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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I'd like to request the addition of a trans_quote parameter that would be, at least, a repository for a translation of a quote in a foreign-language source. (I'd be happy enough if the parameter were just ignored for display purposes, as long as the quote translation is available to someone who digs deep enough, though if anybody has better ideas about display, cool.) I've actually used this parameter in a few places in hopes that it might exist someday, but that's become problematic now that unknown parameters are showing an error message. Can we add this? —chaos5023 ( talk) 17:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
[Not sure whether this belongs here or on one of the related talk pages]
At some point, it's going to be useful to have the dates in citations made machine-readable, so that they can be included in emitted metadata. That could be achieved in a number of ways, for example, having separate parameters for their day, month and year; using YYYY-MM-DD format, or using a subtemplate. Each has advantages and disadvantages. In the first two examples, it's still possible to have the rendered output in the form "17 May 2013" or "May 17th, 2013", according to a setting (see {{ Start date}} or {{ Birth date}} for examples if this in practice), or even user preference. Anyone got any thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:oppose until there is a way to set the default date on a page or to read the user preference date. --
Gadget850
talk 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
May 17, 2013
would be shown and converted to <time datetime="2013-05-17">
which would not be shown. <time>
is an HTML metadata element now supported by MediaWiki. --
Gadget850
talk 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
<time>
is a standard HTML5 tag. --
Gadget850
talk 10:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
time
element at W3C --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC){{
cite news}}
emits <span class="citation news">Lane, Lois (18 May 2013). "Superman prevents another trainwreck". ''Daily Planet''.</span>
. All of that is generated by
Module:Citation/CS1 using the {{
cite news}}
parameters as input. We could amend the module so that it tests to see if |date=
is a valid date (to cover the situations like 13–19 December 2011, or Summer 1975 mentioned above). If the test succeeds, we put the date through the Lua equivalent of {{#time:Y-m-d}}
to generate a
valid date string, place that in the datetime=
attribute of a <time>...</time>
element which is wrapped around the original date, and output it with the rest, something like <span class="citation news">Lane, Lois (<time datetime="2013-05-18">18 May 2013</time>). "Superman prevents another trainwreck". ''Daily Planet''.</span>
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry. I misread the documentation for
the time
element, so I've rewritten the approprate bits here. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there are a couple of entries in the International Phonetic Alphabet article, Further reading section that are having trouble with the use of the cite book template, because an editor entered two ISBNs for the |isbn= parameter. The books apparently do have two ISBNs: one each for hard bound and for paperback. It seems that the only way to handle this now is to make two separate citation entries, which seems overkill. So how about two parameters that can produce two ISBNs in the listing (and differentiate hb from pb)? Other solutions are fine with me. I'm just looking for some unclunky way to handle such a situation. Evenssteven ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|isbn=0-521-65236-7 (hb); ISBN 0-521-63751-1 (pb)}}
to |isbn=0-521-65236-7 }} ISBN 0-521-63751-1
or to |isbn=0-521-65236-7 }}
- either way, the hardback one is the one that I'd leave inside the {{
cite book}}
. Do the same with the other one as well. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|isbn=
, like any other parameter expecting a single value, should have only a single value; perhaps this should be documented somewhere? In this case the second ISBN should be added following the template. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. If you want 16 ISBNs, then go for it. But you must have read each of them and ensured the page numbers match.
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'm tired of repeating this, and will let it fall out when you try to take the article to FA. --
Gadget850
talk 09:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Here you go:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |ISBN=
at position 41 (
help)Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. -- Gadget850 talk 10:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I used the citation {{cite journal|last=Todd|first=Andrew S|coauthors=R. Mark Sattelberg|title=Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site|journal=Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management|year=2005|month=November|volume=1|issue=4|pages=391–396|pmid=16639905|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.5630010408/pdf|accessdate=9 June 2013}}, and the PMID external link in the reference takes me here instead of here. Am a doing something wrong, or is there an error with the template? Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 19:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site|pmid=16639905|volume=1}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|pmid=
to the end of the citation then there isn't a problem:{{cite journal |title=Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site|volume=1|pmid=16639905}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)In {{cite book| editorlink = Robert J. Sternberg| last = Hyman | first = Ray| authorlink = Ray_Hyman|| editor1 = Robert J. Sternberg |editor2 = Henry L. Roediger| editor3 = Diane F. Halpern| title = Critical Thinking in Psychology| url = http://books.google.com/?id=3mA9NPAgWR0C| year = 2007| publisher = Cambridge University Press| isbn = 978-0-521-60834-3| page = 218| chapter = Evaluating Parapsychological Claims }}
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help)The url links from the title of the chapter, rather than the title of the book. (This link may still not be accurate, because I modified it from one with two authorlink fields, which was, in tern, modified from one which had first and last (referring to the chapter author) and authors (referring to the book authors, which I called editors). Shouldn't the url link from the book title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
links the |chapter=
with |url=
just as the old {{
citation/core}}
version did:Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Hyman, Ray (2007). "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims". In Robert J. Sternberg; Henry L. Roediger; Diane F. Halpern (eds.).
Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. p. 218.
ISBN
978-0-521-60834-3. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Hyman, Ray (2007). "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims". In Robert J. Sternberg; Henry L. Roediger; Diane F. Halpern (eds.).
Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. p. 218.
ISBN
978-0-521-60834-3. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (
help)
|
|url=
should link |title=
and not |chapter=
when |chapterurl=
is omitted. Doing so complies with the {{cite book}}
documentation.|chapterurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=3mA9NPAgWR0C&pg=PA216
to the citation as a work-around.{{
citation/core}}
days, it still should be fixed.... —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC){{
citation/core}}
templates. The point of the comparison was to show that the developers did not introduce a bug into
Module:Citation/CS1.Perhaps someone familiar with this template's intricacies will know what to do: there are template errors showing on the documentation at WP:CS1#Type. I expect they are related to recent reorganization toward a LUA implementation. — EncMstr ( talk) 17:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed -- Gadget850 talk 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way to have the 'publisher' break to a new line below the author's name, year and title? As it is, when the cite book items are all filled out, it generates a source listing that is entirely strung together on one line, often listing the publisher on the other side of the screen. The wrap around isn't much help because often times the only items that wrap to the next line are page numbers and isbn numbers, etc. When panning through a lengthy bibliography it is much easier to read the individual sources when the author's name, year and title are on one line, and the publisher, page number, isbn are on the second line, with the publisher always at the beginning of the second line. Since many cite book listings wrap around to a second line anyway, (unless you're using a very wide screen) it would be nice if this was accomplished with a little order and uniformity. Below is an example of how the listing would look. A <br> has been placed in the publisher field to accomplish this but in practice these are sometimes removed by bots. If there is reluctance to alter this cite book template could an alternative cite book template be created? e.g.'cite book2'. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)A question recently came up at the Teahouse where an editor was trying to use cite-book for an eBook citation. The problem arose as for an eBook a page number is not really appropriate. There's a sort of workaround with using a "location (LOC)" within an eBook and the "at" parameter. However it seems the template and/or the documentation needs to be adjusted in order to help users wanting to cite specific locations within eBooks easily. -- LukeSurl t c 21:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm the original user that had the issue. I've been thinking about this from the standpoint of a data designer. I think I may have been over thinking this. There are already various interpretations for the page number based on the edition, paperback, hardcover, etc. So the loc is just one more example. I think the right answer here might just be use the loc as a regular page number. Mdebellis ( talk) 02:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why websites are italicised in references when we do not italicise them in any other form on Wikipedia. to me, this seems to be improper formatting, and unless there is a convincing argument in support of it, I propose to have it altered in our system so that websites are no longer italicised in references. an example of this: a reference to an article by the website AllMusic:
True, Chris. "Faith – The Cure: Songs, Reviews, Credits, Awards: AllMusic". AllMusic. AllRovi. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
notice that " AllMusic" is italicised. Lachlan Foley 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|work=
parameter is treated as synonymous with |journal=
, |newspaper=
, |magazine=
(and some others, see
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and search for the entry beginning "['Periodical'] ="). This is the gross work; the |title=
specifies an included work. Gross works are italicised; included works are quoted. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 06:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|website=
parameter (which I have actually only just noticed), and |work=
is the alias, meaning that |work=
is the correct field to put the title of the website under. |publisher=
, it seems to me, is for the entity in charge of or powering the website. the |title=
field is for, in this case, the title of the page which the URL is linking to, not the website itself.
Lachlan Foley 11:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|work=
for the name of the section of the website or for the type of document this page is, when there are multiple pages of the same type elsewhere on the site.|url=
http://example.com/safety-directives/left-handed-scredrivers
|title=Safety Directives - Safely Using Left-Handed Screwdrivers
|publisher=The Safety Society
|url=
http://example.com/safety-directives/left-handed-scredrivers
|title=Safely Using Left-Handed Screwdrivers
|work=Safety Directives
|publisher=The Safety Society
|work=
italicised, |published=
doesn't. The notion of 'publisher' is much more important for books, and the {{
citation}} templates instruct us not to cite publishers for periodicals. I would never put Allmusic in the title. It needs to go in |publisher=
or |work=
depending on whether it is properly italicised or not. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)It seems that {{
Cite book}} does not display the value in the |others=
parameter, such as this reference from
Johann Heinrich Alsted:
{{cite book | first = Paolo| last = Rossi | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2000 | month = | title = Logic and the Art of Memory | chapter = |others=Translated by Stephen Clucas | others = | edition = | pages = | publisher = University of Chicago Press | location = | id = | url = | isbn = 0-226-72826-9 }}
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors=
and |month=
(
help)GoingBatty ( talk) 01:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|others=
which is blank. --
Gadget850
talk 01:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps others here will be interested by what's going on at d:Wikidata:Books_task_force. Seems like there's some commonality of interest. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why "edition" is not mentioned in the full parameter set of Template:Cite journal? -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
|edition=
would be useful? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
|location=
. In this instance you would put |location=New York
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Another suggestion for formatting references in order to make them easier to read. When cite web references occupy two or more columns, start the text "archived from the original on {date}" on a new line. Additionally, start any quoted text on a new line. These changes would rarely result in the reference occupying more lines in total. - 109.176.243.180 ( talk) 18:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags- it simply applies the column styling to <references />
which is the tag used by the
Cite software to generate the reference list. --
Gadget850
talk 19:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
reflist-br-condit
- and set up
the global CSS for that, like this br.reflist-br-condit {
display: none;
}
.references-column-count br.reflist-br-condit {
display: inline;
}
<br class=reflist-br-condit />
at suitable points. Linebreaks would then be visible in reflists, only when the multi-column feature is used. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)It's very common these days for web-based material have both a date and time of publication. To my knowledge there's no mechanism to include the time information in the cite templates. I suppose the current closet place for it to be put is in the "date" parameter but that's not what that is meant for. Should a new "time" parameter be introduced? Of course, the question is begged: is this level of granularity necessary for the references? I believe it is valuable when included for two reasons. The time would be useful when used in search engines to find a lost source (e.g. current url is dead) and a time-stamp match would produce confidence that one has actually re-located the proper missing source (date alone is insufficient as big news events often have multiple stories released on the same day). It would be especially useful for the {{ cite web}} and {{ cite news}} templates. Ideas? Jason Quinn ( talk) 04:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite web |title=Title |url=http://www.example.org |date=July 3, 2013 |time=6:21AM BST |timecaption=​}} |
|
The variable meaning of title is a perfect example of what not to do. As for "at", you mean that videos should use the at parameter rather than the minutes or time parameter to specify where within the video the relevant information is? Not unreasonable.
If we're going to stretch the meaning of an existing parameter to include time, I suggest redocumenting the date and accessdate parameters to state they can include publication or access time when that would be helpful. This would be less of a conceptual difference than the difference between time within a video vs. publication time. Jc3s5h ( talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{#time:Y|14:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)}}
yields 2013 ... oh, hang on, that's the old way. Now that it uses a Lua module, I don't know - it's very difficult to trace the code through. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Cite journal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I understand this template is also used for newsletters but not everybody knows that. I would appreciate it if the word "newsletters" was added to the opening description as follows (bold for highlighting here only): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in journals, magazines, newsletters and for academic papers." Helen ( talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Although the wp:VisualEditor (VE) can edit more references than just the wp:CS1 cites, I have created an essay ( wp:VECITE or wp:VEREF) which mentions using the CS1 cite templates within the VisualEditor:
Currently, the responses about using VE have been horrendous, with many experienced users vowing to no longer or never use it, but it can be a " teachable moment" (or "learnable nightmare") about the difficulty of using point-and-click interfaces to select each parameter from a list, rather than using the power of free-form text technology, followed by using a batch-mode " syntax checker" to proofread for invalid parameters in a macro scripting language (in this case, proofreading as red-error messages from the CS1 templates during edit-preview).
