can't be done it can't be done.
65.88.88.127 (
talk) 17:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC){{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
and {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
do not refresh at the same rate, so they will not always return the same value. The revision timestamp changes when an edit is commited. Compare
previous revision, scroll down to see.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 15:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
for that revision:
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
will be the same as {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
.{{#time:U|now}}
). For some reason that is not clear, the access date timestamp is compared to {{#time:U|today+2 days}}
instead of the seemingly more logical {{#time:U|tomorrow}}
(perhaps minus 1 second to account for when current time is exactly 00:00:00). There may also be discrepancies due to CAPTCHA delay between commiting an edit and it being saved.
65.88.88.62 (
talk) 16:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
has today's date, the call to pcall( lang.formatDate, lang, 'U', accessdate );
returns a Unix time stamp for start-of-day (00:00:00) this morning. You can prove this to yourself. Go to
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox. Click Edit. Copy this command (a direct form of the pcall()
function call) into the Debug console:
=mw.getContentLanguage():formatDate ('U', 'today' )
'today'
in the function call with '2016-06-08'
). Put the number that was returned in a {{#time:}}
parser function:
{{#time:Y-m-d\TH:i:s|@1465344000}}
→ 2016-06-08T00:00:00'today'
with 'tomorrow'
returns the time stamp for start-of-day tomorrow (one second more than all of today). Since we want to allow access dates for two consecutive dates existing on Earth, we use 'today+2 days'
to give us a time stamp for start-of-day on the day after tomorrow (one second more than all of tomorrow).{{#time}}
function, applying to the entered access date (which should always be today or before today at the time of the writing of the template), and to the day after tomorrow, in unix format.{{#time:U|today}}
or {{#time:U|8 June 2016}}
which give{{#time:U|today+2}}
or {{#time:U|10 June 2016}}
which give{{#time:U|now}}
which is different from {{#time:U|today}}
and {{#time:U|tomorrow}}
which give respectivelyFor some reason that is not clear, the access date timestamp is compared to. What I wrote was intended to explain, with examples, why the code uses the{{#time:U|today+2 days}}
instead of the seemingly more logical{{#time:U|tomorrow}}
'today+2 days'
construct.The WP page for
Ṣ says it's a letter of the Latin alphabet. The only case of this is on
Mycena renati, but it might extend (eventually, as more |vauthors=
are used) to whatever character subset/range Ṣṣ
are part of (I'm guessing). ((Iṣiloğlu M))
doesn't suppress the error either.
Iṣiloğlu M
:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Türkoglu A, Alli H, Iṣiloğlu M, Yağiz D, Gezer K|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Isiloğlu M
:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Türkoglu A, Alli H, Isiloğlu M, Yağiz D, Gezer K|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)((Iṣiloğlu M))
:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Türkoglu A, Alli H, ((Iṣiloğlu M)), Yağiz D, Gezer K|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the static text that the module renders for {{
cite thesis}}
and {{
cite interview}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. Anything that can be translated for use in other wikis belongs in one place.
Wikitext | {{cite thesis
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Thesis). |
Sandbox | Title (Thesis). |
Wikitext | {{cite thesis
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Ph.D. thesis). |
Sandbox | Title (Ph.D. thesis). |
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | Subject. "Title" (Interview). |
Sandbox | Subject. "Title" (Interview). |
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | Subject. "Title" (Interview). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Subject. "Title" (Interview). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | Subject. "Title" (Shouting match). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Subject. "Title" (Shouting match). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, can someone shed some light on the last question here? I think I've figured out what is happening, but I can't figure out why the template does this. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi~ There seems to be different output for |edition=
between English and Vietnamese Wikipedia. (I'm not sure if the different language versions of templates share code or not, so I'm not sure where to ask about this.)
Here is example where <ref name="sherman"> is almost identical definition on both English and Vietnamese versions of the same article:
Ref on the
En version of article:
Its output shows the edition as expected:
Ref on the
Vi version of same article:
Its output is missing the edition and only has an empty space and period:
Should I just change |edition=
from "First" to "1", or does the template need some change for Vi version? Thank you for any advice:)
Zeniff (
talk) 05:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
vi_formatedition()
that strips
ordinal indicators from the value assigned to |edition=
so that it can be rendered as (ấn bản n). When that cannot be done, as with |edition=First
, the function blanks the edition value so nothing is displayed. See
vi:Module:Citation/CS1.|edition=
than en.wiki. I don't think that there is any template change needed at vi.wiki – it is their wiki, they can do as they wish. If |edition=
is important to that citation, changing to |edition=1
at vi.wiki would seem appropriate. (and if you are going to do that, also replace |coauthors=
– its use is also deprecated at vi.wiki.)|coauthors=
so I just replace it with |author2=
to follow the en.wiki ref, and it seems to work. (It looks like I have a lot to learn about this part of Wikipedia:P)
Zeniff (
talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)In the sandbox code for the citation module, I have attempted to remove the parentheses from around the publisher information, per a recent RFC. Please let me know if I have made any errors or introduced any problems. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1898). "Naval Notes – Italy". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XLII. London: J. J. Keliher: 199–204. OCLC 8007941. |
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1898). "Naval Notes – Italy". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XLII. London: J. J. Keliher: 199–204. OCLC 8007941. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796.
