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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
If we cite books, the formatting makes a distinction between books with an editor and those with an author:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)If no year is supplied, the formatting is
{{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)If we cite contributions within these books, using |chapter=
for edited books and |contribution=
for authored ones, the two are still formatted differently, but in a different (and less transparent) way than above:
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)I propose that it would be more consistent, and clearer, to flag the difference by formatting the book part of the citation in the same way we do for the year-less book citations above:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help) pp. 1–23.{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help) pp. 1–23.(This is for {{
cite book}}
, but similar applies to {{
citation}}
.)
Kanguole 18:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
|contributor=
–|contribution=
pair is intended to work together to cite forewords, afterwords, introductions, etc that are included with another author's work. For example, citing something that Pynchon wrote in the foreword to Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four:
{{cite book |last=Pynchon |first=T. |contribution=Foreword |editor-first=G. |editor-last=Orwell |title=Nineteen eighty-four |pages=vii–xxvi |location=New York, NY |publisher=Penguin |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-452-28423-4}}
|contributor=
–|contribution=
pair are in
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9 and
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10 (you were a participant in a couple of those:
Foreword and
citing contributed forewords, prefaces etc).|contribution=
in connection with authored works, not edited ones. It is used for forewords and the like, but also for guest chapters in authored books, e.g.{{cite book |contribution=Appendix A: A Concise Introduction to Old Chinese Phonology |pages=543–576 |contributor-first=Zev J. |contributor-last=Handel |title=Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction |first=James |last=Matisoff |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-520-09843-5 }}
{{cite book |title=Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction |first=James |last=Matisoff |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-520-09843-5 }}
|date=
is a long-standing inconsistency.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 19:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)|first=
and |last=
). The issue here is how it's visually distinguished from an editor (specified |editor-first=
and |editor-last=
). I'm suggesting it be done by tagging editors with "ed.", rather than by presenting the elements of authored books in a different order.
Kanguole 20:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm proposing that:
{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |chapter=History of the Bloggs Family |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Book |publisher=Book Publishers |date=2001 |pages=100–110 }}
{{cite book |contributor-last=Bloggs |contributor-first=Fred |contribution=Testimonial |last=Doe |first=John |title=Book |publisher=Book Publishers |date=2003 |pages=1–10 }}
Kanguole 18:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding proposal 1 above, I've come across several cases where people have manually added "(ed.)" or "(eds.)" to the last |editorn=
field to get this in the displayed text.
Kanguole 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Other editors and I have converted |city=
to |location=
in a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand?) citations since the last update deprecated this parameter. I have done repeated insource searches and turned up nothing left, although insource searches are not always reliable. I propose to change this |city=
parameter to unsupported in the next module update, which would move any stragglers from
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters (where it could be hiding amidst 4,300 articles) to
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters (normally empty). I will be happy to perform any remaining cleanup once the change is made. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |program= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |program= ignored (
help)
|
When we have an incomplete {{ cite arxiv}}, we display something like
We should do the same when we have an incomplete {{ cite journal}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Ideally, both {{ cite arxiv}}/{{ cite journal}} and all other templates missing information should display something like
|title=
(
help,
fix with Citation bot)|title=
(
help,
fix with Citation bot)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
|doi=
? What to do when there are more than one of these identifier parameters? Mightn't this be a case for resurrecting {{
cite doi}}
in a different incarnation? If a bot can add parameter data then surely it can change the name of the template to {{
cite journal}}
at the same time. I don't think that adding the {{
cite arxiv}}
facility to all of the cs1|2 templates as you seem to have suggested is a good idea.{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (or any in
Category:Pages with citations lacking titles){{
cite journal}}
: |first1=
missing |last1=
(
help) (or any in
Category:CS1 errors: missing author or editor){{
cite journal}}
: |doi-access=
requires |doi=
(
help) (or any in
Category:CS1 errors: param-access)Upon inspection, the bot should likely be only present in citations that the bot can actually work with. This means 1) {{ cite book}} 2) {{ cite journal}} 3) {{ cite arxiv}} 4) {{ cite conference}} 5) {{ citation}} with isbns/identifiers. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to help out with the new implementation of ProveIt. This gadget has recently been rewritten and a new version was put in place a few days ago. This new version is driven by the TemplateData of the cite being used. Due to a current bug in Proveit (Phabricator Maniphest T148236), if an editor edits a page using ProveIt, and the cite that the editor is working on contains a parameter not listed in the Template data, then Proveit ignores the parameter and its data, and when saved the parameter AND ITS DATA ARE LOST!
To avoid this, I have been going through this monthly parameter usage report regarding TemplateData and parameters used in cite book. All of the parameters that seem valid that are not in TemplateData need to be added to TemplateData to avoid this data loss, at least until the ProveIt bug is fixed.
Having said all that, I want to make some points:
Thanks all for now. Thanks, John -- Arg342 ( talk) 13:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, stand by, I have heard that there are citations out there with hundreds of authors (why we should ever list all of those authors escapes me). And then there are twenty-one more cs1 templates and {{
citation}}
so another obvious fix to TemplateData would be the ability to share and/or merge various instances of TemplateData. Not holding my breath for that either.|issue=
is not supported by {{
cite book}}
. See the table at
Help:Citation Style 1#Pages.|authors=
(plural) is not deprecated; do not list it as such – it should be, but that is a topic for another time.|issue=
is not deprecated for {{
cite book}}; it is unsupported by that template. It should not be listed as deprecated. I've gotten yelled at too many times for editing the TemplateData programming code that is improperly stored in the template's documentation, and I don't use Visual Editor to be able to check it, so I'll let you make the edits.deprecated
keyword and then 'overriding' that declaration with some text saying that the parameter is not deprecated is a good thing. Too many editors-with-little-experience use the ve tool, and will believe what the tool tells them as gospel truth. By saying that these parameters are both deprecated and not deprecated just causes confusion. Do not confuse the editors. The proper description for |issue=
is 'not supported in cite book' and for |authors=
is 'use of this parameter is discouraged, use ... instead.' I think that you should merge the deprecated
keyword descriptions into their respective description
keywords.|authors=
is a free-form parameter. There is no requirement that its content be 'comma separated'. If there were such a requirement, it should follow the standard cs1|2 name-list separator convention of semicolon-separation. ve should not suggest a requirement when there is none.|authors=
is not deprecated; please remove that "deprecated" property from its documentation. |issue=
is not supported in {{
cite book}}; please do not describe it as deprecated. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
now reads: List of authors, comma separated. Use of this parameter is discouraged, "lastn" to "firstn" are preferable. Warning: do not use if last or any of its aliases are used.|issue=