As for the fate of VE, with over 300 reported bugs, the onward mandate is pushed by the mindset that there is no "bad software" but that all software is inherently full of bugs and should be used whenever, regardless of the corruption of text files or psychological scarring of users. Hence, I have created that essay to help users cope with problems when being herded into a channel of VE-centric editing. Currently, all users have the option to use the prior edit-source mode for pages, but the VisualEditor provides a slippery slope of luring editors into a point-and-click interface for revising words, which leads to a tedious, slow, click-click-click-on-parameter mode to insert each separate parameter for citations. The new essay wp:VECITE is just a start to providing more help about that slow process. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be easy to create a Lua-based {Cite_fast}, which would format cites even 4x times faster (over 300 per second) for large articles (lists) which have 400-900 cites. I can understand I might sound like the " mad scientist" in wanting even more speed, more speed. However, what if we discovered some new technique which could make the current cites run perhaps 2x faster, as a result of experimenting with even faster speeds. This is just a suggestion, because I think a Lua {cite_fast} could easily be 4x faster (or more). We could break the sound barrier, then the next step: cites on Mars! (just kidding). Things to ponder. Wikid77 ( talk) 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've found a lot of errors like ". Error: |episodelink= requires |number= when using {{
cite episode}}
: Empty citation (
help). " This comes up when the program doesn't work with episode numbers. Unlike "seasons" or "series" with distinct numbers of episodes (I think it's 20 something, but you'll have to correct me on that), we have a lot of programs over here which are ongoing - that is they have been weekly for years on end. I'm sure they do have a production number, but as far as I know the episode number is effectively the date. Is there any way to get around the error? Should the template require a number, when a link is present?
Flying Buttress (
talk) 14:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
|season=
|seriesno=
|number=
are blank (or omitted). If there is no suitable value for |number=
, do you have something suitable for either |season=
or |seriesno=
? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
{{cite episode| title = Visually impaired people in TV ads, and charities working together | episodelink = http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l0fkf | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l0fkf | series = | serieslink = | credits = | network = BBC | station = Radio 4 | city = | airdate = 24th July 2012}}
{{
cite episode}}
: Check |episodelink=
value (
help); Check date values in: |airdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |city=
and |serieslink=
(
help); External link in |episodelink=
(
help); Missing or empty |series=
(
help); Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help){{
cite AV media}}
:
{{cite AV media |title=Visually impaired people in TV ads, and charities working together |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l0fkf |publisher=[[BBC Radio 4]] |date=24 July 2012 |medium=Radio broadcast |work=[[In Touch (BBC Radio 4 programme)|In Touch]]|author=Miles, Ffion (Reporter) |author2=Kumutat, Lee (Producer)}}
|serieslink=
requiring |number=
, one opposed (me), and from the broader community's general apathy.The documentation is correct, episodelink
is an existing Wikipedia article. The Bradbury Fields example is an incorrect use of the template, and it is being placed into a maintenance category (
Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax), bringing attention to its incorrect use. A perquisite for episodelink
, serieslink
, and url
was brought up in the discussion because we didn't want users to be providing a link that went unused. To activate these links provide the appropriate number
, season
, series
, seriesno
, title
, or trans_title
. If the episode doesn't have these, what is there to link?
117Avenue (
talk) 03:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
For years we have lived with author initials being used to populate |first1=
.. |firstn=
, with resultant confusion. For many cited authors this has not been a large problem. If an editor abbreviates "John Paul" to "J.P.", "J. P." or "JP" no one is terrible surprised. But how to handle "Jean-Paul"? Any of the preceding might be used, plus "J-P", "J.-P.", "J.-P" or even "J. -P". Is it time to discuss supporting a distinct parameter |initial1=
for such choices? Some article editors seem to prefer full names while others want the most succinct initials possible.
Authority control might be used to limit variations, with improved wikidata functionality as a result. See
[6] for more.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Citation Style 1 family of citation templates be modified to always place the date of publication in parentheses immediately after the first element (that is, after the authors or editors if those are given, or after the title if not)? If so, since citations were inspired in part by APA style, should the date be followed by a period after the right parenthesis when the separator is set to the period? Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Since I was unable to find an uninvolved editor to close the discussion, I will ignore all rules and summarize it myself, for the convenience of whoever implements the consistent style. Editors in this section are listed in no particular order.
Eight editors supported having the date consistently as the second element (Dragons Flight, bender235, Carl, sroc, Imzadi1979, Andrew327, Trappist the Monk, and myself).
Three editors supported having the date consistently near the end (Alarics, SlimVirgin, and DoctorKubla). Of these, Alarics and SlimVirgin supported date-second as a second choice.
Two editors indicated support, but there comments didn't seem consistent with the proposal (J Johnson and Lachlan Foley).
The "Let's get specific" section had two editors (Dragons Flight and Trappist the monk) favoring this style for a newspaper article with no author:
On the other hand I preferred to adhere more closely to the APA style:
Alarics consisdered the APA style an improvement over the current situation but would prefer fewer brackets:
Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As the originator of the RFC I favor a fixed location for the date, as do some others in the Date location section above. I favor placing the date as the second element because in articles using parenthetical referencing without linking (or which have been printed on paper) it is easier for the reader to find the full source information. Also, when there is a sorted reference list, it is easier for editors to see if sources by the same author have been sorted correctly. Finally, I favor a period after the right parenthesis because the templates were inspired by APA style and will be more comfortable for the many people who already use APA style. I note that the current cite journal template only separates the last character of the last author's name from the date with a space, while APA style would separate them with a period and a space. Thus in APA style, the example below would read ...Kenneth. (2011)...
Example:
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
First | (1999). Some Things. Random House Books. p. 24. |
Second | Some Things. (1999). Random House Books. p. 24. |
Late (present behavior) | Some Things. Random House Books. 1999. p. 24. |
{{
cite news}}
; both ref the same newspaper; the only real difference is that one of the two URLs, if followed, shows a credited author, the other shows "By Reading Post" - which I took to be synonymous with "By Staff Reporter", so I omitted it from the {{
cite news}}
, with the result that the two refs are significantly different in layout. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
article title
> title of publication
> year/date
, with the exception of {{
cite news}}, since I feel there is more emphasis on date in that case.
Lachlan Foley (
talk) 10:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC){{
cite news}}
, because {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
exhibit exactly the same inconsistency in date positioning. It is however more noticeable with {{
cite news}}
, because that sometimes has credited authors and sometimes doesn't, whereas {{
cite book}}
/{{
cite journal}}
almost always have credited authors, and a true {{
cite web}}
(one where {{
cite news}}
/{{
cite journal}}
are not appropriate) rarely has a credited author. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC){{
cite}}
templates. My preference would be to have the date nearer the beginning of the citation for consistency with existing citations where authors are named, in keeping with the Harvard referencing system, e.g.:Seeking editor to close discussion. Since the RFC has expired and discussion seems to have more or less reached a consensus, someone should close this discussion. I would suggest the subsections about specifics below also be included in the closure. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
In the above discussion, it appears that most people favor consistency, and a majority also seem to want the date to stay near the front, though that is somewhat less clear. There is also some discussion of style changes (e.g. parenthesis, periods, etc.) but I don't think that is well enough developed to be ready to come to any conclusion. In the following I am going to offer some specific styles for current and future citations that aim to keep the date near the front in various cases, and would like feedback on what people think.
In the examples below, the current case generally shows examples where a date appears at the end. The "Suggestion 1" case places the date as the second element, and "Suggestion 2" case places it as the first element (essentially where it would be if it were left in the same slot even though no author is given).
I think most people want to keep this as is, <AUTHOR> <DATE> <TITLE>, i.e.
Some of the above are somewhat complicated edge cases, but then we need to remember that there are many different elements that can end up in citations. Personally, I think I prefer Suggestion 1, though I don't have an overly strong opinion either way. However, I did think it would be useful to further the discussion by showing more examples of possible date location changes. Do people have any additional feedback after seeing more examples? I wanted to add some more examples, in part, because it wasn't entirely clear from the previous discussion how people would want to handle some of these edge cases, and hence it would have been difficult to implement any specific change. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The (book) template automatically prepends 'OL' to the Open Library ID, presumably on the assumption that all Open Library IDs start with that. The problem is, they don't, and this prevents linking to those that have Open Library IDs of other formats. For example, the Open Library uses IDs that begin with 'ia:' to refer to works that originate with the Internet Archive. This results in bad links to the Open Library website for such a work. (One such ID is 'ia:publicrecords02conn', which should link to, e.g., http://openlibrary.org/works/ia:publicrecords02conn but instead links to http://openlibrary.org/OLia%3Apublicrecords02conn.) — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 13:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |ol=
value (
help)ia:
and adjust the URL.The documentation for Cite news fails to explain what it is for. Is it just for citing paper newspapers? Maybe news telecasts? How about Usenet newsgroups? Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Back on the original point, it would certainly be good if a way could be found of making clearer to editors that "cite news" is to be used in preference to "cite web" for refs to news articles from bona fide news outlets, whether or not said articles are on line. At present a great many refs put "cite web" when it should be "cite news". (I think the Reflinks tool may be to blame for a fair bit of this.) (On the other hand, one also sometimes finds people using "cite news" when they shouldn't, especially in the case of press releases, which have their own "cite press release" template; the distinction matters because a press release is a piece of news produced by a non-news organisation about itself, and is not therefore objective "news" such as one would hope to find in a reliable news source.) -- Alarics ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
|type=
parameter added?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)I propose to rename Cite album-notes to Cite album notes because I believe the hyphen is unnecessary and improper use of punctuation. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Now at {{ Cite AV media notes}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please change the use of "..."
to “...”
for article titles, chapters, etc. in the citation templates? Or is there a style rule requiring "..."
? --
bender235 (
talk) 08:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
“
and ”
are not valid characters in HTML documents unless they are encoded. See
Character Entity Reference Chart at W3. -
79.67.242.207 (
talk) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
, .
which are almost never encoded. Only three characters must always be encoded when they occur in the
text part of a HTML doc: & < >
- a fourth "
should be encoded where its meaning might be ambiguous, such as within an attribute value. All the other encodings are provided for situations where the desired character might not be directly typeable, or where a program which processes the doc might trash a multibyte character. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Is there a way to supress the period after the title in {{ cite book}}?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It seemed that there was agreement to do this. I see no changes.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Where a reference is formatted using cite web or cite news and the source article is date stamped, that information is conveyed using the |date=
parameter. If the source article is not date stamped, the |accessdate=
parameter is used instead. Or, at least that's the theory.
A large number of references have both |date=
and |accessdate=
and in most, if not all, cases there is no need for |accessdate=
to be there.
Should the unwanted |accessdate=
inclusion be ...
|accessdate=
data simply be hidden and not displayed when the reference is shown,or handled some other way?
Your thoughts? -- 86.148.10.139 ( talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
|showaccessdate=yes
for those who have a burning desire. --
Gadget850
talk 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
|date=
and |accessdate=
exist, I would use |accessdate=
Lets take a look at a citation I just cleaned up:
The web page had a date at the bottom that was not recorded in the citation, but this was an easy fix.
So- what does the access date tell me? Lets say someone updated the web page in 2002 and did not change the date. How would I know? If I did know the page was changed, what do I do to indicate it using the access date? What if an editor comes along and cleans up the citation and changes it to the date he edited the citation?
I have updated Wikipedia:Using WebCite and Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine to indicate the limitations on archiving.
I don't expect much further from this discussion, but I might be surprised. I would hide access dates, but their existence often shows that the originating editor did not dig into the web page enough to find the proper date. Then there are those who add access dates for books and journals. -- Gadget850 talk 11:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I routinely delete |accessdate=
parameters from web citations that have a proper date. To answer IP editor's original question, if we are to somehow flag citations that contain both |date=
and |accessdate=
parameters, it should be done in the same manner as existing error messages. All error messages and message style must be consistent. The error message More than one of |param1=
, |param2=
, and |param3=
specified with a bit of editing at
Help:CS1_errors to address redundant use of |date=
and |accessdate=
would seem to fit the bill. All of the date parameters |month=
, |year=
, and |date=
need to be included when determining date / |accessdate=
redundancy.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
|date=
and |accessdate=
parameters may be redundant, but it's not an error according to the template documentation. Before adding another red error message visible to readers, I suggest that these steps be taken instead:
|accessdate=
via RfC|accessdate=
from citations where |date=
is valid|date=
and |accessdate=
". I was responding to Trappist's post, so I hope Trappist will provide you an example.
GoingBatty (
talk) 01:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)archivedate
is supplied (with appropriate archiveurl
). As I've argued before, and along the same lines as Codename, is that it is not entirely redundant to date
, because having the accessdate does make finding an appropriate archived version of the page more simple. --
Izno (
talk) 15:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)We will never get consensus on this. Need to create a perennial discussion page. Meanwhile, I simply hide access dates as useless. -- Gadget850 talk 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
). I venture to guess that Editor
Gadget850 is referring to this. No need to tread the policy road.Is it possible for the module to detect errors like this one, where multiple journal authors were specified with repeated "first=X last=Y" pairs? -- John of Reading ( talk) 08:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
and module versions of your citation:{{cite compare |mode=encyclopedia
| last = Fiaud | first = J.C.
| last = Kagan | first = H.B.
| editor-last = Eliel | editor-first = E.L.
| editor-last = Wilen | editor-first = S.H.
| year = 1988
| title = Kinetic Resolution
| encyclopedia = Topics in Stereochemistry
| volume = 18
| publisher = John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
| location = New York
| pages =249–340}}
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | Kagan, H.B. (1988). "Kinetic Resolution". In Wilen, S.H. (ed.). Topics in Stereochemistry. Vol. 18. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 249–340. |
Sandbox | Kagan, H.B. (1988). "Kinetic Resolution". In Wilen, S.H. (ed.). Topics in Stereochemistry. Vol. 18. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 249–340. |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's proposed to use a bot to clean cruft from Google Books URLs, in citation templates. Please comment at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Google Books links on how that should be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |registration=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)So, the module includes the functionality of {{ subscription required}}, but not {{ registration required}}.