OCLC
8007941. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796.
OCLC
8007941. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
I have copied Trappist the monk's sandbox of test cases to my own sandbox to show the implementation of this change in the CS1 templates. See Special:Permalink/724937035. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
.. ""
bits because concatenating an empty string on the end of a string doesn't really do anything;Editor Kanguole added these aliases to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
|contributor-givenn=
|contributorn-given=
|contributor-surnamen=
|contributorn-surname=
|translator-givenn=
|translatorn-given=
|translator-surnamen=
|translatorn-surname=
and these duplicates which I have removed:
|contributorn-last=
|translatorn-last=
I have completed the task by adding the given and surname parameters to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox.
I don't particularly care if other editors have a go at improving the modules but please finish what you start. These new parameters are not tested. I will leave that to you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
|display-translators=etal
to complement |display-authors=etal
& |display-editors=etal
? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 21:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|others=Translated by ...
to |translators=
and saw 1 or 2 "et al."s, but I didn't bother to do an |others=
insource:search until now (only found 1). Low priority if/until I find more cases during my travels. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 22:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|given=
, |surname=
, |editor-given=
, |editor-surname=
, etc – those aliases have been in the template for quite some time. What it did was to add the corresponding aliases to the recently added parameters |contributor=
and |translator=
to achieve consistency. Nor are the names unreasonable: the
documentation has long said
|first=
and |last=
are most confusing, especially if these are mixed with names in the European order.
Kanguole 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As previously mentioned, I'd like to once again request a transcript-url field for the Cite AV media, Interview, Podcast, and Speech templates. If the transcript is included in the url of the media itself, as is sometimes the case, a boolean transcript=true or transcript-incl=true might also be useful, to show up with medium=video or something in the citation like:
But mostly I just want the transcript-url field for all the multimedia templates. Thanks guys. SamuelRiv ( talk) 05:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this template (since repaired) that specifies only a year for the access date:
{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/3596939.stm type=team | title=England v West Indies 2004 – Hoggard hat-trick|publisher=BBC Sport|year= 2004 |accessdate=2007}}
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |url=
(
help)This type of citation is relatively rare – this insource search turns up only 200ish occurrences.
It seems to me that the value assigned to |access-date=
should be specific to the day because access dates are meant to identify the date that an ephemeral source supported the article text. If that is true, we should be showing a date error when |access-date=
is incomplete.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
.
65.88.88.127 (
talk) 17:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
. The incomplete date I specified was still the actual date when I downloaded the file. I just could not provide the complete date any more... (I would be misusing |access-date=
, if I would have "invented" some reasonable dummy month and day just to give a complete date, but as I stated I didn't want to do that.)What is the state of consensus on whether we need separate access dates listed for website citations that already have archive date citations? It seems like a lot of wasted space, especially in cases when that date is the same. czar 17:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
|archive-date=
it is implied that you are no longer citing the original source, but a 3rd-party copy. This may have
WP:RS and other issues of its own.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=June 5, 2016
+ |archivedate=June 5, 2016
→ Archived from the original and last retrieved on June 5, 2016. The vast majority of cases I've come across would benefit from such a change.
czar 21:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=June 5, 2016
and|archivedate=June 5, 2016
→
|dead-url=no
, |dead-url=unfit
, |dead-url=
(or omitted)). Dates must be compared which will require code that converts dates to a neutral format before the comparison because we can't guarantee that the formats of the two dates will be the same. This latter is complicated because the several wikis outside of en.wiki that use these modules already have trouble with the access-date comparison because the {{#time:}}
parser function doesn't support non-English month-names so well. This Haitian date for 15 February 2016 for example:
{{#time:U|15 fevriye 2015}}
→ Error: Invalid time.|access-date=
and |archive-date=
have the same format. Typically they do, but that is not guaranteed.Because internationalization was on my mind and because I know that the current access-date checking code in use at en.wiki does not work with other languages, I have converted the text in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox to use the same code that I've used at bs, ht, and sr wikis. MediaWiki apparently doesn't understand non-English month names:
{{#time:U|15 fevriye 2015}}
→ Error: Invalid time. (Haitian date for 15 February 2016)To get around that, because as part of the date validation, the code extracts numeric date values from acceptable date formats, its a simple thing to have the access-date validator use the numeric values assembled into ymd format.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)This change will make it easier for existing and other wikis to update from en.wiki should they so choose.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Is elseif date_string:match ("%d%d%d%d?.-%d%d%d%d?") then
in date validation module OK? My question is, actually, what is .- part used for? --
Obsuser (
talk) 08:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
-
quantifier, .-
matches one or more characters but isn't greedy – a minimal match. Compare to .+
which is similar but will match as much as it can and still meet the requirements of the net bit of the pattern. When used at that particular line in the code, we already know that the date range is valid so we don't care what the approved separator is; we only want the range start and end dates.=string.match ('2015–2016', "(%d%d%d%d?).-(%d%d%d%d?)")
– date range with ndash=string.match ('2015—2016', "(%d%d%d%d?).-(%d%d%d%d?)")
– date range with mdash=string.match ('2015 some other stuff 2016', "(%d%d%d%d?).-(%d%d%d%d?)")