now reads: Issue number. This parameter is not supported by and should generally not be used with cite book. Consider that a different cite template may be more appropriate, such as cite magazine or cite journal. See Help:Citation_Style_1#Pages.The {{
cite interview}} template does not at present support |interviewer-first=
and |interviewer-last=
(including the usual bunch of first/last variants), only |interviewer=
. Also, there can be more than one interviewer, so numbered parameters are needed as well. I think, both should be added for consistency.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
|editor=
and |translator=
aren't supported by COinS but those parameters are enumerated and have accompanying -first
, -last
, -link
, and -mask
parameters. I see no reason to handle |interviewer=
any differently and this may also allow us to get rid of |interviewers=
.{{cite interview/new |title=Title |interviewer1=Interviewer One |interviewer2=Interviewer Two |interviewer-mask1=2 |interviewer-link2=Abraham Lincoln |interviewer-first3=First |interviewer3-last=Last}}
{{
cite interview}}
: |interviewer1=
has generic name (
help){{cite interview/new |title=Title |interviewers=Interviewer One; Interviewer Two}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |interviewers=
ignored (
help)
An edit to the {{
cite book}}
template data added |air-date=
as an alias of |date=
. That edit caused me to go look at the code. The current Module does in fact list |air-date=
and |airdate=
as aliases of |date=
though I can think of no reason why this should be the case. The aliasing takes place in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration but, in
Module:Citation/CS1 these parameters aren't used except when the template is {{
cite episode}}
or {{
cite serial}}
. Probably an oversight on my part sometime in the past. I have removed the aliasing from
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |airdate= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |airdate= ignored (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
|volume=
, |issue=
, |page=
, among others in several of the cs1|2 templates. I don't see this as any different. We test for and announce ignored |chapter=
aliases and crudely test {{
cite arxiv}}
for inappropriate parameters. In all other cases, I think, unused parameters are silently ignored.What templates should be used when the source type does not match one of the templates provided? Examples:
These are often, but by no means always, available as downloads in pdf or doc format, and sometimes only on paper. Sometimes they are published as part of a larger document, other times not. None of the available options seems to be universally applicable to any of the examples above. Any useful advice welcomed. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
or perhaps {{
cite techreport}}
. More generally, {{
citation}}
can often serve quite well.How do we handle citing website mirrors, if we had occasion to do so? I expect we would use |website=original website’s name|publisher=mirrorer's name
. Is this right? —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 18:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
url
and publisher
, the URL for the mirror in archive-url
, the date the mirror was captured in archive-date
, and set |dead-url=yes
. However, I did this because I actually relied on the original for my information, and only subsequently needed to use the mirror because the original was offline. If you actually got your information from this hypothetical mirror, I think you should cite the mirror. I would put the organization operating the mirror in publisher
and the title of the mirror (which, in your hypothetical example, is the same as the title of the original website) in website
. If for some reason it was important that the name of the organization that was the original publisher also be in the citation I would put the original publishing organization in publisher
and the organization operating the mirror in the
via
parameter.If you have a very complex situation you could do something like the following:
{{cite web |title=Original Article Title |date=2010-01-01 |website=Original Site Name |publisher=Original Organization |postscript=none}} — via mirror at {{cite web |url=http://example.com |title=Mirror Article Title |website=Mirror Name |publisher=Mirror Organization |access-date=2016-11-27}}
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help) — via mirror at
"Mirror Article Title". Mirror Name. Mirror Organization. Retrieved 2016-11-27.In some of the vertical usage samples, like Cite web and Cite news, there are spaces around horizontal signs '|' and equal signs '=', which I think make the source more readable. In the latter case the equal signs are even neatly aligned, to make it even more readable. I suppose there is no difference in the actual rendering of the output, but I think it's good to write/use the source this way.
Is there a reason why the horizontal usage samples don't use the same style, with spaces? Otherwise I would like to see the samples change to that standard, which means the doc pages here, where one can copy it from. / PatrikN ( talk) 16:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
| parameter =
, |parameter =
, | parameter=
, |parameter=
are all equally valid. The software that interprets the pipe, parameter-name, and assignment operator does so without regard to whitespace. Personal preference for Wikisource 'style' is merely personal preference. Of course the general rule for personal preferences is: do not change established style to fit your personal preference. |parameter=xyz
style (in "own" articles). Regarding parameters with or without hyphens, I prefer the first ones because they are easier readable and wrap around more nicely even in narrow edit forms.Since some while the cite templates throw an error message when the <pre>..</pre> stripmarkers occur in parameters. While this is necessary and fine for most other parameters, I think it is an error for the |quote=
parameter, which's contents doesn't become part of the generated metadata AFAIK, where it is sometimes actually needed to format a quote in a reasonable way, and where freely flowing text is unacceptable (for example if |quote=
contains a source code excerpt).
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
<q>...</q>
tags. The module uses those tags so that other-language wikis can set quote punctuation in their own common css. Note the extra quote marks which would be here regardless of the stripmarker detection and error message:
For illustration the citation in question was:
{{citation |title=CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories |date=June 1975 |author-first=Gary |author-last=Kildall |quote=<pre>
/* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S)
COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL
JUNE, 1975 */
[...]
/* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S)
COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL
JUNE, 1975 */
</pre>}}
which renders as:
Kildall, Gary (June 1975), CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories,/* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */ [...] /* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */
{{
citation}}
: pre stripmarker in |quote=
at position 1 (
help)
Would a |pre-quote=
parameter help the <q>
issue? --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
A statement about CP/M BDOS.{{refn|group=note|Excerpt from CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM:<ref>{{citation |title=CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories |date=June 1975 |author-first=Gary |author-last=Kildall}}</ref><pre> /* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */ [...] /* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */</pre>}} A subsequent statement. ====Notes==== {{reflist|group=note}} ====References==== {{reflist}} |
|
Some journals specify both issue (relative number within volume) and number (apparently an absolute number). Our {{
cite journal}} currently gives an error if both |issue=
and |number=
are specified at the same time.
I suggest to remove the error message and display both if both are specified. Not sure if there is a standardized way to display this, but if not, something like "5 (1)/41" (for volume=5, issue=1, number=41) might do.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=The history of CP/M - The evolution of an industry: One person's viewpoint |author-first=Gary |author-last=Kildall |journal=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics & Orthodontia]] |volume=5 |issue=1 |number=41 |date=January 1980 |pages=6-7}}
|issue=
and |number=
are both given, at least one out of |volume=
, |date=
or |year=
would have to be given as well (as companion for the relative issue). Since |issue=
and |number=
seem be used interchangeably, the one with the smaller value should become the relative issue number for the volume.I wonder if anything can (or should) be done to isolate the unclosed italics in citations like this one:
Wikitext | {{cite news
|
---|---|
Live | Mitchell Peters (October 22, 2016).
"Pentatonix Cover Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' in Moving Video".
Billboard. Retrieved November 29, 2016. {{
cite news}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Mitchell Peters (October 22, 2016).