And why do we have the styling on this? -- Gadget850 talk 00:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Added |registration=
(in a crude sort of way – if only I knew what I were doing) to the sandbox. As you can see, I don't do any error checking and let |subscription=
override |registration=
. I think the functionality of |registration=
matches that of {{
registration required}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
When using {{ cite book}}, using via= to indicate that the citation came from a Google Books copy, the {{ subscription required}} is also dragged into it.
This doesn't seem right, since many via sources do not require a subscription or other payment. Is this the correct place to bring this up? -- Lexein ( talk) 01:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
|via=
parameter is to indicate that the online version you're linking to is behind a paywall; usually, {{
subscription required}} on its own is sufficient, but if you're linking to a well-known database like Highbeam or JStor, which lots of people have access to, some people prefer to note this in the citation, so that readers can tell at a glance whether they can access the source or not.
DoctorKubla (
talk) 11:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose that Template:Cite book be changed to instruct editors that, when citing a book where a place of publication is mentioned, the editor NOT add a wikilink around the name of the place. When a wikilink is added to the city of publication, that city then shows up in the "what links here" of many other articles which have nothing to do with that city. For example, let's say a book about "Vegemite" is published in "Greenville, Mississippi". Then an editor uses that book to update the article about Vegemite, and when citing the book, adds a wikilink around "Greenville, Mississippi" (as a convenience to readers who may not know where Greenville--the place of publication--is). Then, some other wiki user who is reading the Greenville article looks at the "what links here", and sees the Vegemite article (which has nothing to do with Greenville). This leads to unnecessary confusion. Thanks for your discussion about this. Richard Apple ( talk) 06:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
|work=
, |publisher=
, |authorlink=
, |editorlink=
, |agency=
, |authorlink=
, etc. This is a software problem, not a template problem. If this really is an issue, you should file for MediaWiki enhancement that distinguishes direct and transcluded links for whatlinkshere, though I don't know how likely this is to be implemented. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 08:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)I'm trying to reference a featurette on a DVD properly, but can't see how I can do it using the fields on offer. The DVD title is The Pearl of Death, but there is no field in which that can comfortably fit while including the featurette name at the same time...
{{
cite AV media}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help)Any thoughts? - SchroCat ( talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)when citing old, public-domain books republished by google books, what should the publisher and publication date be? e.g., philology currently cites the 1880 book Philology, by John Peile, published in 1880 by Macmillan, as {{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/?id=2joVAAAAYAAJ&dq=philology&printsec=frontcover#PPA5,M1 |title=Philology |publisher=Books.google.com |date=2008-02-09 |accessdate=2011-07-16}}. it seems misleading to suggest that a book is less than 5 years old when it's really over 130, but OTOH it seems important to keep track the that info came from the scan, and not a physical copy. opinions? did i miss a settled answer to this? Adavies42 ( talk) 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |last=Peile |first=John |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2joVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3 |title=Philology |edition=4th |location=London |publisher=Macmillan and Co. |date=1880}}
|via=Google Books
. Except for the small problem that via=
drags in (subscription required). Can I get a response to
that question? --
Lexein (
talk) 09:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Considered good form to cite Google Books as the source using ... |via=Google Books
.
Where is that stated?|via=
parameter? Surely the distinction is a separate published edition versus an online scan of a previously published edition, i.e. Google did not create a new edition, they scanned somebody else's. A bot task to set |via=
for Google books would be easy enough. It should also be easy enough to retrieve the actual publisher of the edition digitized from the Google books meta data.
Rjwilmsi 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)|edition=
applies, regardless of publisher. If a publisher simply conveys the the right to print and distribute a work to another entity, either by sale or by license, then the work is new and distinct.{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |type=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |type=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help)|origyear=
is appropriate.single citation doesn't work well with those conditions, I meant that a single citation doesn't allow an editor to cite the same point of information from two sources. For example if an editor is citing Laws governing the Sterility of first Crosses and of Hybrids that citation, for 1859, is:
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help); External link in |type=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help); External link in |type=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help)crucial to know ... the specific edition consulted, [and] which branch (original edition) that edition derives from? (emphasis mine) Why is it not sufficient to simply cite the work that is at hand? An editor is not obliged to know and record the lineage of the source. Such a requirement would be a rather burdensome. This, it seems to me, follows rather naturally from your statement that
we do not (and should not) expect an editor that consults a derivative ... edition to note the differences.
... year of the original edition ... from which [my] version is taken (e.g.: "1909 [1959 [ sic]]")you won't consult another source? That's nonsense. If you note a discrepancy, surely you will seek resolution regardless of
|origyear=
inclusion in my citation.We might want to compare our approach to two printed style guides. First, here is APA style p. 203 example 19, "Electronic version of a print book" (first two entries) and example 21, "Electronic version of a republished book" (last entry):
Shortton, M. A. (1989). Computer addiction? A study of computer dependency [DX Reader version]. Retrieved from http://www.eboookstore.tandf.co.uk/html/index.asp
Shiraldi, G. R. (2001). The post-traumatic stress disorder sourcebook: A guide to healing, recovery, and growth [Adobe Digital Editions version]. doi:10.1036/0071393722
Freud, S. (1953). The method of interpreting dreams: An analysis of a specimen dream. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmunt Freud (Vol. 4, pp. 96-121). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books (Original work published 1900)
Chicago Manual of Style p. 710–711 says to site the version that agrees with the page numbers in the citation. In the case of reprints and electronic versions, the date of the orignial may be included if relevant. A description of how a reprint differes from the original, such as the addition of new material, may be included in the citation if needed.
Chicago also says the citaion should indicate the citation writer consulted an electronic version if both a paper and electronic version are available, due to the potential for differences (p. 726). The citation if the citation writer colsulted the electronic version is shown first below; the second citation below is if the citation writer consulted the paper version (note the different publication date).
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Penguine Classics, 2007. Kindle edition.
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Penguine Classics, 2003.
According to Chicago (p. 727) if it were relevant to include the original publication date, it would be done as follows (citing a different electronic version form above):
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. London: T. Egerton 1813. Reprint, New York: Penguine Classics, 2008. PDF e-book.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate some guidance, and I would suggest it be added to the Template:Cite journal/doc page, on quarterly periodicals. If the periodical does not have a volume and number, should, for example, "Fall 2012" be in the issue parameter, the date parameter, or both? -- JFH ( talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
|date=Fall 2013
. If the citation will be referenced by {{
sfn}}
or one of the {{
harv}}
family of short form notation templates, include |year=2012
as well.|issue=
. I kind of like it. But doing it as TM describes is quite adequate. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Markup | Rendered HTML |
---|---|
{{cite book |title=Title |date=Fall 2013 |ref=harv}} |
|
-- Gadget850 talk 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
|year=
. This reference link
[1] is {{sfn||2013}}
. The full citation is listed below.Take a look at:
for an example. The article is an editorial from the paper, so I want to attribute that fact using |type=
. The paper's name doesn't include the city, so I want to include that in |location=
. However, the type indication should really fall after the title of the article, and not in between the newspaper name and location. The result is that the location is disconnected from the title, and the type is disconnected from the headline. We also get the less than ideal line up of consecutive items listed in separate parentheses. (Note that if I used |format=
to indicate it was an editorial, that would fall after the title, but that indicator is supposed to be used for the format of the resulting link, like a PDF or Excel spreadsheet file.)
Imzadi 1979
→ 22:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
|author=
to be filled with the name of a person or entity, not a description. Perhaps "|author=
Editorial" should be understood as a special case that requires reference to "publisher" to be fully resolved. Or perhaps we just accept that the metadata isn't perfect, and we are not going to fret about. Actually, I think we're going about this sideways. We should first consider just how such a citation might be formatted, without considering how to do it in a template. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is not a satisfactory explanation for credits whatsoever. It only is aligned with aliases, which doesn't make any sense. This should be elaborated on and an example given. Since these are television episodes, I don't see how an alias will ever fit into the episode mold. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 19:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of the other Citation Style 1 templates display the date in parentheses immediately after the authors' names (or if there is no author, after the title). But the {{ cite web}} template places the date near the end of the citation. When was this change made and why? Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
behave similarly: if there is an author, the date goes in parenthesis after that, otherwise it goes after the publisher. Please give examples of where you see different behaviour. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)|author=
parameter, I find this paragraph:The main function of |author= being used for organizational citation is when the cited source, such as a committee report, specifically names an official body or a sub-unit (of the publisher as the collective author of the work, e.g. |author=Commission on Headphone Safety or |author=Rules Sub-committee. Using this parameter to assert what you think was probably the collective author, when the source itself does not specify that body as the collective author, is original research and falsification of source verifiability and reliability.
I am mainly aware of this problem in "cite news". Many newspaper reports have an author; many do not. In a typical WP article one finds both kinds cited under "cite news" and the final result looks inconsistent on the WP page. This has been raised many times in the past, including by me, but nobody ever does anything about it. I would suggest the date should come near the end of the reference, after the name of the newspaper (and city of publication, where given). -- Alarics ( talk) 11:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So we have an undocumented 'via' parameter. What do we use it for? -- Gadget850 talk 14:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
or similar for such cases if one wants an inline tag. I agree with DoctorKubla that we don't need to mention this, as the source of the citation is what matters. But I think it makes sense to make it clear to readers and editors how the content was actually accessed (not limited to paywalls and such). —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 14:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)|url=
to books in the first place? —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 15:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|via=
does not add (subscription required) to the citation. If this change is to be kept, then those citations that are out there in the wild that rely on |via=
to provide the link note will need to be updated so that they use |subscription=yes
.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
... I don't think via= should necessarily always drag in paywallcomment. If we are going to keep
|via=
, then it should be usable for citations that aren't hidden behind a pay wall as well as for those that are.|via=
is as a mechanism to show that the cited work is located in a place different from where the reader would expect to find it. As an example, a {{
cite journal}}
citation identifies an article by
Caspar Milquetoast complete with |volume=
, |number=
, |doi=
, etc. and a link to the article. When the link points to Dr Milquetoast's web page instead of the journal's web page there is a minor cognitive dissonance for the reader. If the citation also included |via=CasparMilquetoastCitizenScientist.com
then that dissonance is mitigated. |website=
won't work in this case because it is an alias of |journal=
. When the article is available from the author's web site, (subscription required) is not appropriate.|via=
is two things. It's a tool which formalizes "say where you found it" at the editor's discretion within the syntax of CS1, without requiring external templates like {{
HighBeam}}. It is also a means by which citation requirements imposed by content providers other than the original publishers can be satisfied (such as WebCitation, HighBeam, EBSCO and others which all have terms of use). Parenthetically, for completeness, we could state via=Archive.org
, instead of the current triggered text "from archive" (lowercase) whenever |archiveurl=
is used. AFAICT "from archive" has become generic, due to being lowercase, with no other formal mechanism to indicate explicitly which archive provider has been used (I'd rather not use provider-dependent citation mechanisms or templates, just CS1).|via=
is useful: at
The Bridge (2006 drama film)
User:Cirt found a lot of sources to support keeping the article, while it was at AfD. He apparently used a research provider, but didn't include URLs or "by" or "via" comments. So it was a hard slog for me to verify the sources he dug up. Why did I bother? Because I wanted our readers to be able to more easily verify the sources for claims, and because that was a Scientology-related, and therefore potentially highly controversial article, subject to an extreme level of scrutiny due to ARBCOM decisions. I'm a big fan of easy verifiability, wherever possible.|via=
and not |url=
. The research provider EBSCO's URLs don't link purely to EBSCO domain+assets, they link through libraries/institutions, and so are accessible only to "local" patrons/customers. So I say |via=
EBSCO, so the reader knows they can verify the source via EBSCO just like I did, but I leave out the |url=
because the url wouldn't work unless they are patrons of the same library, with the same account number as me, and there's no way to generalize the URL.|via=
all combine to make WP less verifiable, and, personally, annoying. I guess I'm just saying every little bit helps.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. p. 1 – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. p. 1 – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|via=
parameter is a republisher, and it shouldn't be disconnected from the original publisher. As for the "subscription required" or "registration required" indications, those are good at the end of the citation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)|via=
comes into play when there is reasonable doubt either as to the fidelity of the copy or the specific edition upon which a (possibly incomplete) copy was based.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added documentation for |via=
under
Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher for all to review. Hopefully it is not seen as any sort of policy change, merely documenting an important two-function parameter, and its justified uses: a) saywhereyoufoundit and/or b) politely attributing the content deliverer, as may be requested/required by their terms of use. So I would like sandbox to be moved live, so the |subscription=
parameter can be activated, and then documented. --
Lexein (
talk) 16:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
|via=
documented. I'm not talking about "linking restrictions", I'm talking about citation attribution such as presented in examples by HighBeam and EBSCO and others. I have further not "made a decision", I'm documenting a feature, and providing use cases where it makes sense. Everybody stopped talking, so I just f'ing documented the damned thing. I fully know that Google Books both simply delivers (where there is a prior published/printed work) and also publishes (where there is no prior published/printed work). |via=
is about those deliverers who are not acting as publishers. Jeez. There's only one publisher field. Think it through. --
Lexein (
talk) 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)|via=
documentation at
Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher:when the deliverer requests attribution (HighBeam, EBSCO, etc). ...
|via=
also satisfies citation attribution requests by content providers (such as HighBeam, EBSCO and others which have terms of use).