– date range with nonsense separator (remember, at this point we don't care what the separator is).+
or .*
patternsI've been cleaning up
Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL when a permanent identifier is present, but have avoided cases where |access-date=
& |pmc=
exist (i.e. they're filled in) with no |url=
or |contribution-url=
, etc. The reason is that there is no error emitted in this case (the 2nd compare):
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Blah". {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Blah".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Blah".
JSTOR
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
I'm just wondering, is this is a bug or a feature? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-- Account for the oddity that is {{cite journal}} with |pmc= set and |url= not set. Do this after date check but before COInS.
-- Here we unset Embargo if PMC not embargoed (|embargo= not set in the citation) or if the embargo time has expired. Otherwise, holds embargo date
Embargo = is_embargoed (Embargo); --
if config.CitationClass == "journal" and not is_set(URL) and is_set(ID_list'PMC']) then
if not is_set (Embargo) then -- if not embargoed or embargo has expired
URL=cfg.id_handlers'PMC'].prefix .. ID_list'PMC']; -- set url to be the same as the PMC external link if not embargoed
URLorigin = cfg.id_handlers'PMC'].parameters1]; -- set URLorigin to parameter name for use in error message if citation is missing a |title=
end
end
appears to be the relevant passage. Looks deliberate to me? -- Izno ( talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
function is_embargoed
and function pmc
. --
Izno (
talk) 13:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
|url=
is set to a value by an editor, then we should be treating templates with |pmc=
set and with |access-date=
set and with |url=
unset as an error condition.Fixed in the sandbox.
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Blah".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Blah".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checkingfax that might be of interest to editors here, As far as I can tell it concerns the question of whether changing |authors=
to split out multiple authors into separate parameters counts as a "change of style" that needs a discussion per
WP:CITEVAR, or whether this sort of change is just routine cleanup not requiring discussion. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_read_it "WP:SAYWHERE" asks for editors to cite where they themselves read the material rather than supposing that the citation should be correct. The page uses this example:
John Smith, Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 99, cited in Paul Jones, Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 29.
Does CS1 note support something like this "cited in"? I didn't see anything in the documentation and it doesn't seem like something editors should be forced to do manually. (|via=
comes closest, though I don't think it fits.)
czar 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
|citedin=
field that would contain the child citation or short footnote.
czar 00:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has about 200 articles like this example where web pages are identified as "(PDF) (PDF)" or some variation of that duplication. I presume this is a mistake, so should I at least edit the document to say that "PDF" is not what you had in mind for the type= parameter? Are there any other common misuses of that parameter we should warn or edit against? Art LaPella ( talk) 22:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
|format=PDF
(if not already set). There are a couple of correct solutions to this issue: 1) simply delete |type=[[PDF]]
or 2) change |type=[[PDF]]
to |format=[[PDF]]
.more technical discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 147#math ml rendering changes and scribunto
When editors create cs1|2 templates that have <math>...</math>
markup, especially in |title=
, that math markup must be decoded so that it can be rendered in the citation's metadata. This is further complicated because editors may select how MediaWiki renders the content of the <math>...</math>
tags. This is controlled by the choice the editor has made at
preferences. There are three options: PNG images, LaTeX source, and MathML with SVG or PNG fallback.
If the cs1|2 title parameter looks like this:
|title=<math>\Delta{H}</math>
MediaWiki replaces the math markup with a strip marker. Module:Citation/CS1/COinS can ask MediaWiki to render the equation associated with that strip marker. The module then extracts the raw-text equation for inclusion in the metadata. That's how it used to work and how it still works for PNG images and LaTeX source preferences. The method does not work for the MathML preference. For PNG images and LaTeX source, Module:Citation/CS1 renders the above title in the metadata like this:
&rft.btitle=%5CDelta%7BH%7D
Because of a new way of handling MathML, MediaWiki does not return the rendered equation but instead returns the strip marker. Module:Citation/CS1/COinS can do nothing with that so it inserts an error message in the metadata:
&rft.btitle=MATH+RENDER+ERROR
The discussion at WP:VPT listed above, produced nothing helpful so I've added this issue to Phabricator in the hopes that MediaWiki will be fixed someday.
What can you as editors do about your cs1|2 templates that have math markup in their titles? Nothing. Even if you set you preferences to PNG images and create a cached version of the page that has correct metadata, the next editor (or bot) who comes along and edits the page will produce a cached version that uses his/her/its math preference setting.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
made this topic its own topic— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to make somewhere a list or actually to add all templates (by namespace) to that list except citation ones so any other template ({{template
, |
, its parameters [this is the problem] and }}
) used inside citation template is "excluded" when creating that COinS metadata? That would enable many useful templates (including my {{
nowrap}}) to be used inside citation templates.