"Pentatonix Cover Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' in Moving Video".
Billboard. Retrieved November 29, 2016. {{
cite news}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (
help)
|
Note that the |publisher=
parameter has unclosed italics, making the access date italicized. I found this in the wild, in
Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song), and I've seen its ilk elsewhere. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
''
should never appear in those fields. I don't see a reason to "clean" these in the module. --
Izno (
talk) 12:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
|title=
and |chapter=
values before those values are added to the metadata. It does not do the same for other parameters. In the exemplar case, |publisher=
is not part of the metadata for periodicals so no harm is done except for the improper rendering. Is there any case where italic font is appropriate in |publisher=
values? How about the negation of the automatic italic font in |work=
values?This discussion forked quickly. I have added headers to separate the discussion. If you want to discuss whether italics are valid in specific fields, I encourage you to start a new thread. My original question is about detecting and reducing the negative effects of unbalanced markup in parameter values. The same problem applies if someone forgets to close the clearly valid italics in |title=
(italics "leak" from the title through to the end of the citation, including unitalicizing the |work=
value):
Wikitext | {{cite news
|
---|---|
Live | Bellerose, Dan (March 15, 2005). "Group Claims Illegal Dive Made to Edmund Fitzgerald Site". Sault Star. pp. A1–A2. |
Sandbox | Bellerose, Dan (March 15, 2005). "Group Claims Illegal Dive Made to Edmund Fitzgerald Site". Sault Star. pp. A1–A2. |
Comments on the original question are still welcome. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
|title=
, |chapter=
, |publisher=
, |work=
, and perhaps others, then we might as well identify and notify when balanced or unbalanced markup is used where it should not be used. How we do the notification may be different depending on the parameter where the markup is detected. Balanced italic markup in |title=
is acceptable so only notify for unbalanced; but in |publisher=
, perhaps markup is not acceptable so notify whether balanced or not.Clarification added later: all my (pol098) suggestions are about added hidden comments, not actual reader-visible bot-affecting values for the author=
and date=
fields. The text being discussed is
“ | If the cited source does not credit an author, as is common with newswire reports, press releases or company websites use:
This HTML comment alerts both fact-checking and citation-fixing editors and bots that the cited source specifically did not name an author and therefore an author credit wasn't accidentally omitted from the citation. Without this entry editors and bots would waste time researching cited sources in an attempt to improve existing citations only to find that there is no author to credit. |
” |
End of clarification aded later.
This is rather a pedantic comment, but entering "author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
" as recommended in the documentation for some templates with an "author" field actually is a statement of presumed fact which may be incorrect. It seems more appropriate to say "Not stated" or words to that effect, which is all we actually know. Not very important as it's only a hidden comment, and not particularly misleading at that, but if there's a place to be pedantic it's an encyclopaedia! [Entering a comment in this field is recommended to save future editors from needlessly looking for the author's name.] Best wishes,
Pol098 (
talk) 16:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
", and adds "this HTML comment alerts fact-checking and citation-fixing ... bots that the ... author credit wasn't accidentally omitted". This wording suggests that the wording I criticise is possibly required rather than recommended, and is built into bots, and shouldn't be changed? Or do bots simply check for anything or any comment in the author field, ignoring the precise wording? In any event, unless there's opinion to the contrary, I'll eventually make the change; it doesn't have big consequences and is easy to revert if necessary. Best wishes
Pol098 (
talk) 11:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
|date=n.d.
and the module will accept it: Author (n.d.). "Title". {{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) vice Author (no date). "Title". {{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help). I don't know what happens to the metadata there though. --
Izno (
talk) 12:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
&rft.chron
key/value pair so |date=no date
ends up there. That may or may not be the correct thing to do. Likely, it's incorrect so perhaps there is a bit of code tweaking to do.
Help page edited: "staff writer"==>"Not stated", and wording trimmed.
“ |
This HTML comment alerts fact-checking and citation-fixing editors, and potentially bots, that the cited source did not name an author—the author was not overlooked. Without this entry editors and bots would waste time researching cited sources for a non-existent author credit. |
” |
Pol098 ( talk) 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
If the cited source does not credit an author, ... use:should be changed to
If the cited source does not credit an author, ... you may use:. Hasn't it been stated already that this is only a recommendation? Wording that may be appear to be, or may be construed as, a guideline, should be avoided as far as this is concerned. 65.88.88.127 ( talk) 21:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I created this template some years ago as a quick citing template for a book. Since then there have been four supplements (so far) of additions and amendments published and I'm wondering how to amend the template to include simple supplement parameter so that {{Quick-Stations |page=FOO |supp=1}}
would produce
Quick, Michael (2009) [2001]. Railway passenger stations in Great Britain: a chronology. Vol. 1st supplement (January 2011) (4th ed.). Oxford:
Railway and Canal Historical Society. p. FOO.
ISBN
978-0-901461-57-5.
OCLC
612226077. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
The four supplements are Supp 1; January 2011, Supp 2; February 2012, Supp 3; February 2013, Supp 4; May 2014. if there are better ways of displaying all three dates within the output then even better. Thanks.
Nthep (
talk) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
Quick-Stations}}
template's base {{
cite book}}
seems a misuse of both templates. You might make {{Quick-Stations}}
smart enough to do a {{
cite web}}
if |supp=
is set.|volume=
parameter of Cite book.{{
Quick-Stations}}
template is now, |date=
and |orig-year=
are both consumed by the book citation. Squeezing in yet another date for the supplement is just confusing. The cs1|2 templates are designed to cite a single source; packing multiple sources into the templates is a misuse and should not be done.short template?
|supp=
.|ref=harv
for this template, but right now, the book or any supplement will be cited with the short reference "Quick 2009". This will be a problem. If you want to cite multiple supplements in the same article, this will be a problem to be worked around in the code. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)I've never asked for a new CS1|2 feature but hope we would consider adding |archiveurl2=
and possibly |archiveurl3=
, as secondary and tertiary archives (with |archivedate2=
and 3).
User:Cyberpower678 and myself have been doing work with Link rot bots, verifying links, adding links, deleting links etc... We work with the Director of the WaybackMachine at Internet Archive on technical issues, as well as the Community Tech team. There are some issues that have come up that could be solved with this feature in CS1|2.
As background, 90% of the archive links on en.wiki are to Wayback. Followed by WebCite maybe 5%, then Archive.is at perhaps 2% and various others the rest. There are dozens of other link archive sites List of Web archiving initiatives that could be used. Every web archive service has its own peculiar rules about keeping archives, dealing with take down requests etc.. none are permanent, in the sense that just because an archive link exists today, it might not tomorrow. And just because a link goes dead, doesn't mean it won't back alive in the future. It's similar to the problem with DNS where servers come and go so we have primary, secondary and tertiary servers.