References
|via=
simply identifies the provider – more for the reader than as a response to a perceived request or requirement imposed by Grace's Guide.Hey folks, I appreciate all of the careful discussion here. My original thinking with citations from donated accounts was that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applied for identifying the actual site where research was conducted and the version which was actually read. That guideline may leave us in a bit of a gray area as it excludes search engines and library catalogues which led to research... I'm not exactly sure what its intended status on archives/databases that host the research is though. So, Linking to the HighBeam article, for example, was expected if an editor read the article there; actually attributing HighBeam in the reference was not explicitly required--though the citation example did encouraged it. I do think there's also a decent argument that subscription required, is more useful if you know subscription to what. For example, if there's a HighBeam citation on a page, I'd think editors/readers would benefit from knowing if that's a source they have access to. And you know thereby that you're reading the same version the editor was. This is in the context of always providing the original citation information so anyone can look it up in whatever location they have easiest access to. There may, realistically, also be benefit in attracting future donations of this kind if the via parameter is used, but I wouldn't put that motive first in our considerations. In short, there is no contractual agreement with the donors to attribute the source (there's no contract of any kind in fact), but there were usage expectations for editors for linking to the source and citation examples that encouraged giving in-reference attribution. Happy to discuss all this... Ocaasi t | c 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The documentation for the publisher parameter claims "Most professional and academic citation standards (and thus everyone familiar with any of them) do expect the publisher to be explicitly included, even where this may seem redundant. Adding it doesn't hurt anything, and eliminates the possibility that later editors will assume it was left out by mistake and waste time looking up the missing information."
That statement is true for books, but false for periodicals, especially academic journals. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
|publisher=
but there has never been a clear consensus. In the last discussion, vote count was in favor of not excluding it in some cases but the reason was more or less "
I just don't like it" or "others do it", which is responded by "
Wikipedia is full of things you might not like that are going to stay put" and "we do a lot of things others don't do".|publisher=
. I think, and the prior consensus-based text supported, by implication, that adding |publisher=
improves verifiability, especially for some use cases: lesser-known, or similarly-named publications. I'm a big, big, fan of improved verifiability, and not hiding the treasure, as I've mentioned elsewhere. The common sense of the editor creating the citation should be engaged, not discouraged. --
Lexein (
talk) 12:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
|publisher=
to |accessdate=
?
I believe my edit is very much in line with WP:CITE#What information to include . The idea of treating Citation Style 1 as a distinct citation style, rather than a template to be used in any old way, is a rather new concept, and the documentation here is really not up to the job of specifying a citation style. I am not aware of any discussion supporting a departure from the universal academic practice of not citing publishers of journals and a number of other kinds of works. Certainly there is no navigation aid in the project page to find such a discussion. (Of course, additional information can always be added to any citation when normal citation practices will result in ambiguity.)
As for citations to support the ommission of the the publisher for many kinds of works, see the following:
The APA style manual has equivalent advice, but I don't have time to find the page just now. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's my opinion on the matter: most of the time, I've followed the usual academic writing practices from my years in high school and college, which is to omit the publisher on most periodicals. However, there are cases where including it for lesser-known publications is beneficial. Each editor in each situation is going to need to make a value judgement on whether or not including a publisher is necessary in those cases. I think this is a case where the documentation is going to need to describe the established practices already followed, rather than establishing the practices to follow. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think in the case of widely known periodicals and highly reputed journals publisher is not needed. However as mentioned in WP:SCHOLARSHIP there are journals "that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" and "that appear to be reliable journals, are instead of very low quality". Giving the publisher can help identify if a journal or periodical is from a source recognized by the academic community. I am of the opinion that the more information about a source the better, balanced my keeping references as concise as possible. Joining in the off topic discussion, WP:ISSN states, " Normally an ISSN is not part of a citation to a particular article. An ISSN is used to identify the serial, i.e., the journal or periodical. Only use an ISSN in a citation for a particular article if the journal is relatively unknown and the ISSN is provided for verification of the existence of the journal." I think use of DOI is important as it can lead to an item that has moved. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really editing here any more, I just logged in because someone e-mailed me that I've been mentioned by name recently in an blame-casting way, and upon seeing it, I feel like responding, because it was unnecessarily personalizing. I do not propose that anyone be given a finger-wagging "talking to" for not adding the publisher to a periodical citation, nor that the Citation Style 1 templates spit out huge red error messages when a publisher is not given in one. It is useful (often very, very useful) information to include, however, especially in politically-charged topic areas or when citing obscure sources. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. I don't know why people cannot seem to get this through their heads: WP is emphatically not bound to cite its sources the way your field or industry happens to do so. WP does not care what other publication do for their own internal purposes. Wikipedia does what is best for its own purposes, which generally means whatever is best for its readers, first and foremost. Providing useful information clearly does what is best for WP's readers, rather than discarding the info for no reason other than to conform to some external expectation that is really of zero relevance here. Another thing people are not "getting" is that periodical citation templates are not used only for academic journals, but for all types of periodicals; the fact that professional academics in a field generally already know who the publishers of famous academic journals in their field are, is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's interests, goals, procedures, and audiences. Get your head out of your own little fiefdom and think about other people, with different needs, knowledge and expectations for a change. Sometimes the number of oh-so-credentialled academics editing here, unable to see past their own noses, are a curse as much as the boon they obviously are in adding a professional level of expertise on academic topics. <sigh> Now, one could say that when the publisher is visually redundant to add, as in |journal=Proceedings of the Botswanan Society of Omphaloskeptics
, that the utility-of-the-data argument is potentially inapplicable. However, fans of metadata and the semantic Web would argue that it would actually be better to add a |hide-pub=y
parameter and keep the publisher info without displaying it, since the data can still be found and operated on by third-party tools, e.g. one that wanted to compare the number of times that journals by one university were cited on WP vs. those of another, or whatever. Oh, and per
WP:CONSENSUS, the fact that "my" wording, making the publisher of the standard dataset of a Style 1 citation (incl. for periodicals), has been around for a long time without controversy actually indicates that it does in fact have consensus; trying to attack it on the basis that it was written by one person instead of arrived at through a long committee process – especially a committee that included you and pandered to your personal pet peeves – is total
WP:BOLLOCKS, and clearly forget that
WP:BOLD is a matter of policy. No one needs your permission to institute a best practice here, community acceptance of one without a process you personally favor doesn't mean the acceptance is magically invalid, and that acceptance means that the onus is on you to demonstrate why the idea should be revoked. I'm logging back out and going away again, so feel free to rant and rave at whatever strawman you're going to erect in my absence, since its so important for some of you to personalize the issue and point "SMcCandlish is a bad guy, and we can undo everything he ever did" fingers now that I'm generally not around any more. Have fun with that. I have a real life to get back to, thanks. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ
Contrib. 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Last. Title. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
Last. Title. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |registration=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
Seems to me that if one is linked, the other should be linked as well. -- Gadget850 talk 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
|registration=
links to
WP:V, a Wikipedia policy which has as its target audience Wikipedia editors, not readers.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Like this?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite compare}}
examples are not currently showing what my "Like this?" question was about. That's because I found a bug in the current live version of
Module:Citation/CS1 so I copied live to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, fixed it there where it awaits movement to live version – I'm not special enough to do those kinds of things.<span title=""></span>
for the text and <abbr></abbr>
for the text decoration. I think that this violates the proper use of the <abbr></abbr>
tags. Perhaps there is another way to accomplish the same thing without the violation.<abbr></abbr>
tags:
{{
cite compare}}
above now reflects my latest thinking regarding the Subscription / Registration link note help text.{{
cite web}}
is acceptable.<code></code>
tags and displays yes
in the proper font)?What on Earth happened to the Cite book template? Wherever I used it, there is now an error saying: |accessdate= requires |url= (help). See, for example, Margaret of Burgundy, Dauphine of France#References and Royal touch#References. How can this be fixed? Surtsicna ( talk) 10:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
refers to the date upon which the on-line citation is accessed by the editor citing it. If you are referring to a printed work, it's pretty obvious that it's the edition of the book (or its ISBN) that matters to the person wanting to look up the physical work. The date on which the person who input the citation read it is utterly unimportant. In the case where there is no url, the existence of the warning suggests that the best option is to remove the access date. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In the old version of the templates, 'accessdate' without 'url' did not show. That change was made years ago and the discussion is buried in archives linked at the top of the page. We often got questions about why 'accessdate' did not show. Now we give an error telling you that it is either redundant or something is wrong in the citation markup. -- Gadget850 talk 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Morewedge, Rosemarie Thee (1975). The Role of Woman in the Middle Ages: Papers of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies. State University of New York Press. pp. 97–98, 114–115.
ISBN
1438413564. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Morewedge, Rosemarie Thee (1975). The Role of Woman in the Middle Ages: Papers of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies. State University of New York Press. pp. 97–98, 114–115.
ISBN
1438413564. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
Someone might wonder, "Why are only "10" people complaining about the excessive cite messages?" Well, people have talked and talked, and explained and explained, for months and months, but some just refuse to listen:
For example, "page=[http://www.x.com/p8 8] |accessdate=7 May 2011" where the URL is coded inside the "page=" or likewise, inside a "volume=" or inside an "issue=" (etc.), but instead we get these dim, wrong error messages:
So, we have 2 wrong error messages, which completely ignore the URL in the page number and insist on scarring the cite as being doubly-invalid, with an accessdate but supposedly no URL (hello, see the URL in the page number?). Unfortunately, many people do not have the patience, the time, the tolerance, nor the self-control, to keep explaining (over & over) how the restrictions about accessdate and "url=" are wrong, wrong, wrong, and what's the word? ...oh yes, wrong. Consequently, many people are utterly, totally, completely, and thoroughly fed-up, sick, tired, and over-it about the continual forcing of these narrow, severe, trivial messages which are wrong, wrong, WRONG, as explained for months and months. The cite templates should never flag the use of accessdate, nor insist that "url=" must be set, when a URL can be passed in other cite parameters. At most, set a link to a warning category. In fact, for many web news stories, a source webpage (by title/date or author) can be found at many URLs which published the same story (such as by AP feed), and there is no need to restrict to one URL of several matches. - Wikid77 ( talk) 04:29/04:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
A URL can be in a page number, volume or issue, and accessdate applies.
|page=
, |pages=
, or |at=
corrupts the metadata. The metadata for your example citation is:<span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp_talk%3ACitation+Style+1&rft.btitle=Report+Z&rft.genre=book&rft.pages=%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.x.com+8%5D&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988">
&rft.pages=%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.x.com+8%5D
, which should be just: &rft.pages=8
.|pageurl=
parameter at
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests which will allow CS1 citations to present a linked page number without also corrupting the COinS metadata.A bot request has sensibly been made to fix the errors discussed in the preceding section. I suggest that, in the short term, we turn off the error warning (while retaining the category), specify the bot and let it do its job, then turn on the error warning to catch future issues. The same should apply to any other error states that might be waiting to be flagged up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The numerous excessive red-error messages, in the wp:CS1 cites, can be re-hidden by fixing Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to reset each newly activated message, back to "hidden=true" (set "false" on 26 August 2013 by User:Gadget850, see: dif410). For example, the message named by anchor = 'cite_web_url' (which displays "Missing or empty |url=") can again be hidden, as during the past 5 months, by setting the associated variable as "hidden=true". Do a similar reset to hide other messages which are flooding major articles with numerous annoying messages about fixing dozens of URL parameters or other tedious busywork. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we turn off the latest batch of error messages, temporarily, until this bot (or another) has completed fixing those that can be automatically resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
requires |url=
. Here is the text from the help page:To resolve this error, provide a value for
|url=
or remove|accessdate=
. Editors should try to determine why the citation has|accessdate=
without|url=
. For example, the citation may never have had a|url=
, or|url=
may have been removed because it links to a site that violates the creator's copyright (see WP:COPYLINK), or because|url=
was deemed to be dead and (mistakenly) removed. If the citation never had|url=
or it was removed for copyright violations, remove|accessdate=
. When a dead|url=
has been removed, restore the|url=
and if possible repair it (see WP:LINKROT).
|accessdate=
or hiding <!--
|accessdate=
-->
fails to make any actual repair; all that has been accomplished is a masking of the issue, once masked, no one knows if that citation could have been properly repaired because an indicator, perhaps the only indicator, of a problem is no longer visible to editors who could make the appropriate repairs.I noticed this while editing Dan Roberts (singer):
|via=
is used with or without a |subscription=
, the hidden category
Category:Subscription required using via is still invoked.-- Lexein ( talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
|subscription=no
should not cause a CS1 template to display the subscription required link note, I'm not sure of the benefit of changing its current operation. What I understand you to be saying and I think what you tried to do by setting |subscription=no
is to cancel the subscription required state partially invoked by |via=
. To do that would require extensive work that I'm not sure needs doing.|subscription=
works. If we can get an admin to check my work and synch
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration please.|via=
and |subscription=
as entirely independent:
|via=
should generate only
Pages containing links to a secondary content provider (or words to that effect).|subscription=yes
should generate only
Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content.|subscription=
and |subscription=no
should generate nothing.|subscription=yes
alone (without via=) is valid.|via=
is used, but no subscription is required anywhere, yet during editing two wrong hidden categories are asserted now:
Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content and
Category:Subscription required using via. After saving, just the
Category:Subscription required using via remains. '"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000010A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1"></cite> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Empty citation ([[Help:CS1 errors#empty_citation|help]])</span>
Done.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
See e.g. Bulimia_nervosa#cite_note-34: notice that the automatically generated URL that the article title points to (a) is duplicated by the URL after the internal link " PMC", and (b) is an HTTP link, whereas the one after " PMC" is an HTTPS link. It Is Me Here t / c 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
prefix = '//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC',
http:
or the https:
url schemes. There is code in
Module:Citation/CS1 that creates the external link for |title=
from the |PMC=
value. That code explicitly uses the http:
url scheme.http:
or the https:
url schemes, the PMC element link is somehow inheriting https:
from Wikipedia which is now https:
by default.https:
url scheme while the OSTI element specifies http:
url scheme:
prefix = '//www.worldcat.org/oclc/',
prefix = 'http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=',
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Broft, Allegra (July 2012).