Aside from templates, to "exclude" any tags such as <math></math>
, <u></u>
, <code></code>
etc.--
Obsuser (
talk) 06:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
{{cite book |title={{nowrap|Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped}}}}
{{nowrap|Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped}}
|title=
value with:
<span class="nowrap">Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped</span>
{{cite book |title=<span class="nowrap">Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped</span>
}}
<u>...</u>
and <sup>...</sup>
, it has been in the back of my mind to remove or somehow replace these before the metadata are created but I haven't yet gotten round to it.{{template
, |
, its parameters [this is the problem] and }}
and not to deal with more complicated converted-in-UTF-or-whatever text)? These problems are more for phab technicians, not Wikipedia editors; however, [almost] nothing gets resolved there either, so it becomes pointless to discuss something that will be resolved in ten or twenty years untill when whole current technology or Wikipedia might get deprecated.--
Obsuser (
talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
value = value:gsub ('<span class="nowrap" style="padding%-left:0%.1em;">'(s?)</span>', "'%1"); -- replace {{'}} or {{'s}} with simple apostrophe or apostrophe-s
{{
'}}
and {{
's}}
) is changed for any reason, the code breaks.{{
cite book}}
and the cs1 templates). There was another
here ({{
citation}}
). COinS is here now because of that 2006 decision. Since then, who knows how many editors have consumed cs1|2 references through the metadata and external reference management tools so it is here to stay.Cyberbot II has apparently been setting |dead-url=unfit
for every cs1|2 template that it touches (see this
insource search). I have added code to the module sandbox to place articles with templates using |dead-url=unfit
and |dead-url=usurped
into a maintenance category so that these articles can be inspected and repaired.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Title. Archived from
the original on 2016-06-20. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Title. Archived from
the original on 2016-06-20. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I misspoke. Cyberbot II sets |dead-url=unfit
when it moves an archival url from |url=
to |archive-url=
leaving behind the original url in |url=
. An example of this can be seen at
Atmosphere of Pluto.
Other discussion is at the bot operator's talk page. The RfC mentioned there is here.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As a result of the conversation at the bot operator's
talk page, I have modified the sandbox to include a new |dead-url=
keyword bot: unknown
. This form serves a couple of purposes: 1) it is in keeping with the semantics established in the conversations (
beginning,
conclusion) we had about the |dead-url=
keywords. The new keyword describes the reason that the original url link is disabled and also indicates that the parameter value is for and used by bots; and 2) it's long so that it's a pain to type which may (or not) dissuade editors from using it to hide the original url link. (Because this keyword is for bots, length is not really important so we could have the keyword be similar to the proposed maintenance category name bot: original-url status unknown
, for example.)
"Title". Archived from
the original on 2016-06-21. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this correct
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Alexis Ivanov ( talk) 22:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
harvc}}
; one cs1 template for the whole work, and a {{harvc}}
for each chapter.made this topic its own topic— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=
to |url-state=
.|url-state=
was suggested in this
conversation.|dead-url=
simply because it is inconsistent with all of the other |<something>-url=
parameters which contain, not surprisingly, urls. Assuming for the sake of discussion that we accept |url-state=
, it would need to be a parallel parameter with |dead-url=
simply because we can't change them all overnight, nor are we going to be able to wean editors off of |dead-url=
as quickly as we might like. That means that there will be two lists of appropriate keywords meaning the same thing so the code will get a bit uglier until |dead-url=
is finally abandoned. In a year? two years?|dead-url=
. Could a bot-assisted insource search-and-replace happen in article namespace? That may speed up things, and get rid of the requirement for added arguments, aliases etc. If it can be done, I think first a list of valid options (and option labels) for the parameter should be agreed. Then option-labels should be replaced first (if different) before proceeding to replace the parameter label itself.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 00:03, 22 June 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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
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.
This may have been discussed previously, too lazy to search now.
"Dummy webpage". Website. Retrieved 2016-06-06.
However in my time-zone ( UTC-5) it is still 2016-06-05. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 16:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
is no more than 1 day ahead of UTC±00:00 then there is no error. This allows anyone in time zones east of UTC to add |access-date=
for their own current local date without errors popping up."Dummy webpage". Website. Retrieved 2016-06-06..
However in my time-zone ( UTC-5) it is still 2016-06-05. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 16:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
{{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-07}}
|access-date=
is intended to establish the date on which an editor read a web-based source. If that source subsequently changes, we might be able to use an archive to see the older revision. Because there are always two dates somewhere in the world, it is impossible to insist on a single access date that works for all editors and web publishers. A web page could be published on June 6 in India and read on June 5 in the U.S., for example. In that case, an access date of June 6 or June 5 is equally valid for the purposes of later verification. It is not reasonable to expect additional precision (unless we support UTC date stamps for access dates, which seems pointless to me, mostly because editors won't use it or won't use it accurately). –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
does not really mean access date (24-hour period). It means an interval that can encompasses two days. If this is to remain, a note should be entered in the doc.