For example Wayback will take down a page due to changes with robots.txt - however the page may come back alive later if the robots.txt changes. I've monitored thousands of these pages over time and discovered they sometimes flap on a daily basis, or weekly, or monthly etc.. or temporarily 1 time, or "permanently" down etc.. it runs the gambit. I originally was removing any link that was blocked by robots.txt but in retrospect this was a mistake as over time most of those links will probably become available again it it's useful to keep the link in place.
Adding a secondary/tertiary archiveurl opens new possibilities to solving the problem of flapping links. It also solves the problem if an archive site ever goes out of business. It also allows for using more obscure archive sites without fear of them going out of business. It gives editors the freedom to choose multiple archive sites if they want double or triple protection from link rot.
We have a new template {{
webarchive}}
which supports |url=
.. |url10=
. So we now have the ability to do multi-archive sites. This template has an option |format=addlarchives
which will make a CS1|2 template look like it supports multiple archives, however this is something of a hack and not ideal, the best solution would be if CS1|2 natively supported it. If the feature is implemented in CS1|2 we can remove |format=addlarchives
from {{webarchive}}
.
I understand the downside of littering the template with lots of links, which is why the tertiary might be too much, but I don't have an opinion on tertiary either way. We can always add a tertiary later if there seems to be a need for it.
-- Green C 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
|archiveurl2=
is needed to fight
WP:Link rot which is a priority for the community and Mediawiki Foundation per broad consensus. --
Green
C 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=
perhaps?
65.88.88.127 (
talk) 19:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC){{
cite archive}}
and the feature has been used by the community perhaps 20-30 times, there is little demand. The sole purpose of |archiveurl=
/|archivedate=
is to combat link rot, and the sole purpose of |archiveurl2=
is to resolve problems with the current system. The problem of link rot has broad community consensus, and this feature request has broad application with (I believe) minimal disruption and complication to CS1|2. --
Green
C 20:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC){{
webarchive}}
using the |format=
option, limiting it to 1 or 2 extra archives is not clutter. There is a bot IABot adding archives at the rate of 2000-3000 a day for the next 4 months or so as it traverses every article; but many are not dead (yet) so no archive or none available. Look, if this feature comes down to an RfC I feel confident the community will step up and support it. You are probably in the minority in not believing link rot is a priority. --
Green
C 14:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|archive-urln=
|archive-daten=
|dead-urln=
– needs a new name; all other |<thing>-url=
parameters take a url as an argument|archive-formatn=
|archivern=
parameter to allow us to display something like:
{{
webarchive}}
, by examining the domain name and keeping a map in the code ie. archive.org = "Wayback Machine", webcitation.org = "WebCite" etc.. --
Green
C 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, I found in writing {{
webarchive}}
that the simplest solution was the first archiveurl is un-numbered since that will be the case most of the time only one. It aliases to archiveurl1 to avoid confusion. There are corresponding archivedate's. Do we need multiple deadurl's since that is for the primary url, not the archiveurl(s)? Agreed need archive-formatn. Here is how {{webarchive}}
renders with multiple archives:
{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101000000/http://example.com |date=January 1, 2016 |url2=http://www.webcitation.org/5eWaHRbn4?url=http://www.example.com |date2=February 12, 2009 |format=addlarchives }}
When added to the end of a cite web:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) Additional archives:
January 1, 2016,
February 12, 2009.So the idea is remove {{webarchive}}
in this case but produce the same output using CS1|2 alone. If there is a missing |archivedaten=
, it displays the archive service name based on the domain name ie. archive.org = "Wayback Machine" etc.. --
Green
C 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=
(still needs to be renamed though).|archive-urln=
and |archive-daten=
must be the same as currently in use for the non-enumerated parameters. To have different rules for the enumerated version only serves to confuse editors; so no using archive domain name in place of a missing date.What is the correct category for a subscription to a newspaper accessed through a local library?
Currently there are four categories under the "Subscription or registration required." There is not any wording to tell you how to designate a library subscription in a reference.
In many cities/towns/villages access to a local library and its resources is available over the Internet and in the library. These subscriptions are paid for with local tax dollars from their residents or by grants. You may be paying for the resource if you access the library through the Internet via your library card, but you might not be paying anything if you walk into the library (since most public libraries allow anyone to enter the building). Does this type of access fall under the "limited" or "subscription" category?
Whichever category this type of access is considered, to be consistent across all articles, should verbiage be placed on the Template:Cite news page stating which category library access falls into?
Possible wording:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcarstvnz ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
|via=
and the access-requirement param). If the resource in question is not library owned, indicate that resource, not the library, so that verifying users can skip a step on their way to the source. It is assumed that most readers know that they can get access to all kinds of materials through libraries.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 15:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)When I copy and paste a reference like
(This is CS2 but I assume the same is true for CS1), selecting the whole line of text by triple-clicking it, and then I paste the result into a text editor, I get
I don't want the "Freely accessible" to be part of the text, and it's formatted badly enough to likely lead to later errors in removing too many characters when deleting it and damaging the arXiv id. Can this garbage text that's not part of the actual reference be removed from what I copy, please? (I'm also not happy that when I do this to a footnote I get an added line "Jump up" at the end of the copied text but I doubt there's much to be done about that part here.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
|alt=<text>
in the icon's File:
link.<span class="plainlinks">12345<span style="margin-left:0.1em">[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=alt text: Freely accessible|title text: Freely accessible]]</span></span>
Jump upunless you mean the newline character (ASCII 0x0A). If that, then there is no solution in cs1|2 because that is not a function of the module. For me, on a windows browser, Ctrl+← once omits the newline; twice omits the newline and the 'Freely accessible' alt text.
title
and alt
. Wouldn't it be enough to change the lua code to render links with an empty alt
and use title
for the description instead? This seems to work:
<span class="plainlinks">12345<span style="margin-left:0.1em">[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=|title text: Freely accessible]]</span></span>
|alt=" (freely accessible)"
might be an improvement. (As for "Jump up", it's text added by ref/reflist somehow, so yes, not under our control. Sorry for not making that part more clear.) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC) 
)to separate the icon from the adjacent text:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000007F-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFSuk2016" class="citation cs2">Suk, Andrew (2016), ''On the Erdős–Szekeres convex polygon problem'', [[arXiv (identifier)|arXiv]]:<span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible">[https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.08657 1604.08657]</span></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=On+the+Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Szekeres+convex+polygon+problem&rft.date=2016&rft_id=info%3Aarxiv%2F1604.08657&rft.aulast=Suk&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+29" class="Z3988"></span>
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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
If we cite books, the formatting makes a distinction between books with an editor and those with an author:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)If no year is supplied, the formatting is
{{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)If we cite contributions within these books, using |chapter=
for edited books and |contribution=
for authored ones, the two are still formatted differently, but in a different (and less transparent) way than above:
{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)I propose that it would be more consistent, and clearer, to flag the difference by formatting the book part of the citation in the same way we do for the year-less book citations above:
{{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help) pp. 1–23.{{
cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help) pp. 1–23.(This is for {{
cite book}}
, but similar applies to {{
citation}}
.)