"Striatal dopamine in bulimia nervosa..." International Journal of Eating Disorders. 45 (5): 648–656.
doi:
10.1002/eat.20984.
PMC
3640453.
PMID
22331810. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Broft, Allegra (July 2012).
"Striatal dopamine in bulimia nervosa..." International Journal of Eating Disorders. 45 (5): 648–656.
doi:
10.1002/eat.20984.
PMC
3640453.
PMID
22331810. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
http:
url scheme. The title element link and the PMC element link are now the same in the sandbox version of the citation. Looks like this change is correct and needs to be applied to all of the identifiers in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox.{{
citation/core}}
) version has both title and PMC links as https:
.|title=
.{{
citation/identifier}}
(the part of the {{
citation/core}}
suite that deals with PMC) has a mixture of http and protocol relative urls. There is no https in either place. So, the protocol relative urls are being converted to https by some mechanism outside of {{citation/core}}
and outside of
Module:Citation/CS1.{{
citation/identifier}}
. The ones that are now using the http://
URI scheme did not work proper with http://
. The links that worked with both use the protocol relative scheme. It appears that changes have been made to some sites: OSTI now appears to work using either method. But, doi still fails with http://
. Before suggesting mass changes, we need to test all. Here are samples of the current implementation:Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=arxiv |input1=0709.0674}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=asin |input1=B00086U61Y}} |
HTTP / HTTPS |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=bibcode |input1=2007A&A...474..653V}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=doi |input1=10.3998/3336451.0004.203}} |
HTTP / (HTTPS requires login) |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=isbn |input1=978-0-471-70410-2}} |
links to Special:BookSources (links there are HTTP) |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=issn |input1=0028-0836}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=jfm |input1=54.0271.04}} |
HTTP / (HTTPS came up as untrusted site) |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=jstor |input1=2118559}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=lccn |input1=sn2006058112}} |
HTTP |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=mr |input1=96d:11071}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=oclc |input1=22239204}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=ol |input1=18319A}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=osti |input1=6851152}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=pmc |input1=1408034}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=pmid |input1=12122621}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=rfc |input1=882}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=ssrn |input1=512922}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=zbl |input1=0823.11029}} |
HTTP |
-- Gadget850 talk 22:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a list of all of the identifier-urls currently in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Currently, none of them are specified as https; rather, they are a mix of http and protocol relative. Those that don't work (all either https or protocol relative where the result is https) are noted.
Identifier-urls currently in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Select show to expand.
|
---|
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|PMC=
and only when used with {{
cite journal}}
. This cite book, for example, doesn't create a title link.{{cite journal}}
-unique parameter |embargo=
. |embargo=
takes a date value that is compared to the current date. If the date in |embargo=
is in the future,
Module:Citation/CS1 does not create a title link from the value in |PMC=
though it does create a link for the PMC element in the rendered citation. If the date in |embargo=
is in the past, Module:Citation/CS1 creates title and PMC element links from the value in |PMC=
. These links point to the same location.|PMC=
. I can understand why Module:Citation/CS1 would not create a link to an embargoed PMC but I see no reason why Module:Citation/CS1 should ever create a title link from it when no other id is handled that way.Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Embargo date is in the future".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Embargo date is in the future".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Example 1 |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Embargo date is in the past".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Embargo date is in the past".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Example 2 |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"No embargo date".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"No embargo date".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Example 3 |
{{
cite compare}}
s.|embargo=
is in the future. I haven't yet sussed out how to do that.|embargo=<date>
is in the future, then |PMC=<id>
is not linked (Example 1). When |embargo=<date>
is in the past (Example 2), or when |embargo=
is empty or omitted (Example 3), |PMC=<id>
is linked.Done.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
All the links to cite-id external sources (PMID, PMC, OSTI, OCLC, etc.) should be changed to use protocol-relative format (omitting "http" or " https" where workable) as just "https://..." so users with high-security browsers will not switch between http/https protocols for the typical cite-id websites. Some browsers can be set to tediously warn/ask users when switching back-and-forth with http-mode, as a dangerous risk to expose viewable activity as "circumstantial evidence" in the midst of an all-secure browser session, perhaps when handling company-proprietary or mil-std secrets. However, for "url=" parameters, then each website should be checked for support of https-protocol pages; for example, some have suggested how Google Translate cannot handle "https" secure-protocol URL links to translate a whole webpage. Now, Lua is fast enough to auto-reset each URL, for http/https preference, but perhaps a special code of all-caps "HTTP:" (inside a link) could be used in Lua-based cites to bypass protocol-relative format and link via http non-secure protocol when the link prefix uses all-caps "HTTP" but that is a separate issue to discuss, after making all cite-id links as relative "https://..." format. - Wikid77 ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add "trans_quote" for a translated quote from the book? - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 02:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
|transquote=
parameter? Could you not simply enclose the translation in square brackets? |quote=Original language quotation [English translation]
Was there a "notes" parameter in the past? I've seen it used [7] (and other places) but it's generating error messages now. — rybec 19:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
|notes=
parameter should be added to
Citation Style 1 but I'm not aware any previous implementation of that parameter. Before conversion to the
Module:Citation/CS1 engine, unknown parameters were simply ignored. The new engine expects all parameters included in a citation template to have meaning.I just used {{ Cite journal}} to make this edit that resulted in this Note 4. The title of a journal article is meant to be in quotation marks and not in italics, correct? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Emily Litella! (Never mind.) Seems to be okay, now. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
|volume=
into |issue=
:{{Cite journal |authorlink=Paul Kurtz |author=Kurtz, Paul |url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_18_2.html |title=Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism? |journal=[[Free Inquiry]] |date=Spring 1998 |volume=18 |issue=2}}
On
Template:Cite_journal/doc#Examples, the example labelled "If the article is in a foreign language, and the original title is unknown" now shows an error stating |trans_title=
requires |title=
. Should the example be changed, or should the error not be displayed? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 01:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There is plan to use a bot to trim cruft from Google Books URLs in citations. We need someone familiar with their format, to advise on which parameters can safely be trimmed, and which, if any, should be left. Can anyone advise, at Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
"|regsitration=}}" should be: |registration=}} -- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 02:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In just under five months, I fixed 5,000+ out of the original 8,000+ articles, and User:Gilo1969 fixed at least 1,350 articles, in Category:Pages with citations having wikilinks embedded in URL titles. There are 96 articles remaining, mostly Talk space articles that I believe should be prevented from showing up in the category, since we shouldn't "fix" them by messing with editors' writing in Talk space. Can Talk space (and other *Talk space) articles be set to display the errors (they are useful to alert editors to citation problems and to demonstrate malformed citations) but exclude the articles from this category?
The benefit of excluding Talk space articles would be to display an actual count and list of real articles and templates with errors. Scanning a list of 96 articles to look for one Article space link is no fun.
This situation also applies to other subcategories of Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Namespaces | |||
---|---|---|---|
Subject namespaces | Talk namespaces | ||
0 | (Main/Article) | Talk | 1 |
2 | User | User talk | 3 |
4 | Wikipedia | Wikipedia talk | 5 |
6 | File | File talk | 7 |
8 | MediaWiki | MediaWiki talk | 9 |
10 | Template | Template talk | 11 |
12 | Help | Help talk | 13 |
14 | Category | Category talk | 15 |
100 | Portal | Portal talk | 101 |
118 | Draft | Draft talk | 119 |
710 | TimedText | TimedText talk | 711 |
828 | Module | Module talk | 829 |
Former namespaces | |||
108 | Book | Book talk | 109 |
442 | Course | Course talk | 443 |
444 | Institution | Institution talk | 445 |
446 | Education Program | Education Program talk | 447 |
2300 | Gadget | Gadget talk | 2301 |
2302 | Gadget definition | Gadget definition talk | 2303 |
2600 | Topic | 2601 | |
Virtual namespaces | |||
-1 | Special | ||
-2 | Media | ||
Current list (API call) |
So what's the next step to make this happen? Do I/we need to do something formal? Am I being impatient? I've made a lot of minor edits, so I know my way around page editing and citations, but I'm very new to the wikiocracy side of things, RfCs and all that.
Do any of this page's 100 other watchers want to comment on this proposal? (FWIW, Module talk:Citation/CS1 has 31 watchers, probably a subset of the people watching this page.) Let's hear from the lurkers.... – Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I am opposed to generating error messages in talk-page archives, *live* articles, or even in project-space "WP:" pages. Instead, we need to continually think about auto-correction of invalid parameters. For example:
Those are enough examples, but I think it becomes fairly obvious how over 95% of error messages can be removed, as replaced by auto-correction of data. There is no need to show thousands of error messages in talk-pages or archives forever, or in live articles viewed by millions of people. In today's computer systems of "live typesetting" then the displayed page needs to be auto-formatted, as text is auto-aligned and images are floated into position as the text is wrapped. Let people put "section=Part C" and perhaps one day, we will retro-format a "section=" parameter as being similar to a chapter. The big design flaw in Wikipedia editing, the colossal failure of software development, was to omit a "preview-mode" tag for critical warning messages (aka "<previewonly>" as "<includeonly>"), which would only display during edit-preview as proofreader's marks to the editor, but be suppressed for live typesetting, or talk-pages, when saved. Otherwise, hide those messages and auto-correct to improve the auto-typesetting of text. The warnings in tracking categories are the way to pinpoint common problems, and to focus maintenance editing. - Wikid77 ( talk) 11:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Since wikilinks are discouraged in the template, it may be helpful to include a field equivalent to authorlink
for when a specific article exists. --
Nessunome (
talk) 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |title=On the Origin of Species |titlelink=On the Origin of Species |last=Darwin |first=Charles}}
|titlelink=
wins:{{cite book |title=On the Origin of Species |titlelink=On the Origin of Species |url=http://www.example.com |last=Darwin |first=Charles}}
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |titlelink=
ignored (|title-link=
suggested) (
help)I've cited the introduction to a book, as:
<ref name="Mabey">Mabey, Richard, Introduction to {{cite book|last=Ashby |first=Eric |title=The Secret Life of the New Forest |year=1989 |publisher=[[Chatto & Windus]] |isbn=0701134046 }}</ref>
Is there a better way to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |last= Phipps |first= Makena Elizabeth |year= 2004 |chapter= Forward |editor1-last= Phipps |editor1-first= Terry W |title= Seasons of Sleeping Bear |location= Ann Arbor, MI |publisher= University of Michigan Press |page=5 |isbn= 0-472-11445-X}}
others = Introduction by Richard Mabey
together with at = Introduction, p. vii
The Chicago Manual of Style recommends a format like:
or else like:
I prefer the look of the original method, which gives a result closer to the Chicago Manual of Style, over the "others" method. It is more obvious that Mabey is being cited. This is a bit awkward to achieve using {{sfn}}, which I also prefer, but a close-enough effect is possible. [1] Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still relatively new around here, so there may be an obvious answer to this question. What is the best tool to fix articles in Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs?
In its most common form, the error in question is a CS1 citation with a url but no title, like this:
{{cite web|url=http://foo.com|author=John Doe|date=January 1, 2000|title=}}
which renders thus:
John Doe (January 1, 2000).
http://foo.com. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
(And yes, I know there are other conditions that cause this error, but let's look at this basic one for now.)
I have discovered and used the delightful
WP:REFLINKS, but that seems to do its best work only on truly bare URLs, such as "<ref>http://foo.com</ref>"
. It does not appear to be subtle enough to see a "cite web" template with no title, dig one up, and insert it for me.
Is there another similar tool that people use to grab titles for citations that lack them? There must be some semi-automated way to fix the 10,000 articles in this category. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
In {{
cite journal}}
, if all the authors are placed in |coauthors=
, none are displayed and no error is thrown. See
ref 3 here. The actual {{
cite journal}}
is
{{cite journal|coauthors=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers�, Cathleen G. Staggs, Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); replacement character in |coauthors=
at position 26 (
help)but I have determined that the "�" is not a contributory factor. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); replacement character in |coauthors= at position 26 (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); replacement character in |coauthors= at position 26 (
help)
|
|authorn=
or |lastn=
/ |firstn=
pairs.Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | McCabe-Sellers�, Beverly J.
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (
help); replacement character in |last= at position 15 (
help)
|
Sandbox | McCabe-Sellers�, Beverly J.