65.88.88.200 (
talk) 15:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC){{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-08}}
{{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-08}}
{{cite web|url=http://www.dummy.com|title=Dummy webpage|website=Website|access-date=2016-06-07}}
Wikipedia start date <= accessdate < tomorrow's date
— line 47
$wgLocaltimezone
does. According to the documentation, $wgLocaltimezone
is a configuration setting in the WikiMedia php code that "[Fakes] out the timezone that the server thinks it's in." For this wiki, it appears that $wgLocaltimezone
is set to UTC:
{{#time: Y-m-dTH:i:s }}
→ 2024-04-27UTC07:26:09{{#timel: Y-m-dTH:i:s }}
→ 2024-04-27UTC07:26:09$wgLocaltimezone
were set to something other than UTC, that Japanese editor's edits may very well happen one day ahead of edits made by a Canadian editor even though the edits occurred seconds apart in 'server' time.|access-date=
values compares the values against server time (UTC), not against local time. If is_valid_accessdate ()
is "clumsy", here is a link to the
sandbox. Go thou and make it better.Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation includes a routine that checks access dates, by comparing the entered access date to today's (local) date.
|access-date=
value is checked against current server time which is defined as UTC{{LOCALTIMESTAMP}}
magic word but, on en.wiki, it returns the same time as {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
which shows that $wgLocaltimezone
is not set to a time zone other than UTC (if it is set at all):
{{LOCALTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20240427072609{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20240427072609{{#time:}}
and {{#timel:}}
produce the same results which shows that $wgLocaltimezone
is not set to a time zone other than UTC (if it is set at all)that there are facilities at the API level to access the current (local) time) is correct only in the sense that those magic words and parser functions support the server's own local time when
$wgLocaltimezone
is set to something other than UTC. It only applies to the server. There is no knowledge of user local time.Anyway, I won't edit a sandbox when I can't apply the code.
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
but, that magic word returns the same time as {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
so that doesn't give us any information that we didn't already have:
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20220911131451{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
→ 20240427072609{{#time:U|today}}
or 1714176000) adding 48 hours. Unless I totally misread the protected call to
mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#mw.language:formatDate, there is no need to know where the edit took place; only that the revision timestamp value is smaller than the access date timestamp value. So fine, if it can't be done it can't be done.
65.88.88.127 (
talk) 17:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC){{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
and {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
do not refresh at the same rate, so they will not always return the same value. The revision timestamp changes when an edit is commited. Compare
previous revision, scroll down to see.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 15:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
for that revision:
{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}
will be the same as {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}
.{{#time:U|now}}
). For some reason that is not clear, the access date timestamp is compared to {{#time:U|today+2 days}}
instead of the seemingly more logical {{#time:U|tomorrow}}
(perhaps minus 1 second to account for when current time is exactly 00:00:00). There may also be discrepancies due to CAPTCHA delay between commiting an edit and it being saved.
65.88.88.62 (
talk) 16:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
has today's date, the call to pcall( lang.formatDate, lang, 'U', accessdate );
returns a Unix time stamp for start-of-day (00:00:00) this morning. You can prove this to yourself. Go to
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox. Click Edit. Copy this command (a direct form of the pcall()
function call) into the Debug console:
=mw.getContentLanguage():formatDate ('U', 'today' )
'today'
in the function call with '2016-06-08'
). Put the number that was returned in a {{#time:}}
parser function:
{{#time:Y-m-d\TH:i:s|@1465344000}}
→ 2016-06-08T00:00:00'today'
with 'tomorrow'
returns the time stamp for start-of-day tomorrow (one second more than all of today). Since we want to allow access dates for two consecutive dates existing on Earth, we use 'today+2 days'
to give us a time stamp for start-of-day on the day after tomorrow (one second more than all of tomorrow).{{#time}}
function, applying to the entered access date (which should always be today or before today at the time of the writing of the template), and to the day after tomorrow, in unix format.{{#time:U|today}}
or {{#time:U|8 June 2016}}
which give{{#time:U|today+2}}
or {{#time:U|10 June 2016}}
which give{{#time:U|now}}
which is different from {{#time:U|today}}
and {{#time:U|tomorrow}}
which give respectivelyFor some reason that is not clear, the access date timestamp is compared to. What I wrote was intended to explain, with examples, why the code uses the{{#time:U|today+2 days}}
instead of the seemingly more logical{{#time:U|tomorrow}}
'today+2 days'
construct.The WP page for
Ṣ says it's a letter of the Latin alphabet. The only case of this is on
Mycena renati, but it might extend (eventually, as more |vauthors=
are used) to whatever character subset/range Ṣṣ
are part of (I'm guessing). ((Iṣiloğlu M))
doesn't suppress the error either.
Iṣiloğlu M
:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Türkoglu A, Alli H, Iṣiloğlu M, Yağiz D, Gezer K|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Isiloğlu M
:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Türkoglu A, Alli H, Isiloğlu M, Yağiz D, Gezer K|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)((Iṣiloğlu M))
:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Türkoglu A, Alli H, ((Iṣiloğlu M)), Yağiz D, Gezer K|title=Blah}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the static text that the module renders for {{
cite thesis}}
and {{
cite interview}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. Anything that can be translated for use in other wikis belongs in one place.
Wikitext | {{cite thesis
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Thesis). |
Sandbox | Title (Thesis). |
Wikitext | {{cite thesis
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Ph.D. thesis). |
Sandbox | Title (Ph.D. thesis). |
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | Subject. "Title" (Interview). |
Sandbox | Subject. "Title" (Interview). |
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | Subject. "Title" (Interview). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Subject. "Title" (Interview). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | Subject. "Title" (Shouting match). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Subject. "Title" (Shouting match). Interviewed by Interviewer. {{
cite interview}} : |interviewer= has generic name (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, can someone shed some light on the last question here? I think I've figured out what is happening, but I can't figure out why the template does this. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi~ There seems to be different output for |edition=
between English and Vietnamese Wikipedia. (I'm not sure if the different language versions of templates share code or not, so I'm not sure where to ask about this.)