Kanguole 18:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
|contributor=
–|contribution=
pair is intended to work together to cite forewords, afterwords, introductions, etc that are included with another author's work. For example, citing something that Pynchon wrote in the foreword to Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four:
{{cite book |last=Pynchon |first=T. |contribution=Foreword |editor-first=G. |editor-last=Orwell |title=Nineteen eighty-four |pages=vii–xxvi |location=New York, NY |publisher=Penguin |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-452-28423-4}}
|contributor=
–|contribution=
pair are in
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9 and
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 10 (you were a participant in a couple of those:
Foreword and
citing contributed forewords, prefaces etc).|contribution=
in connection with authored works, not edited ones. It is used for forewords and the like, but also for guest chapters in authored books, e.g.{{cite book |contribution=Appendix A: A Concise Introduction to Old Chinese Phonology |pages=543–576 |contributor-first=Zev J. |contributor-last=Handel |title=Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction |first=James |last=Matisoff |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-520-09843-5 }}
{{cite book |title=Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophy of Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction |first=James |last=Matisoff |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-520-09843-5 }}
|date=
is a long-standing inconsistency.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 19:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)|first=
and |last=
). The issue here is how it's visually distinguished from an editor (specified |editor-first=
and |editor-last=
). I'm suggesting it be done by tagging editors with "ed.", rather than by presenting the elements of authored books in a different order.
Kanguole 20:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm proposing that:
{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |chapter=History of the Bloggs Family |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Book |publisher=Book Publishers |date=2001 |pages=100–110 }}
{{cite book |contributor-last=Bloggs |contributor-first=Fred |contribution=Testimonial |last=Doe |first=John |title=Book |publisher=Book Publishers |date=2003 |pages=1–10 }}
Kanguole 18:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding proposal 1 above, I've come across several cases where people have manually added "(ed.)" or "(eds.)" to the last |editorn=
field to get this in the displayed text.
Kanguole 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Other editors and I have converted |city=
to |location=
in a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand?) citations since the last update deprecated this parameter. I have done repeated insource searches and turned up nothing left, although insource searches are not always reliable. I propose to change this |city=
parameter to unsupported in the next module update, which would move any stragglers from
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters (where it could be hiding amidst 4,300 articles) to
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters (normally empty). I will be happy to perform any remaining cleanup once the change is made. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |callsign= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite interview
|
---|---|
Live | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |program= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title" (Interview). {{
cite interview}} : Unknown parameter |program= ignored (
help)
|
When we have an incomplete {{ cite arxiv}}, we display something like
We should do the same when we have an incomplete {{ cite journal}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Ideally, both {{ cite arxiv}}/{{ cite journal}} and all other templates missing information should display something like
|title=
(
help,
fix with Citation bot)|title=
(
help,
fix with Citation bot)Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
|doi=
? What to do when there are more than one of these identifier parameters? Mightn't this be a case for resurrecting {{
cite doi}}
in a different incarnation? If a bot can add parameter data then surely it can change the name of the template to {{
cite journal}}
at the same time. I don't think that adding the {{
cite arxiv}}
facility to all of the cs1|2 templates as you seem to have suggested is a good idea.{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (or any in
Category:Pages with citations lacking titles){{
cite journal}}
: |first1=
missing |last1=
(
help) (or any in
Category:CS1 errors: missing author or editor){{
cite journal}}
: |doi-access=
requires |doi=
(
help) (or any in
Category:CS1 errors: param-access)Upon inspection, the bot should likely be only present in citations that the bot can actually work with. This means 1) {{ cite book}} 2) {{ cite journal}} 3) {{ cite arxiv}} 4) {{ cite conference}} 5) {{ citation}} with isbns/identifiers. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to help out with the new implementation of ProveIt. This gadget has recently been rewritten and a new version was put in place a few days ago. This new version is driven by the TemplateData of the cite being used. Due to a current bug in Proveit (Phabricator Maniphest T148236), if an editor edits a page using ProveIt, and the cite that the editor is working on contains a parameter not listed in the Template data, then Proveit ignores the parameter and its data, and when saved the parameter AND ITS DATA ARE LOST!
To avoid this, I have been going through this monthly parameter usage report regarding TemplateData and parameters used in cite book. All of the parameters that seem valid that are not in TemplateData need to be added to TemplateData to avoid this data loss, at least until the ProveIt bug is fixed.
Having said all that, I want to make some points:
Thanks all for now. Thanks, John -- Arg342 ( talk) 13:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, stand by, I have heard that there are citations out there with hundreds of authors (why we should ever list all of those authors escapes me). And then there are twenty-one more cs1 templates and {{
citation}}
so another obvious fix to TemplateData would be the ability to share and/or merge various instances of TemplateData. Not holding my breath for that either.|issue=
is not supported by {{
cite book}}
. See the table at
Help:Citation Style 1#Pages.|authors=
(plural) is not deprecated; do not list it as such – it should be, but that is a topic for another time.|issue=
is not deprecated for {{
cite book}}; it is unsupported by that template. It should not be listed as deprecated. I've gotten yelled at too many times for editing the TemplateData programming code that is improperly stored in the template's documentation, and I don't use Visual Editor to be able to check it, so I'll let you make the edits.deprecated
keyword and then 'overriding' that declaration with some text saying that the parameter is not deprecated is a good thing. Too many editors-with-little-experience use the ve tool, and will believe what the tool tells them as gospel truth. By saying that these parameters are both deprecated and not deprecated just causes confusion. Do not confuse the editors. The proper description for |issue=
is 'not supported in cite book' and for |authors=
is 'use of this parameter is discouraged, use ... instead.' I think that you should merge the deprecated
keyword descriptions into their respective description
keywords.|authors=
is a free-form parameter. There is no requirement that its content be 'comma separated'. If there were such a requirement, it should follow the standard cs1|2 name-list separator convention of semicolon-separation. ve should not suggest a requirement when there is none.|authors=
is not deprecated; please remove that "deprecated" property from its documentation. |issue=
is not supported in {{
cite book}}; please do not describe it as deprecated. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
|authors=
now reads: List of authors, comma separated. Use of this parameter is discouraged, "lastn" to "firstn" are preferable. Warning: do not use if last or any of its aliases are used.|issue=
now reads: Issue number. This parameter is not supported by and should generally not be used with cite book. Consider that a different cite template may be more appropriate, such as cite magazine or cite journal. See Help:Citation_Style_1#Pages.The {{
cite interview}} template does not at present support |interviewer-first=
and |interviewer-last=
(including the usual bunch of first/last variants), only |interviewer=