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (
help); replacement character in |last= at position 15 (
help)
|
{{cite journal|last2=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers |last3 = Cathleen G. Staggs |last4 = Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help){{cite journal|editor2=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers |editor3 = Cathleen G. Staggs |editor4 = Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing |editor1=
(
help){{cite journal|last1=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers |last3 = Cathleen G. Staggs |last4 = Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing |author2=
(
help){{
cite compare}}
above. Help documentation will need to be done when and if this change becomes live.One of my interests is artists who work as illustrators. For {{
Cite book}} (and perhaps others), we should have an |illustrator=
parameter; not least as |others=
doesn't really offer sufficient
data granularity.
We should replicate the |authormask=
parameter as |illustratormask=
(and probably also as |editormask=
), so that we can use the template in bibliographies for such people.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite newsgroup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
. The URL structure for accessing posts through the Google Groups Web API appears to have changed slightly. The URL's already generated through googleid still work but now brings up a web interface as opposed to the original raw posting. I've added a rawid param in the sandbox code to allow for generation of links to raw postings without additional clutter. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
|rawid=
is supposed to be used?{{{googleid}}}
- Google Groups specific identifer used to link to the original version of a posting archived at Google Groups. The Google specfic-identifer can be determined by clicking 'Show Original' in the Groups UI. The Google Style id is the number between the "/msg/" and "?dmode=" portions of the URL used to show the original concerned.
{{{rawid}}}
- Google Groups specifc id for linking to the raw text version of an archived posting at google-groups. This identifer can be determined from the URL of the raw posting concerned as the portion after the newsgroup name, for example in https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.books.pratchett/kBy-RgLTI5w/4zMfQKz5vKkJ the rawid param would kBy-RgLTI5w/4zMfQKz5vKkJ
The template will recognise either of these, all though use of a rawid is preferable as it links directly to the raw source posting, without the encumbrance of the Groups UI."
The sandbox version was used in 2 live examples at /info/en/?search=Havelock_Vetinari, with no seeming issue. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
|googleid=
(the Show only message button) so if an editor wants only the raw post then the editor can get the url of the raw post and put the url in |url=
to get the same result as |rawid=
. Doing this seems to me to be just about the same amount of work. I agree with Editor Wikid77 that a better name for the parameter might be preferred if this change is to be made. So my real question is: just what is being fixed here?(browser overhead) and there is no guarantee that this redirection will be maintained longer term. Also accessing the post via the groups UI is tracked whereas the rawtext via Googleraw is not. (It's my view Wikipedia should not inadvertently support user tracking, where means to avoid it exist.) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{{rawid}}}
to {{{googleraw}}}
Sfan00 IMG (
talk) 10:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC){{
cite newsgroup}}
citation:|googleraw=
:
{{cite newsgroup/sandbox |author=Niel |title=60009 Union of South Africa |date=Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT) |newsgroup=uk.railway |id=ef67006-16f6-45f8-9974-0dfda8a19b56@googlegroups.com |googleraw=yKUWdsleodw/WvT39YDCLtQJ}}
{{
cite newsgroup}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |googleraw=
ignored (
help)|url=
:
{{cite newsgroup/sandbox |author=Niel |title=60009 Union of South Africa |date=Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT) |newsgroup=uk.railway |id=ef67006-16f6-45f8-9974-0dfda8a19b56@googlegroups.com |url=https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=uk.railway/yKUWdsleodw/WvT39YDCLtQJ}}
{{
cite newsgroup}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)|url=
parameter is very common so editors who have spent any time with the more common
Citation Style 1 templates will understand its purpose. Not so with |googleid=
or |googleraw=
with which most editors will be unfamiliar. The |url=
parameter meets all of the points addressed in your first reason without the creation of a new parameter.|url=
and linking to the UI version:
{{cite newsgroup/sandbox |author=Niel |title=60009 Union of South Africa |date=Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT) |newsgroup=uk.railway |id=ef67006-16f6-45f8-9974-0dfda8a19b56@googlegroups.com |url=https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/uk.railway/yKUWdsleodw/WvT39YDCLtQJ}}
{{
cite newsgroup}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)|googleraw=
prevents tracking.which is probably more in keeping with the CS1 style you mention. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite newsgroup}}
. That being the case, I propose to deprecate |googleid=
and then remove it altogether. Comments?Why don't the CS1 blank template examples (the things you copy and past into articles) all follow the same basic logic/order of something like AUTHOR -> DATE -> TITLE -> WORK -> PUBLISHER -> QUOTE (or whatever)? Why is each template example in a different order? Is it intentional or is it just the result of organic growth/lack of coordination/no one has gotten to it yet? Having each one in a different order makes CS1 referencing seem harder than it is - its confusing, especially to newbies. Not only is each blank template ordered differently (Cite web vs. Cite news, for example), the order of each individual template doesn't even necessarily match what is displayed when you publish (assuming no fields are left blank). Cite web's blank template, for example, is ordered URL -> TITLE-> AUTHOR -> DATE etc. despite the fact that when the article is published the citation displays in the order AUTHOR -> DATE -> TITLE (with URL embedded) -> WEBSITE etc. When an author is cited, the author is always listed first in the published citation, but author isn't always the first entry in the template examples (as in Cite News, Cite Web) and that doesn't make sense to me. I realize that each template has some unique entries, but that doesn't mean we can't do a better job of bringing some consistency to the blank templates by putting entries in a more consistent order from template to template, in my opinion. (I realize that we can put the info in any order we want and it won't change the way the citation is displayed when published. My complaint is about usability/ease of understanding rather than coding/functionality.) Please educate me a bit on why things are as they are. Thanks. 65.102.187.47 ( talk) 04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Joe |year=1974 |title=Book of Bloggs |last=I made a mistake}}
{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Joe |year=1974 |title=Book of Bloggs |last=}}
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)|last=
suppresses the display of |first=
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
|author=
always the first thing listed in every CS1 template example? The variation seems arbitrary, is unfriendly to newbies and degrades the user experience. Thank you.
174.21.215.184 (
talk) 01:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)|url=
", so some sorting based on usage needs to be prioritised. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
|
|last1=
|first1=
|authorlink1=
or |year=
|month=
have been lost. Placing an author's information into three widely-separated positions makes it easier to put the information into the wrong parameter - or to overlook one. Then, having located one or two of the
Template:Cite book#Identifiers - say |id=
and |isbn=
- it's easy to miss the others.Thanks to all who replied, those responses all address my question. Like Roger(Dodger67) and Jc3s5h, I would like the examples published in the help documentation to follow what is actually displayed when the code is published (and obviously apply the same logic to each CS1 template) and I feel that it makes sense to maintain the "natural semantic groups" that Redrose64 refers to. In addition to Redrose64's points, Ohc's alphabetical scheme also gives me heartburn because it makes the documentation less ideal. The long hand explanations describing the parameters should track the order displayed in the example. If you break up related items, it gets hard to convey that, for example, |author=
and |last= |first=
are equivalent and the user must pick one or the other but not both (plus alphabetical breaks up first and last which I really don't like at all).
Using Cite press release as an example, the help documentation is currently showing:
{{cite press release |last= |first= |title= |trans_title= |language= |date= |publisher= |location= |url= |format= |accessdate= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl= |quote= |ref= }}
but I would like the help documentation to show:
{{cite press release |author= |last= |first= |date= |title= |trans_title= |url= |format= |language= |location= |publisher= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl= |accessdate= |quote= |ref= }}
because this is how Cite press release publishes:
My friend Paul just played the best song ever written.
{{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)I'm willing to work on "standardizing" the documentation pages, but don't want to begin until those with objections have a chance to continue the discussion. 174.21.204.77 ( talk) 02:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
|author=
not appear in the same copypaste list as |last=
- they are aliases, and so are mutually exclusive. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the "number" parameter a synonym for "issue"? Or it it related to "series" and "version"? Some journals (quite a few, and seemingly more common in the past) use a volume/number system instead of a volume/issue system. The "number" parameter needs to be in the docs anyway. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
|number=
is an alias of |issue=
.
The 'work' parameter applies italics to the work's content. Should website names which do not have an attached print periodical, like Metacritic or IMDB, be italicized? And if not, how should that be accomplished? -- Odie5533 ( talk) 19:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite web |url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/seven-samurai |title=Seven Samurai (re-release) |website=[[Metacritic]] |accessdate=2013-10-05}}
{{
noitalics}}
but both of those do corrupt the
COinS metadata so are not viable mechanisms to subvert the template's normal operation."smaller" of largerI intended to convey the idea of the similar "chapter" of book or "article" of journal model that WP:MOSTITLE specifies in that "page" of website is analogous.
|website=
an alias of |work=
or similar, or a parameter in its own right? --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
field instead. I certainly don't think that |website=
should be lumped in (and italicise) with |work=
because their nature, in MOS terms, are not the same. Our convention is to italicise only a very small proportion of websites, so the technology does not follow our conventions. Having |website=
will create many problems and editors may attempt to toggle fix (with italicisation). --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|noitalics=
, to somehow not show italics for certain works. --
Odie5533 (
talk) 04:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|website=
parameter was added as an alias for |work=
because editors weren't understanding how to use |work=
.|website=
is an alias of |work=
. Bearing in mind that the majority of websites are unitalicised per our convention, thus automatically (and wrongly) italicised. For me, it matters less what the parameters are called, but it's important that the different parameters within a citation template render the content deliberately and as desired. On that basis, it would be more user-friendly to give parameters meaningful names as to the output because use of |website=
leads to wrong formatting in eight cases out of ten. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC){{
cite web}}
documentation to see if |work=
has ever been anything other than italicized and if websites were ever part of the |work=
definition. Here is what I found:Date | Description |
---|---|
31 August 2006 | First definition of
|work= in {{
cite web}} documentation
|
27 September 2007 | Website as one of the definitions of |work=
introduced
|
19 October 2007 | |work= definition
refined
|
15 January 2010 | Note that editors should not italicize |work= value
added
|
2 July 2011 | |work= definition
expanded and clarified
|
15 February 2012 | Template:Citation Style documentation/work created |
15 February 2012 |
|work= definition from
Template:Citation Style documentation/work via
Template:Citation Style documentation
|
14 July 2012 | Template:Citation Style documentation/work moved without leaving a redirect to Template:Citation Style documentation/web |
27 April 2013 |
|website= as alias for |work=
|
First |work= code:
| |
21 February 2006 |
First {{cite web}} code:
|
may or may notsay.
use of |website=
leads to wrong formatting in eight cases out of ten
?Can I take it from the above that "BBC News" (meaning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ -- the BBC website formerly called BBC News Online) should be italicised? I think it should, but have been taken to task by some editors for doing so. We ought to be clear about this because it is a source we use so much. -- Alarics ( talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
BBC News is the value for |work=
or |website=
and so is italicized in the rendered citation. Outside of a CS1 template, I think that you must try to interpret what
WP:MOSTITLE may or may notrequire. Interpreting WP:MOSTITLE as it applies outside of CS1 is a topic best discussed elsewhere so that this discussion doesn't wander off into the weeds.
{{
cite news}}
is |publisher=
and not |work=
(etc.) so that it would not be italicised. That's the issue in dispute. --
Alarics (
talk) 21:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
):
{{cite news |title=Syria chemical arms removal begins |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24419468 |work=[[BBC News]] |department=Middle East |publisher=[[BBC]] |date=6 October 2013}}
|work=
or an alias thereof and shall be italicized. Alas, I am not king. Do you choose elsewise, then without we change CS1, you are left with handcrafting your citations.|publisher=
rather than |work=
so that less "handcrafting" would be required. But as this page seems to be watched by only a few, it's probably not the best place to be discussing CS1 vs MOS:ITALIC. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
I think should be left alone and not used for this purpose. But perhaps |website=
should be changed to no longer be an alias to |work=
and instead output the website name without italics. Per MOSTITLE, it seems like BBC News actually should be italicized as it publishes original content much like HuffPo or Salon. But the point still holds that many websites, per MOSTITLE, should not be italicized. --
Odie5533 (
talk) 03:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
. The news channel resides at
BBC News (TV channel); the outlet with original content is the website,
BBC News Online. None of the above three articles are given italics for now. The new media landscape is still causing a lot of confusion and uncertainty as to what needs italics. And whether BBC News Online should be italicised or not should depend on the consensus at that page. In the meantime, we should try as best to mirror that when filling in the appropriate field in the citation for correct format. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=[[BBC]]
is generally redundant which is why I included the parenthetical disclaimer in my post.Huffington Post, Digital Spy, Reason, Salon, The Registerare identified as
italicisingand
non-italicisingall in the same sentence. Clarify please.
... these [italicizing/]non-italicising websites represent 80 percent of occurrences.Occurrences of what? Can you show data that supports the 80 percent claim?
an overwhelming majority of occurrences [that] are non-italicising, are there data to support that claim? Occurences of what? Citaions? Websites? Articles about the websites?
Hi there, here you can find a comment from Sue Gardner about some aspects of the template she's having trouble with (please disregard that it was filed as a VE bug). I think that conversation belongs here, so I'll redirect further comments to this page. Please ping her directly if you have thoughts/answers? Thank you! -- Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 11:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
What is the status of the bot request to fix CS1 errors? In the discussion around the RfC above, there were claims that a bot was going to fix many of the errors that were made visible via error messages on August 26. I have not seen evidence that bots have fixed a significant number of these errors. Paging the editors who supported the RfC: @ Pigsonthewing:, @ Panyd:, @ Wikid77:, @ Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:, @ GoingBatty:, @ Maile66:, @ Raintheone:, @ Ben MacDui: What is your plan?