Here is example where <ref name="sherman"> is almost identical definition on both English and Vietnamese versions of the same article:
Ref on the
En version of article:
Its output shows the edition as expected:
Ref on the
Vi version of same article:
Its output is missing the edition and only has an empty space and period:
Should I just change |edition=
from "First" to "1", or does the template need some change for Vi version? Thank you for any advice:)
Zeniff (
talk) 05:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
vi_formatedition()
that strips
ordinal indicators from the value assigned to |edition=
so that it can be rendered as (ấn bản n). When that cannot be done, as with |edition=First
, the function blanks the edition value so nothing is displayed. See
vi:Module:Citation/CS1.|edition=
than en.wiki. I don't think that there is any template change needed at vi.wiki – it is their wiki, they can do as they wish. If |edition=
is important to that citation, changing to |edition=1
at vi.wiki would seem appropriate. (and if you are going to do that, also replace |coauthors=
– its use is also deprecated at vi.wiki.)|coauthors=
so I just replace it with |author2=
to follow the en.wiki ref, and it seems to work. (It looks like I have a lot to learn about this part of Wikipedia:P)
Zeniff (
talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)In the sandbox code for the citation module, I have attempted to remove the parentheses from around the publisher information, per a recent RFC. Please let me know if I have made any errors or introduced any problems. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1898). "Naval Notes – Italy". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XLII. London: J. J. Keliher: 199–204. OCLC 8007941. |
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1898). "Naval Notes – Italy". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XLII. London: J. J. Keliher: 199–204. OCLC 8007941. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796.
OCLC
8007941. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796.
OCLC
8007941. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
Sandbox | Garbett, H., ed. (1899). Naval Notes – Italy. Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. Vol. XLIII. London: J. J. Keliher. pp. 792–796. OCLC 8007941. |
I have copied Trappist the monk's sandbox of test cases to my own sandbox to show the implementation of this change in the CS1 templates. See Special:Permalink/724937035. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
.. ""
bits because concatenating an empty string on the end of a string doesn't really do anything;Editor Kanguole added these aliases to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
|contributor-givenn=
|contributorn-given=
|contributor-surnamen=
|contributorn-surname=
|translator-givenn=
|translatorn-given=
|translator-surnamen=
|translatorn-surname=
and these duplicates which I have removed:
|contributorn-last=
|translatorn-last=
I have completed the task by adding the given and surname parameters to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox.
I don't particularly care if other editors have a go at improving the modules but please finish what you start. These new parameters are not tested. I will leave that to you.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
|display-translators=etal
to complement |display-authors=etal
& |display-editors=etal
? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 21:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|others=Translated by ...
to |translators=
and saw 1 or 2 "et al."s, but I didn't bother to do an |others=
insource:search until now (only found 1). Low priority if/until I find more cases during my travels. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 22:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
|given=
, |surname=
, |editor-given=
, |editor-surname=
, etc – those aliases have been in the template for quite some time. What it did was to add the corresponding aliases to the recently added parameters |contributor=
and |translator=
to achieve consistency. Nor are the names unreasonable: the
documentation has long said
|first=
and |last=
are most confusing, especially if these are mixed with names in the European order.
Kanguole 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
As previously mentioned, I'd like to once again request a transcript-url field for the Cite AV media, Interview, Podcast, and Speech templates. If the transcript is included in the url of the media itself, as is sometimes the case, a boolean transcript=true or transcript-incl=true might also be useful, to show up with medium=video or something in the citation like:
But mostly I just want the transcript-url field for all the multimedia templates. Thanks guys. SamuelRiv ( talk) 05:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this template (since repaired) that specifies only a year for the access date:
{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/3596939.stm type=team | title=England v West Indies 2004 – Hoggard hat-trick|publisher=BBC Sport|year= 2004 |accessdate=2007}}
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |url=
(
help)This type of citation is relatively rare – this insource search turns up only 200ish occurrences.
It seems to me that the value assigned to |access-date=
should be specific to the day because access dates are meant to identify the date that an ephemeral source supported the article text. If that is true, we should be showing a date error when |access-date=
is incomplete.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
.
65.88.88.127 (
talk) 17:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
|access-date=
. The incomplete date I specified was still the actual date when I downloaded the file. I just could not provide the complete date any more... (I would be misusing |access-date=
, if I would have "invented" some reasonable dummy month and day just to give a complete date, but as I stated I didn't want to do that.)What is the state of consensus on whether we need separate access dates listed for website citations that already have archive date citations? It seems like a lot of wasted space, especially in cases when that date is the same. czar 17:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
|archive-date=
it is implied that you are no longer citing the original source, but a 3rd-party copy. This may have
WP:RS and other issues of its own.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=June 5, 2016
+ |archivedate=June 5, 2016
→ Archived from the original and last retrieved on June 5, 2016. The vast majority of cases I've come across would benefit from such a change.