. Also, there can be more than one interviewer, so numbered parameters are needed as well. I think, both should be added for consistency.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
|editor=
and |translator=
aren't supported by COinS but those parameters are enumerated and have accompanying -first
, -last
, -link
, and -mask
parameters. I see no reason to handle |interviewer=
any differently and this may also allow us to get rid of |interviewers=
.{{cite interview/new |title=Title |interviewer1=Interviewer One |interviewer2=Interviewer Two |interviewer-mask1=2 |interviewer-link2=Abraham Lincoln |interviewer-first3=First |interviewer3-last=Last}}
{{
cite interview}}
: |interviewer1=
has generic name (
help){{cite interview/new |title=Title |interviewers=Interviewer One; Interviewer Two}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |interviewers=
ignored (
help)
An edit to the {{
cite book}}
template data added |air-date=
as an alias of |date=
. That edit caused me to go look at the code. The current Module does in fact list |air-date=
and |airdate=
as aliases of |date=
though I can think of no reason why this should be the case. The aliasing takes place in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration but, in
Module:Citation/CS1 these parameters aren't used except when the template is {{
cite episode}}
or {{
cite serial}}
. Probably an oversight on my part sometime in the past. I have removed the aliasing from
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |airdate= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |airdate= ignored (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
|volume=
, |issue=
, |page=
, among others in several of the cs1|2 templates. I don't see this as any different. We test for and announce ignored |chapter=
aliases and crudely test {{
cite arxiv}}
for inappropriate parameters. In all other cases, I think, unused parameters are silently ignored.What templates should be used when the source type does not match one of the templates provided? Examples:
These are often, but by no means always, available as downloads in pdf or doc format, and sometimes only on paper. Sometimes they are published as part of a larger document, other times not. None of the available options seems to be universally applicable to any of the examples above. Any useful advice welcomed. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
or perhaps {{
cite techreport}}
. More generally, {{
citation}}
can often serve quite well.How do we handle citing website mirrors, if we had occasion to do so? I expect we would use |website=original website’s name|publisher=mirrorer's name
. Is this right? —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 18:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
url
and publisher
, the URL for the mirror in archive-url
, the date the mirror was captured in archive-date
, and set |dead-url=yes
. However, I did this because I actually relied on the original for my information, and only subsequently needed to use the mirror because the original was offline. If you actually got your information from this hypothetical mirror, I think you should cite the mirror. I would put the organization operating the mirror in publisher
and the title of the mirror (which, in your hypothetical example, is the same as the title of the original website) in website
. If for some reason it was important that the name of the organization that was the original publisher also be in the citation I would put the original publishing organization in publisher
and the organization operating the mirror in the
via
parameter.If you have a very complex situation you could do something like the following:
{{cite web |title=Original Article Title |date=2010-01-01 |website=Original Site Name |publisher=Original Organization |postscript=none}} — via mirror at {{cite web |url=http://example.com |title=Mirror Article Title |website=Mirror Name |publisher=Mirror Organization |access-date=2016-11-27}}
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help) — via mirror at
"Mirror Article Title". Mirror Name. Mirror Organization. Retrieved 2016-11-27.In some of the vertical usage samples, like Cite web and Cite news, there are spaces around horizontal signs '|' and equal signs '=', which I think make the source more readable. In the latter case the equal signs are even neatly aligned, to make it even more readable. I suppose there is no difference in the actual rendering of the output, but I think it's good to write/use the source this way.
Is there a reason why the horizontal usage samples don't use the same style, with spaces? Otherwise I would like to see the samples change to that standard, which means the doc pages here, where one can copy it from. / PatrikN ( talk) 16:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
| parameter =
, |parameter =
, | parameter=
, |parameter=
are all equally valid. The software that interprets the pipe, parameter-name, and assignment operator does so without regard to whitespace. Personal preference for Wikisource 'style' is merely personal preference. Of course the general rule for personal preferences is: do not change established style to fit your personal preference. |parameter=xyz
style (in "own" articles). Regarding parameters with or without hyphens, I prefer the first ones because they are easier readable and wrap around more nicely even in narrow edit forms.Since some while the cite templates throw an error message when the <pre>..</pre> stripmarkers occur in parameters. While this is necessary and fine for most other parameters, I think it is an error for the |quote=
parameter, which's contents doesn't become part of the generated metadata AFAIK, where it is sometimes actually needed to format a quote in a reasonable way, and where freely flowing text is unacceptable (for example if |quote=
contains a source code excerpt).
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
<q>...</q>
tags. The module uses those tags so that other-language wikis can set quote punctuation in their own common css. Note the extra quote marks which would be here regardless of the stripmarker detection and error message:
For illustration the citation in question was:
{{citation |title=CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories |date=June 1975 |author-first=Gary |author-last=Kildall |quote=<pre>
/* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S)
COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL
JUNE, 1975 */
[...]
/* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S)
COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL
JUNE, 1975 */
</pre>}}
which renders as:
Kildall, Gary (June 1975), CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories,/* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */ [...] /* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */
{{
citation}}
: pre stripmarker in |quote=
at position 1 (
help)
Would a |pre-quote=
parameter help the <q>
issue? --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
A statement about CP/M BDOS.{{refn|group=note|Excerpt from CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM:<ref>{{citation |title=CP/M 1.1 BDOS.PLM for Lawrence Livermore Laboratories |date=June 1975 |author-first=Gary |author-last=Kildall}}</ref><pre> /* C P / M B A S I C I / O S Y S T E M (B I O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */ [...] /* B A S I C D I S K O P E R A T I N G S Y S T E M (B D O S) COPYRIGHT (C) GARY A. KILDALL JUNE, 1975 */</pre>}} A subsequent statement. ====Notes==== {{reflist|group=note}} ====References==== {{reflist}} |
|
Some journals specify both issue (relative number within volume) and number (apparently an absolute number). Our {{
cite journal}} currently gives an error if both |issue=
and |number=
are specified at the same time.
I suggest to remove the error message and display both if both are specified. Not sure if there is a standardized way to display this, but if not, something like "5 (1)/41" (for volume=5, issue=1, number=41) might do.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=The history of CP/M - The evolution of an industry: One person's viewpoint |author-first=Gary |author-last=Kildall |journal=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics & Orthodontia]] |volume=5 |issue=1 |number=41 |date=January 1980 |pages=6-7}}
|issue=
and |number=
are both given, at least one out of |volume=
, |date=
or |year=
would have to be given as well (as companion for the relative issue). Since |issue=
and |number=
seem be used interchangeably, the one with the smaller value should become the relative issue number for the volume.I wonder if anything can (or should) be done to isolate the unclosed italics in citations like this one:
Wikitext | {{cite news
|
---|---|
Live | Mitchell Peters (October 22, 2016).