For reference, the errors that were changed to display on August 26 were:
|displayauthors=8
or |displayeditors=3
to each of the broken citations, as appropriate. Editors of individual articles could then choose to modify the citations to match the article's prevailing citation variant. 100% bot-fixableFeel free to correct anything that I have written above.
And while we're at it, a bot should be able to fix the majority of articles in Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs by looking up article titles in the same way that Reflinks does. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
when the citation parameters |url=
, |archiveurl=
, and |deadurl=
are all empty or missing. No attempt is made to discriminate among the various CS1 templates; no attempt is made to discover if the citation ever had a valid |url=
.I had thought the RfC to suppress new messages might enter further discussion, but consensus has been called to hide the recent messages (activated 26 August 2013), and any cite-fixup editors should ensure they can see the hidden red-error messages afterward:
That line could be placed in a browser-skin file ( Special:MyPage/vector.css) so that other skins would omit the red-error messages.
The tracking categories (among those in wp:CS1CAT) as of 8 October 2013:
At the current rate of cleanup, it was taking months and months (years?) to fix all error messsages (as more invalid cites were being added unaware), but the categories will remain for long-term fixes. I have been working on a version of the CS1 Lua module which could auto-correct the errors, and show one small " [fix cite]" blue-link (for each type of repeated error) but no large red-error messages to alarm the casual readers. A common mistake is for people to forget to put "url=" before "http:" and another common mistake is when a user puts "url=www." without the "http" prefix. However, the auto-correction of "url=" to insert "http" might trigger a blacklist-website warning when a page is re-edited (but a very rare situation). Anyway, I just wanted people to know how auto-correction of many cite errors is possible with minor changes to the current CS1 Lua module, and we could continue to show hidden red-error messages at the same time. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:26/05:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, just posted here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Non-English-language_sites. 219.78.115.45 ( talk) 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia entries that contain many citations of news reports often cite articles developed by news agencies or wire servies, such as Reuters, the Associated Press, or AFP. In fact, my general sense is that the Associated Press are now cited more frequently as a source of news reporting than any other entity. Yet if you are using the cite news template with Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 to cite an Associated Press article that was published in, say, the Washington Post or the New York Times, you have to click on "Show Extra Fields" to bring the Agency field from out of hiding. Many editors probably don't even realize that Agency is an option available specifically for cases such as these involving news agencies, since the field is hidden. (I certainly didn't until I had already been editing on Wikipedia for months and months.)
Can the Agency field be moved to the main window so that that extra step of having to click to display the secondary parameters won't be necessary (and so that editors will be more aware of having the option of naming the Agency in their citation)? I'm assuming that the reason the Agency field was not included in the main window is that it was felt that situations in which there is a need to use the field are relatively uncommon. I think today they are actually very common. Dezastru ( talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned in a separate thread that it would be extremely useful to have the Agency field moved to the main window of the Cite News template form. There are a couple of other tweaks that would also be very helpful, although not quite as necessary as moving the Agency field.
Second Author fields
While most news articles are written by a single bylined author, there are a large number of additional articles, especially on major pieces of reporting, that have a second author. Far more than have 3, or more, authors. Any chance that the second author fields (last2 and first2) could be moved to the main window? Even as the template form stands, there is just a "second author" field, not "second author last name" and "second author first name" fields. So with these articles I always have to go back after submitting the form and manually add in the second author's first and last names. That extra step, aside from being an annoyance, is just two more places to introduce errors.
Work field, rather than just "Newspaper" field
Increasingly, many of the news items editors are citing come from sources other than newspapers, yet the cite news template form does not reflect this fact. Could maybe the Work field, or another appropriate alternative, be placed on the main window? "Newspaper" just doesn't work if you are citing NPR's Morning Edition, CNN's The Situation Room, or BBC's Newsnight.
Dezastru (
talk) 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
template itself, but with a tool that you haven't identified. Perhaps the visual editor?Based on the discussion above regarding template to template documentation consistency, I've updated Template:Cite press release's documentation page. Please take a look and discuss your concerns here. I'd like to get Cite press release in a form that most accept/agree upon so I can then go forward and apply similar logic on the other CS1 documentation pages. (Note: I have not created "Full Parameter Set" templates yet on Cite press release.) 174.21.150.66 ( talk) 20:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|deadurl=
near |archiveurl=
, which is consistent with other templates and represents the conventional wisdom. While I understand that placement from a coding logic standpoint, it is not helpful to users in my opinion. Placing |deadurl=
directly after |archiveurl=
suggests that the user is being asked to note if the archiveurl is dead, which is incorrect. Placing |deadurl=
directly after |url=
helps guide users into answering the correct question "Is the main URL dead?". I realize that from a coding/dependency standpoint |deadurl=
and |archiveurl=
"go together" and the conventional wisdom puts them together in the documentation, but this is a case where I feel the conventional wisdom in wrong. We need to ask "What would a relatively new user who is struggling to learn to do things the "right" way expect to see?" I think they'd expect to see a declaration about the main URL directly after the URL parameter, not 7 entries after it. (FWIW, you can add |deadurl=
without a corresponding |archiveurl=
entry and it causes no problems - the |deadurl=
entry is ignored.) Suggestions?
174.21.150.66 (
talk) 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)|deadurl=
would do something with regard to |url=
. When it didn't, I'd be surprised and confused.|deadurl=yes
, that perhaps a better name for the parameter might be something like |prearchive=
for preëmptive archive. This is consistent with the original and still valid purpose of |deadurl=no
: to indicate that the archive is included in the citation as a backup in case the url goes 404.|ref=
, |trans_title=
, |format=
and |language=
, for example. I rarely run across articles using HARV or SFN referencing and in my experience, editors rarely cite foreign language sources. Those parameters are probably better referred to as "good to be aware of for those few times when you may need them." (Admittedly I do see |format=
, but only from time to time, not every day in every article.)|deadurl=
and |prearchive=
. I have some ideas. Where is that discussion happening? I will post my thoughts in that place so we don't get off in the weeds here.
174.21.150.66 (
talk) 01:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)|deadurl=
. There are several in the archives. Start another?In the pre-LUA days, one could just view the code of a CS1 template by hitting the edit link and it would show all the parameters, their aliases, etc. in read only mode. I've been reading the LUA documentation and some other related resources and I can't figure out how one views the coded parameters of a CS1 template now (again, I just want to look, not edit). It's probably laughably easy, so feel free to give me some mild grief, as long as you help me out first. Thanks. 174.21.208.110 ( talk) 22:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
invoke:citation/CS1|citation
" which means it calls function citation
in
Module:Citation/CS1. While viewing the source of the template, there is a list of stuff called at the bottom of the page that includes a link to that module. In principle you could read through the module, but it's complex, and I guess you are reliant on the documentation instead (which is very good). Searching for "args" in the module (and with some luck) leads to
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist which lists (I think) the expected arguments, although from a technical point of view, a module could access a template argument at just about any line in the entire series of modules, so the brief answer is that you cannot readily determine what parameters are used.
Johnuniq (
talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)( edit conflict):These:
In LUA converted templates, one can enter and display up to 100 authors and editors per
Wikipedia:Lua-based_cite_templates. I updated the Authors and editors sections for
Help:Citation_Style_1 to reflect the LUA changes (and made some other improvements), but I'm concerned that's a goof up because not all CS1 templates are LUA converted. I went to
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/display and was about to update |display-authors=
to reflect the LUA changes, but that's when it hit me that I may have jumped the gun... Advice?
174.21.229.136 (
talk) 23:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
|last=100
, there is nothing in the essay or in the code that limits the number of authors and editors. As long as the numbered list of authors is monotonically increasing and begins with |last1=
(or the appropriate alias) editors can list however many authors as they would like to list. This same applies to the |editorn=
parameters as well.I went into
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/display to update the template documentation to reflect LUA coding changes, particularly those affecting |display-authors=
and |display-editors=
. However, once I got into the document and took a closer look, there are already notes specific to LUA template documentation that are preceded by a logic phrase {{#if: {{{lua|}}}
. However, I looked at the template documentation for both
Template:Cite press release and
Template:Cite web and the "Display options" section of each shows the wrong, non-LUA information. For whatever reason, the template documentation is not picking up the "if LUA" logic and displaying the correct LUA specific documentation. Fixing this is beyond my capabilities - help needed! Thanks.
97.113.6.193 (
talk) 02:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
|lua=yes
to the {{
csdoc}}
template in the CS1 template's documentation page. So in this case, {{csdoc|display}}
changed to {{csdoc|display|lua=yes}}
.I have updated the Template:Cite news documentation according to the discussion items above to bring more uniformity to the CS1 help docs. Both the Template:Cite press release and Template:Cite news docs now follow the same basic format with minor changes as needed based on typical usage for each citation type. (Cite news still lacks most commonly used vertical skeletons; I'll get to that.) 97.113.6.193 ( talk) 05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Type parameter and cite press release and cite thesis which I should have started here. Your opinion is solicited.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if "supplement" is covered by something else or what is meant by that. If it needs to be here can someone add it? Or documenatation on how to cite stuff like "67 Suppl 4:3-7." in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16683856 and fix like here SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome#cite_note-17 that I just happened to stumble upon. comp.arch ( talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite journal |last=Shelton |first=RC |title=The Nature of the Discontinuation Syndrome Associated with Antidepressant Drugs |journal=[[Journal of Clinical Psychiatry]] |volume=67 |issue=Suppl 4 |year=2006 |pmid=16683856 |pages=3–7}}
cite journal
in use at the time did not support a |supplement=
. As far as I know, it never has.Please see Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Date_checking. Comments and opinions solicited.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss the parameters. I believe the parameters should be as is, but there is potential for an edit war, so I wanted to discuss. Personally, there are a few issues with doing that. First of all, it can be inconvenient or confusing, such as changing quote of source to just quote., which we're also not Simple English Wikipedia and it is often more specific and descriptive for the reader. Any thoughts? Sportsguy17 ( click to talk • contributions) 02:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
|nopp=
, compound parameters like |trans_title=
and |archiveurl=
or for differentiating similar parameters like |last2=
from |last3=
. I'm fine with the labels used in cite book, cite web, cite news and cite journal and think they area good examples of appropriate labeling. Unfortunately, cite press release doesn't compare to those other templates. It takes the idea way too far. Cite press release actually gives instructions in the label field, which is clearly not the intent of a "Label". That's the purpose of the description field. To jonesy95's point above, if the description is inadequate, then we take the obvious route and expand the description, not expand the scope of the other columns. If someone believes that the Visual Editor team has made the wrong decision and wishes to change from Label/Description to Short description/Long description, then you need to have that discussion with them and the result needs to be applied consistently throughout the CS1 template documentation. (Although I'd argue that we don't need two description fields of varying lengths...that's silly. One description field is entirely adequate.) There is nothing so special about cite press releases that justifies it being different from all the other CS1 templates.Could someone please add |contribution=
to the documentation for
Template:Cite web? It appears to work on pages such as
Conyers baronets. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Within the next couple of days I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration from their respective sandboxes. Details at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Update to the live CS1 module.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The current display for archived urls, when the original is a deadlink, looks like this:
The "Retrieved [accessdate]" snippet is in the wrong place. It should instead display as:
Otherwise there is confusion about whether the archive or the original was retrieved on accessdate, and the default interpretation would be wrong. – SJ + 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
All three dates are significant, for pages that change over time. I'm not sure how best to display them compactly, but we should store all three somewhere in the page's data. A given source was published on [pubdate], read by the editor on [accessdate], and archived by a snapshot on [archivedate].
– SJ + 19:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
There should be an option for including links to archiveurls that isn't so clumsy. Right now, on a page where this is widely used, the text
appears next to every footnote.
As an alternative, I propose two additional display modes.
This would be less wordy, and visible at a distance as related to archiving and historical context, rather than two separate relevant links.
This could be implemented by adding a compactarchive option rather than changing the default for everyone; until there is consensus that a new display format is better than what we currently have. – SJ + 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
, |archivedate=
and |deadurl=
). WP is already byzantine enough in my opinion. If changes are going to be made, I'd prefer to see your proposal (or whatever all agree upon) replace the existing formatting, not supplement it. I'm OK with change on this issue, but I'm not excited about an added parameter that doesn't offer additional functionality or address an unmet need. Right now our needs are met - we are able to archive urls and control which url hyperlinks to [title] - you just don't like the way the elements are worded or displayed when published. That's fine, you have good points. Can we meet the need by focusing on modifying what we've already got rather than creating something new?
174.21.142.226 (
talk) 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"Tweet2Cite" is a web service that accepts the URL of an individual tweet. and returns a pre-formatted citation in various formats (MLA, APA). At my request, they have added Wiki-markup (using {{ cite web}} to that list.