czar 21:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
|accessdate=June 5, 2016
and|archivedate=June 5, 2016
→
|dead-url=no
, |dead-url=unfit
, |dead-url=
(or omitted)). Dates must be compared which will require code that converts dates to a neutral format before the comparison because we can't guarantee that the formats of the two dates will be the same. This latter is complicated because the several wikis outside of en.wiki that use these modules already have trouble with the access-date comparison because the {{#time:}}
parser function doesn't support non-English month-names so well. This Haitian date for 15 February 2016 for example:
{{#time:U|15 fevriye 2015}}
→ Error: Invalid time.|access-date=
and |archive-date=
have the same format. Typically they do, but that is not guaranteed.Because internationalization was on my mind and because I know that the current access-date checking code in use at en.wiki does not work with other languages, I have converted the text in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox to use the same code that I've used at bs, ht, and sr wikis. MediaWiki apparently doesn't understand non-English month names:
{{#time:U|15 fevriye 2015}}
→ Error: Invalid time. (Haitian date for 15 February 2016)To get around that, because as part of the date validation, the code extracts numeric date values from acceptable date formats, its a simple thing to have the access-date validator use the numeric values assembled into ymd format.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)This change will make it easier for existing and other wikis to update from en.wiki should they so choose.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Is elseif date_string:match ("%d%d%d%d?.-%d%d%d%d?") then
in date validation module OK? My question is, actually, what is .- part used for? --
Obsuser (
talk) 08:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
-
quantifier, .-
matches one or more characters but isn't greedy – a minimal match. Compare to .+
which is similar but will match as much as it can and still meet the requirements of the net bit of the pattern. When used at that particular line in the code, we already know that the date range is valid so we don't care what the approved separator is; we only want the range start and end dates.=string.match ('2015–2016', "(%d%d%d%d?).-(%d%d%d%d?)")
– date range with ndash=string.match ('2015—2016', "(%d%d%d%d?).-(%d%d%d%d?)")
– date range with mdash=string.match ('2015 some other stuff 2016', "(%d%d%d%d?).-(%d%d%d%d?)")
– date range with nonsense separator (remember, at this point we don't care what the separator is).+
or .*
patternsI've been cleaning up
Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL when a permanent identifier is present, but have avoided cases where |access-date=
& |pmc=
exist (i.e. they're filled in) with no |url=
or |contribution-url=
, etc. The reason is that there is no error emitted in this case (the 2nd compare):
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Blah". {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Blah".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Blah".
JSTOR
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
I'm just wondering, is this is a bug or a feature? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-- Account for the oddity that is {{cite journal}} with |pmc= set and |url= not set. Do this after date check but before COInS.
-- Here we unset Embargo if PMC not embargoed (|embargo= not set in the citation) or if the embargo time has expired. Otherwise, holds embargo date
Embargo = is_embargoed (Embargo); --
if config.CitationClass == "journal" and not is_set(URL) and is_set(ID_list'PMC']) then
if not is_set (Embargo) then -- if not embargoed or embargo has expired
URL=cfg.id_handlers'PMC'].prefix .. ID_list'PMC']; -- set url to be the same as the PMC external link if not embargoed
URLorigin = cfg.id_handlers'PMC'].parameters1]; -- set URLorigin to parameter name for use in error message if citation is missing a |title=
end
end
appears to be the relevant passage. Looks deliberate to me? -- Izno ( talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
function is_embargoed
and function pmc
. --
Izno (
talk) 13:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
|url=
is set to a value by an editor, then we should be treating templates with |pmc=
set and with |access-date=
set and with |url=
unset as an error condition.Fixed in the sandbox.
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Blah".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Blah".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help); Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checkingfax that might be of interest to editors here, As far as I can tell it concerns the question of whether changing |authors=
to split out multiple authors into separate parameters counts as a "change of style" that needs a discussion per
WP:CITEVAR, or whether this sort of change is just routine cleanup not requiring discussion. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_read_it "WP:SAYWHERE" asks for editors to cite where they themselves read the material rather than supposing that the citation should be correct. The page uses this example:
John Smith, Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 99, cited in Paul Jones, Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 29.
Does CS1 note support something like this "cited in"? I didn't see anything in the documentation and it doesn't seem like something editors should be forced to do manually. (|via=
comes closest, though I don't think it fits.)
czar 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
|citedin=
field that would contain the child citation or short footnote.
czar 00:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has about 200 articles like this example where web pages are identified as "(PDF) (PDF)" or some variation of that duplication. I presume this is a mistake, so should I at least edit the document to say that "PDF" is not what you had in mind for the type= parameter? Are there any other common misuses of that parameter we should warn or edit against? Art LaPella ( talk) 22:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
|format=PDF
(if not already set). There are a couple of correct solutions to this issue: 1) simply delete |type=[[PDF]]
or 2) change |type=[[PDF]]
to |format=[[PDF]]
.more technical discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 147#math ml rendering changes and scribunto
When editors create cs1|2 templates that have <math>...</math>
markup, especially in |title=
, that math markup must be decoded so that it can be rendered in the citation's metadata. This is further complicated because editors may select how MediaWiki renders the content of the <math>...</math>
tags. This is controlled by the choice the editor has made at
preferences. There are three options: PNG images, LaTeX source, and MathML with SVG or PNG fallback.