"Pentatonix Cover Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' in Moving Video".
Billboard. Retrieved November 29, 2016. {{
cite news}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Mitchell Peters (October 22, 2016).
"Pentatonix Cover Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' in Moving Video".
Billboard. Retrieved November 29, 2016. {{
cite news}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (
help)
|
Note that the |publisher=
parameter has unclosed italics, making the access date italicized. I found this in the wild, in
Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song), and I've seen its ilk elsewhere. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
''
should never appear in those fields. I don't see a reason to "clean" these in the module. --
Izno (
talk) 12:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
|title=
and |chapter=
values before those values are added to the metadata. It does not do the same for other parameters. In the exemplar case, |publisher=
is not part of the metadata for periodicals so no harm is done except for the improper rendering. Is there any case where italic font is appropriate in |publisher=
values? How about the negation of the automatic italic font in |work=
values?This discussion forked quickly. I have added headers to separate the discussion. If you want to discuss whether italics are valid in specific fields, I encourage you to start a new thread. My original question is about detecting and reducing the negative effects of unbalanced markup in parameter values. The same problem applies if someone forgets to close the clearly valid italics in |title=
(italics "leak" from the title through to the end of the citation, including unitalicizing the |work=
value):
Wikitext | {{cite news
|
---|---|
Live | Bellerose, Dan (March 15, 2005). "Group Claims Illegal Dive Made to Edmund Fitzgerald Site". Sault Star. pp. A1–A2. |
Sandbox | Bellerose, Dan (March 15, 2005). "Group Claims Illegal Dive Made to Edmund Fitzgerald Site". Sault Star. pp. A1–A2. |
Comments on the original question are still welcome. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
|title=
, |chapter=
, |publisher=
, |work=
, and perhaps others, then we might as well identify and notify when balanced or unbalanced markup is used where it should not be used. How we do the notification may be different depending on the parameter where the markup is detected. Balanced italic markup in |title=
is acceptable so only notify for unbalanced; but in |publisher=
, perhaps markup is not acceptable so notify whether balanced or not.Clarification added later: all my (pol098) suggestions are about added hidden comments, not actual reader-visible bot-affecting values for the author=
and date=
fields. The text being discussed is
“ | If the cited source does not credit an author, as is common with newswire reports, press releases or company websites use:
This HTML comment alerts both fact-checking and citation-fixing editors and bots that the cited source specifically did not name an author and therefore an author credit wasn't accidentally omitted from the citation. Without this entry editors and bots would waste time researching cited sources in an attempt to improve existing citations only to find that there is no author to credit. |
” |
End of clarification aded later.
This is rather a pedantic comment, but entering "author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
" as recommended in the documentation for some templates with an "author" field actually is a statement of presumed fact which may be incorrect. It seems more appropriate to say "Not stated" or words to that effect, which is all we actually know. Not very important as it's only a hidden comment, and not particularly misleading at that, but if there's a place to be pedantic it's an encyclopaedia! [Entering a comment in this field is recommended to save future editors from needlessly looking for the author's name.] Best wishes,
Pol098 (
talk) 16:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
", and adds "this HTML comment alerts fact-checking and citation-fixing ... bots that the ... author credit wasn't accidentally omitted". This wording suggests that the wording I criticise is possibly required rather than recommended, and is built into bots, and shouldn't be changed? Or do bots simply check for anything or any comment in the author field, ignoring the precise wording? In any event, unless there's opinion to the contrary, I'll eventually make the change; it doesn't have big consequences and is easy to revert if necessary. Best wishes
Pol098 (
talk) 11:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
|date=n.d.
and the module will accept it: Author (n.d.). "Title". {{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) vice Author (no date). "Title". {{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help). I don't know what happens to the metadata there though. --
Izno (
talk) 12:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
&rft.chron
key/value pair so |date=no date
ends up there. That may or may not be the correct thing to do. Likely, it's incorrect so perhaps there is a bit of code tweaking to do.
Help page edited: "staff writer"==>"Not stated", and wording trimmed.
“ |
This HTML comment alerts fact-checking and citation-fixing editors, and potentially bots, that the cited source did not name an author—the author was not overlooked. Without this entry editors and bots would waste time researching cited sources for a non-existent author credit. |
” |
Pol098 ( talk) 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
If the cited source does not credit an author, ... use:should be changed to
If the cited source does not credit an author, ... you may use:. Hasn't it been stated already that this is only a recommendation? Wording that may be appear to be, or may be construed as, a guideline, should be avoided as far as this is concerned. 65.88.88.127 ( talk) 21:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I created this template some years ago as a quick citing template for a book. Since then there have been four supplements (so far) of additions and amendments published and I'm wondering how to amend the template to include simple supplement parameter so that {{Quick-Stations |page=FOO |supp=1}}
would produce
Quick, Michael (2009) [2001]. Railway passenger stations in Great Britain: a chronology. Vol. 1st supplement (January 2011) (4th ed.). Oxford:
Railway and Canal Historical Society. p. FOO.
ISBN
978-0-901461-57-5.
OCLC
612226077. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
The four supplements are Supp 1; January 2011, Supp 2; February 2012, Supp 3; February 2013, Supp 4; May 2014. if there are better ways of displaying all three dates within the output then even better. Thanks.
Nthep (
talk) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
Quick-Stations}}
template's base {{
cite book}}
seems a misuse of both templates. You might make {{Quick-Stations}}
smart enough to do a {{
cite web}}
if |supp=
is set.|volume=
parameter of Cite book.{{
Quick-Stations}}
template is now, |date=
and |orig-year=
are both consumed by the book citation. Squeezing in yet another date for the supplement is just confusing. The cs1|2 templates are designed to cite a single source; packing multiple sources into the templates is a misuse and should not be done.short template?
|supp=
.|ref=harv
for this template, but right now, the book or any supplement will be cited with the short reference "Quick 2009". This will be a problem. If you want to cite multiple supplements in the same article, this will be a problem to be worked around in the code. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)I've never asked for a new CS1|2 feature but hope we would consider adding |archiveurl2=
and possibly |archiveurl3=
, as secondary and tertiary archives (with |archivedate2=
and 3).
User:Cyberpower678 and myself have been doing work with Link rot bots, verifying links, adding links, deleting links etc... We work with the Director of the WaybackMachine at Internet Archive on technical issues, as well as the Community Tech team. There are some issues that have come up that could be solved with this feature in CS1|2.
As background, 90% of the archive links on en.wiki are to Wayback. Followed by WebCite maybe 5%, then Archive.is at perhaps 2% and various others the rest. There are dozens of other link archive sites List of Web archiving initiatives that could be used. Every web archive service has its own peculiar rules about keeping archives, dealing with take down requests etc.. none are permanent, in the sense that just because an archive link exists today, it might not tomorrow. And just because a link goes dead, doesn't mean it won't back alive in the future. It's similar to the problem with DNS where servers come and go so we have primary, secondary and tertiary servers.
For example Wayback will take down a page due to changes with robots.txt - however the page may come back alive later if the robots.txt changes. I've monitored thousands of these pages over time and discovered they sometimes flap on a daily basis, or weekly, or monthly etc.. or temporarily 1 time, or "permanently" down etc.. it runs the gambit. I originally was removing any link that was blocked by robots.txt but in retrospect this was a mistake as over time most of those links will probably become available again it it's useful to keep the link in place.
Adding a secondary/tertiary archiveurl opens new possibilities to solving the problem of flapping links. It also solves the problem if an archive site ever goes out of business. It also allows for using more obscure archive sites without fear of them going out of business. It gives editors the freedom to choose multiple archive sites if they want double or triple protection from link rot.
We have a new template {{
webarchive}}
which supports |url=
.. |url10=
. So we now have the ability to do multi-archive sites. This template has an option |format=addlarchives
which will make a CS1|2 template look like it supports multiple archives, however this is something of a hack and not ideal, the best solution would be if CS1|2 natively supported it. If the feature is implemented in CS1|2 we can remove |format=addlarchives
from {{webarchive}}
.
I understand the downside of littering the template with lots of links, which is why the tertiary might be too much, but I don't have an opinion on tertiary either way. We can always add a tertiary later if there seems to be a need for it.
-- Green C 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
|archiveurl2=
is needed to fight
WP:Link rot which is a priority for the community and Mediawiki Foundation per broad consensus. --
Green
C 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=
perhaps?
65.88.88.127 (
talk) 19:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC){{
cite archive}}
and the feature has been used by the community perhaps 20-30 times, there is little demand. The sole purpose of |archiveurl=
/|archivedate=
is to combat link rot, and the sole purpose of |archiveurl2=
is to resolve problems with the current system. The problem of link rot has broad community consensus, and this feature request has broad application with (I believe) minimal disruption and complication to CS1|2. --
Green
C 20:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC){{
webarchive}}
using the |format=
option, limiting it to 1 or 2 extra archives is not clutter. There is a bot IABot adding archives at the rate of 2000-3000 a day for the next 4 months or so as it traverses every article; but many are not dead (yet) so no archive or none available. Look, if this feature comes down to an RfC I feel confident the community will step up and support it. You are probably in the minority in not believing link rot is a priority. --
Green
C 14:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
|archive-urln=
|archive-daten=
|dead-urln=
– needs a new name; all other |<thing>-url=
parameters take a url as an argument|archive-formatn=
|archivern=
parameter to allow us to display something like:
{{
webarchive}}
, by examining the domain name and keeping a map in the code ie. archive.org = "Wayback Machine", webcitation.org = "WebCite" etc.. --
Green
C 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, I found in writing {{
webarchive}}
that the simplest solution was the first archiveurl is un-numbered since that will be the case most of the time only one. It aliases to archiveurl1 to avoid confusion. There are corresponding archivedate's. Do we need multiple deadurl's since that is for the primary url, not the archiveurl(s)? Agreed need archive-formatn. Here is how {{webarchive}}
renders with multiple archives:
{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101000000/http://example.com |date=January 1, 2016 |url2=http://www.webcitation.org/5eWaHRbn4?url=http://www.example.com |date2=February 12, 2009 |format=addlarchives }}
When added to the end of a cite web:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) Additional archives:
January 1, 2016,
February 12, 2009.So the idea is remove {{webarchive}}
in this case but produce the same output using CS1|2 alone. If there is a missing |archivedaten=
, it displays the archive service name based on the domain name ie. archive.org = "Wayback Machine" etc.. --
Green
C 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
|dead-url=
(still needs to be renamed though).|archive-urln=
and |archive-daten=
must be the same as currently in use for the non-enumerated parameters. To have different rules for the enumerated version only serves to confuse editors; so no using archive domain name in place of a missing date.What is the correct category for a subscription to a newspaper accessed through a local library?
Currently there are four categories under the "Subscription or registration required." There is not any wording to tell you how to designate a library subscription in a reference.
In many cities/towns/villages access to a local library and its resources is available over the Internet and in the library. These subscriptions are paid for with local tax dollars from their residents or by grants. You may be paying for the resource if you access the library through the Internet via your library card, but you might not be paying anything if you walk into the library (since most public libraries allow anyone to enter the building). Does this type of access fall under the "limited" or "subscription" category?
Whichever category this type of access is considered, to be consistent across all articles, should verbiage be placed on the Template:Cite news page stating which category library access falls into?
Possible wording:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcarstvnz ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
|via=
and the access-requirement param). If the resource in question is not library owned, indicate that resource, not the library, so that verifying users can skip a step on their way to the source. It is assumed that most readers know that they can get access to all kinds of materials through libraries.
72.43.99.146 (
talk) 15:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)When I copy and paste a reference like
(This is CS2 but I assume the same is true for CS1), selecting the whole line of text by triple-clicking it, and then I paste the result into a text editor, I get
I don't want the "Freely accessible" to be part of the text, and it's formatted badly enough to likely lead to later errors in removing too many characters when deleting it and damaging the arXiv id. Can this garbage text that's not part of the actual reference be removed from what I copy, please? (I'm also not happy that when I do this to a footnote I get an added line "Jump up" at the end of the copied text but I doubt there's much to be done about that part here.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
|alt=<text>
in the icon's File:
link.<span class="plainlinks">12345<span style="margin-left:0.1em">[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=alt text: Freely accessible|title text: Freely accessible]]</span></span>
Jump upunless you mean the newline character (ASCII 0x0A). If that, then there is no solution in cs1|2 because that is not a function of the module. For me, on a windows browser, Ctrl+← once omits the newline; twice omits the newline and the 'Freely accessible' alt text.
title
and alt
. Wouldn't it be enough to change the lua code to render links with an empty alt
and use title
for the description instead? This seems to work:
<span class="plainlinks">12345<span style="margin-left:0.1em">[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=|title text: Freely accessible]]</span></span>
|alt=" (freely accessible)"
might be an improvement. (As for "Jump up", it's text added by ref/reflist somehow, so yes, not under our control. Sorry for not making that part more clear.) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC) 
)to separate the icon from the adjacent text:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000007F-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFSuk2016" class="citation cs2">Suk, Andrew (2016), ''On the Erdős–Szekeres convex polygon problem'', [[arXiv (identifier)|arXiv]]:<span class="id-lock-free" title="Freely accessible">[https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.08657 1604.08657]</span></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=On+the+Erd%C5%91s%E2%80%93Szekeres+convex+polygon+problem&rft.date=2016&rft_id=info%3Aarxiv%2F1604.08657&rft.aulast=Suk&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+29" class="Z3988"></span>