If the cs1|2 title parameter looks like this:
|title=<math>\Delta{H}</math>
MediaWiki replaces the math markup with a strip marker. Module:Citation/CS1/COinS can ask MediaWiki to render the equation associated with that strip marker. The module then extracts the raw-text equation for inclusion in the metadata. That's how it used to work and how it still works for PNG images and LaTeX source preferences. The method does not work for the MathML preference. For PNG images and LaTeX source, Module:Citation/CS1 renders the above title in the metadata like this:
&rft.btitle=%5CDelta%7BH%7D
Because of a new way of handling MathML, MediaWiki does not return the rendered equation but instead returns the strip marker. Module:Citation/CS1/COinS can do nothing with that so it inserts an error message in the metadata:
&rft.btitle=MATH+RENDER+ERROR
The discussion at WP:VPT listed above, produced nothing helpful so I've added this issue to Phabricator in the hopes that MediaWiki will be fixed someday.
What can you as editors do about your cs1|2 templates that have math markup in their titles? Nothing. Even if you set you preferences to PNG images and create a cached version of the page that has correct metadata, the next editor (or bot) who comes along and edits the page will produce a cached version that uses his/her/its math preference setting.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
made this topic its own topic— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to make somewhere a list or actually to add all templates (by namespace) to that list except citation ones so any other template ({{template
, |
, its parameters [this is the problem] and }}
) used inside citation template is "excluded" when creating that COinS metadata? That would enable many useful templates (including my {{
nowrap}}) to be used inside citation templates.
Aside from templates, to "exclude" any tags such as <math></math>
, <u></u>
, <code></code>
etc.--
Obsuser (
talk) 06:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
{{cite book |title={{nowrap|Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped}}}}
{{nowrap|Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped}}
|title=
value with:
<span class="nowrap">Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped</span>
{{cite book |title=<span class="nowrap">Long Title that shouldn't be Wrapped</span>
}}
<u>...</u>
and <sup>...</sup>
, it has been in the back of my mind to remove or somehow replace these before the metadata are created but I haven't yet gotten round to it.{{template
, |
, its parameters [this is the problem] and }}
and not to deal with more complicated converted-in-UTF-or-whatever text)? These problems are more for phab technicians, not Wikipedia editors; however, [almost] nothing gets resolved there either, so it becomes pointless to discuss something that will be resolved in ten or twenty years untill when whole current technology or Wikipedia might get deprecated.--
Obsuser (
talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
value = value:gsub ('<span class="nowrap" style="padding%-left:0%.1em;">'(s?)</span>', "'%1"); -- replace {{'}} or {{'s}} with simple apostrophe or apostrophe-s
{{
'}}
and {{
's}}
) is changed for any reason, the code breaks.{{
cite book}}
and the cs1 templates). There was another
here ({{
citation}}
). COinS is here now because of that 2006 decision. Since then, who knows how many editors have consumed cs1|2 references through the metadata and external reference management tools so it is here to stay.Cyberbot II has apparently been setting |dead-url=unfit
for every cs1|2 template that it touches (see this
insource search). I have added code to the module sandbox to place articles with templates using |dead-url=unfit
and |dead-url=usurped
into a maintenance category so that these articles can be inspected and repaired.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Title. Archived from
the original on 2016-06-20. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Title. Archived from
the original on 2016-06-20. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I misspoke. Cyberbot II sets |dead-url=unfit
when it moves an archival url from |url=
to |archive-url=
leaving behind the original url in |url=
. An example of this can be seen at
Atmosphere of Pluto.
Other discussion is at the bot operator's talk page. The RfC mentioned there is here.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As a result of the conversation at the bot operator's
talk page, I have modified the sandbox to include a new |dead-url=
keyword bot: unknown
. This form serves a couple of purposes: 1) it is in keeping with the semantics established in the conversations (
beginning,
conclusion) we had about the |dead-url=
keywords. The new keyword describes the reason that the original url link is disabled and also indicates that the parameter value is for and used by bots; and 2) it's long so that it's a pain to type which may (or not) dissuade editors from using it to hide the original url link. (Because this keyword is for bots, length is not really important so we could have the keyword be similar to the proposed maintenance category name bot: original-url status unknown
, for example.)
"Title". Archived from
the original on 2016-06-21. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this correct
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Alexis Ivanov ( talk) 22:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
harvc}}
; one cs1 template for the whole work, and a {{harvc}}
for each chapter.made this topic its own topic— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=
to |url-state=
.|url-state=
was suggested in this
conversation.|dead-url=
simply because it is inconsistent with all of the other |<something>-url=
parameters which contain, not surprisingly, urls. Assuming for the sake of discussion that we accept |url-state=
, it would need to be a parallel parameter with |dead-url=
simply because we can't change them all overnight, nor are we going to be able to wean editors off of |dead-url=
as quickly as we might like. That means that there will be two lists of appropriate keywords meaning the same thing so the code will get a bit uglier until |dead-url=
is finally abandoned. In a year? two years?|dead-url=
. Could a bot-assisted insource search-and-replace happen in article namespace? That may speed up things, and get rid of the requirement for added arguments, aliases etc. If it can be done, I think first a list of valid options (and option labels) for the parameter should be agreed. Then option-labels should be replaced first (if different) before proceeding to replace the parameter label itself.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 00:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)