For example, submitting https://twitter.com/tweet2cite/status/395347292854562816 returns:
{{cite web |title= Tweet Number 395347292854562816 |url= https://twitter.com/tweet2cite/status/395347292854562816 |author= Tweet2Cite |date= 30 October 2013|accessdate= 30 October 2013 |quote= I can now produce properly formatted #Wikipedia citations for tweets. Thanks to @pigsonthewing for the great idea! #edtech #research |work= [[Twitter]] }}
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
On 21 October an anonymous editor changed the "most common parameters in horizontal format" on the "cite book" documentation. What the editor did makes very little sense to me and the reason cited was that somewhere up above (on this talk page) there was a consensus that better template-to-template uniformity was needed. One of the things this editor did was copy the "cite web" template which has a suggested format when there are no authors. This is bound to be confusing for new editors, as if somehow this is important. Whereas on web pages it is common to have no authors, this is rare for books. Also the suggested parameter set was changed from "year" to "date" and while putting the year in for the date parameter works, this may may also confuse new editors since books are published by year and not a specific date. My own opinion is that you can take template-to-template uniformity too far. In the non-electronic world, books versus journals versus newspapers have entirely different citation requirements and I think the "most common parameters" suggestions should conform to that, not to template-to-template uniformity. In a way it is not a big deal, so I am not going to push the issue very hard, but at some point if people agree with me I may change it back. LaurentianShield ( talk) 19:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite techreport}}
is similar to {{
cite thesis}}
and {{
cite press release}}
in that under certain conditions it sets a default |type=
. If |number=
is set, then |type=Technical report {{{number}}}
otherwise a default |type=
is not specified. This behavior is inconsistent because when |number=
is empty or omitted, |type=
is not set to a default.
So, as part of migrating {{cite techreport}}
I propose to change the behavior so that it mimics
proposed changes to {{cite thesis}}
and {{cite press release}}
.
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= and |type= missing or empty
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= set; |type= missing or empty
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= missing or empty; |type= set
|
{{cite techreport}}
uses |number=
to control |type=
display. Unlike |degree=
in {{cite thesis}}
, |number=
is not unique to {{cite techreport}}
. |number=
(an alias of |issue=
) is routinely used in periodical-type citations ({{
cite journal}}
). As the Lua code currently exists, if |title=
is set to any value (including none
) and |number=
is set, then the rendered citation includes |number=
as shown in these two citation examples:
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= and |type= set
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL?. DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL?. DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= set; |type=none
|
In {{cite thesis}}
, |degree=
is ignored when |type=none
. Regardless of the state of |type=
, {{cite thesis}}
displays |number=
if it's set so in that sense, the behavior of the two Lua-based citations is the same.
Should {{cite techreport}}
ignore |number=
if |type=
is set?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
|type=none
? At that point, haven't you pretty much reduced the citation to {{
cite journal}}
(perhaps disguised as {{
cite document}}
which is the same thing) or {{
cite web}}
?|number=
in {{
cite techreport}}
. |number=
, as it is used with the other citation templates that have migrated to
Module:Citation/CS1, is an alias of |issue=
though this fact doesn't seem to be well documented. Were I writing a citation to one of the IBM Research Reports Editor Jc3s5h noted and I didn't have {{cite techreport}}
I would very likely use {{cite web}}
; perhaps like this:{{cite web |url=http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/papers/4AE4B674EEF2BE1185257BFA0057FBB0/$File/rc25412.pdf |format=pdf |title=A Functional Data Model for Analytics |first=Doug |last=Kimelman |first2=Manny |last2=Perez |id=RC25412 |type=Research Report |website=IBM Research Division |publisher=[[IBM]] |date=30 September 2013}}
|number=
, this citation uses |id=
which, I think, is a more appropriate parameter.{{cite thesis}}
, {{cite press release}}
, and {{cite techreport}}
have much use beyond editor shorthand for the simplest of citations.|type=
a bit differently. |type=
can be a pamphlet, a leaflet, a sign, a plaque, a restaurant menu, a DVD, a CD, a wax cylinder, etc. Books, journals, magazines, websites are also some type of medium. A techreport, which is really just a document, fits that description. Yeah, a technical report is a purpose; so is press release, thesis, encyclopedia, journal, etc. I think type is here to give the citation information that is otherwise not available in the standard parameters that reading between the lines of a book or journal or encyclopedia citation deliver.|number=
in {{
cite techreport}}
should go away? should be replaced? with what? I confess to not fully understanding your last post.|title=none
?So I've tweaked CS1/sandbox. Because, to me, |number=
is the wrong parameter to be using because it has other meaning in other CS1 templates, I've changed the code to assign whatever value is set by |number=
to |id=
.
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Technical report). 98765. {{
cite tech report}} : More than one of |id= and |number= specified (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (Technical report). 98765. {{
cite tech report}} : More than one of |id= and |number= specified (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
With this in place, |number=
can be deprecated and ultimately removed from existing templates.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
|number=
doesn't end up in the
COinS metadata:{{cite techreport/new |title=Title <!-- |id=12345 --> |number=88888}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000234-QINU`"'<cite class="citation techreport cs1">''Title'' (Technical report). 88888.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+3" class="Z3988"></span>
I give up on techreport. I'll be sure to avoid using it. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
|id=
is a generic parameter for things like
MathSciNet review number or
Bibcode or
ISBN (but not those three because they have their own parameters): identifiers assigned by some other agency. |number=
is the parameter that should be used for the number of a technical report in a technical report series (where the series is apparently specified by |type=
and may be "Research report" or whatever as Jc3s5h says. I believe the correct behavior is to default type to "Technical report", use the number when it is supplied, and use the id only the same way as it is used for other CS1 types: tacked on to the end. As for me, I have generally avoided techreport; I use {{
cite book}} or {{
citation}} (depending on the citation style of the article) with |series=Technical report
(or whatever other parameter value would match the type of technical report) and with the report number in the |volume=
parameter. My preference would be for {{
cite techreport}} to format things in the same way that {{
cite book}} does, because I don't see a good reason for them to differ. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)|id=
is a generic parameter for things like
MathSciNet review number or
Bibcode or
ISBN... : identifiers assigned by some other agency.
assigned by some other agencyrequirement documented?
|number=
, an alias of |issue=
, has this
definition:
{{cite techreport}}
citations that used |number=
. In twelve of those citations, |number=
was a mix of alphanumeric characters often containing dashes of one form or another. In two cases, simple two-digit numbers might have been series sequence numbers (or not because in both cases the number was used as the filename in the document's url and not in the document itself). In one instance, the template should have been {{
cite journal}}
where the number refers to "Preprint No.411". From this small, simple sampling, it would seem that, when they use it, editors are treating |number=
as |id=
.{{
cite techreport}}
formats the citation in the same way as {{
cite book}}
(and {{
cite journal}}
) as long as |number=
is treated as an ID. Does this not align with your stated preferences?
{{cite techreport/new |title=Title |number=88888}}
{{cite book |title=Title |type=Technical report |id=88888}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) {{cite journal |title=Title |type=Technical report |id=88888}}
What I meant was more like
which produces
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help)(I don't like the period between "Technical report" and the TR number but whatever. Basically, I don't see the conceptual difference between a technical report series and a book series — they're both a series of standalone publications produced by some publisher — so I think they should be formatted the same way. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
|series=
would be the title of the series (|volume=
is used here as the series sequence number):
{{cite techreport/new |author=Author|year=year|title=Title |series=Series Title |volume=26 |id=88888 |publisher=Publisher}}
{{
cite tech report}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite techreport}}
migrated into the Lua module with the least amount of disruption. Perhaps this portion of the discussion should move to a different thread – either here or to
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests.A citation of with a |url=http:// produces a retrieved date formatted: 'Retrieved --date-- '
So does a reference to a .pdf file with a |format=PDF tag (It didn't used to)
But, a citation with a |url=https:// produces a retrieved date formatted: 'retrieved --date-- ' with a lower case 'r'. Can this be made consistent. Stuffed cat ( talk) 21:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
{{cite web | url=http://www.example.com | title= Example http url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{cite web | url=https://www.example.com | title= Example https url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{citation | url=http://www.example.com | title= Example http url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{citation | url=https://www.example.com | title= Example https url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{
Citation}}
is a hybrid of the old {{
citation/core}}
and the new
Module:Citation/CS1. The part of {{citation}}
that uses {{citation/core}}
has to do with patents; the rest of the {{citation}}
functionality is handled by CS1.|separator=
, which for {{citation}}
defaults to a comma and for the other CS1 templates defaults to a full stop. As these two comparisons of old and new show, this behavior is consistent with the last version of {{citation/core}}
:Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 |
Sandbox | Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 |
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live |
Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 {{
citation}} : Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 {{
citation}} : Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (
help)
|
Does anybody have a script that can be used on each CS1 template to extract all the valid parameter names? The "all parameters" listing for cite web is now well out of date in the documentation. Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1 is that, unless specifically excluded, all parameters in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist are available to all of the cite templates marked in green in the
table.The {{subst:date}}
template doesn't seem to substitute the current date when used inside the {{
cite web}} template (see
Agoncillo, Batangas for example). Please have this corrected. Thanks. --
P 1 9 9
✉ 15:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags, I'm afraid. See
Help:Substitution#Limitation. --
John of Reading (
talk) 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Using |trans_title=
without |title=
but with |encyclopedia=
results in a cite error. See
Niels Kaas for an example. --
Auric
talk 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
|encyclopedia=
is an alias of |work=
. As far as I know, there has never been a |trans-work=
parameter like |trans-title=
or |trans-chapter=
. |trans-title=
is associated with |title=
(same with |trans-chapter=
and |chapter=
). So, the error message that you are seeing is correct.{{cite encyclopedia |ref=harv |last=Bricka |first=Carl Frederik |authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka |encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]] |trans-chapter=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814 |url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html |edition=1st |year=1895 |volume=IX |pages=65–71 |article=Niels Kaas |language=da}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)|language=da
so {{
da icon}}
can go away.|trans_title=
in the absence of an English title:{{cite encyclopedia |ref=harv |last=Bricka |first=Carl Frederik |authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka |encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]] [Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814] |url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html |edition=1st |year=1895 |volume=IX |pages=65–71 |article=Niels Kaas |language=da}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)Template:DNB creates a citation that is showing a CS1 date error with today's new module code. The date parameter uses "1885–1900" because the cited source was initially published in 60+ volumes over the course of 16 years.
Any ideas on how to resolve this error? This template is transcluded in 6,375 articles. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite DNB}}
as a default when editors don't supply a volume number. It would seem the rare case where an editor is citing the entirety of the DNB. In the preponderance of cases, DNB citations should be pointing to specific articles in specific volumes.{{
venn}}
at
Template_talk:Venn#Citing Venn or citing ACAD?.The current CS1 module places articles using |coauthors=
in
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters but does not display an error message (for me). This makes it more difficult to find and fix the problem, since it's then a matter of guessing which deprecated parameter is in use and where in the article it is located.
Is there a way to choose to show error messages for the citations that contain deprecated parameters? I wouldn't want them to show up for everyone, but I'd like to see them. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
|day=
, |month=
, |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
are concatenated into other Lua module variables. So, these parameters don't show up as unique items in the ciataion. Because deprecated parameters aren't necessarily related to each other, the error may be detected multiple times in a citation. To avoid multiple error messages and multiple categorization, the error messaging code emits only one error message and adds the page to the
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters only once per citation.MOS:YEAR allows a year range (with n dash): 2005–06 and so, I expect, 2008–2013. But over in Template:Infobox hassium I cannot get rid of the error message. Anything I could learn? (Doing the edit is fine with me too). - DePiep ( talk) 07:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=2008–2013
come from?|accessdate=2012-10-19
are not dated. The hassium video is not dated.
{{cite web|title=Hassium|date=2008–2013|url=http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/108.htm|work=[[The Periodic Table of Videos]]|publisher=The University of Nottingham|accessdate=2012-10-19}}
|date=2008–2013
come from?|date=2008–2013
. Or, just leave date off and use |accessdate=2012-10-19
.{{
cite conference}}
. But, I wonder about that. The proscription to
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT would suggest that citing a conference is problematic. If you were there as an attendee, then citing the conference and its date range might be permissible. If you were not there, then it isn't. In the cases of the
Americum cites, was the editor at these conferences or was the editor citing the proceedings of the conference? If the latter then |date=
should be the publication date of the proceedings.{{
cite conference}}
page) is another citation similar to Editor DePiep's
Americum cite:{{cite conference |last=Tholen |first=D. J. |title=Asteroid taxonomic classifications |booktitle=Asteroids II; Proceedings of the Conference |pages=1139–1150 |publisher=University of Arizona Press |date=March 8–11, 1988 |location=Tucson, AZ |url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989aste.conf.1139T |accessdate=April 14, 2008}}
{{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)|conference=
. Also, the |url=
value doesn't refer to the conference website but rather, is the same as would be provided by |bibcode=
.{{cite book |last=Tholen |first=D. J. |chapter=Asteroid taxonomic classifications |title=Asteroids II; Proceedings of the Conference, Tucson, AZ, Mar. 8-11, 1988 (A90-27001 10-91) |pages=1139–1150 |publisher=University of Arizona Press |date=1989 |location=Tucson, AZ |bibcode=1989aste.conf.1139T}}
{{cite conference}}
.That seems like a reasonable fix. I'll post here if I come across others that do not seem to be fixable via this method.
This discussion began with a report that ranges of years were not supported. I have reported a couple of sources that provide a valid, MOS-compliant range of years in their copyright date, and year ranges (and day ranges) are explicitly allowed by the MOS. I hope you'll consider supporting both in the validation code, since the initial reasoning behind implementing the code was to comply with the MOS. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
{{Citation |first=Gamal Essam |last=El-Din |title=Islamists consolidate their lead |newspaper=Al-Ahram Weekly |date=22-28 December 2011 |url=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1077/eg10.htm |accessdate=25 January 2012}}
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Within the next handful of days I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox ( diff) and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox ( diff). This update changes several things:
|accessdate=
requires |url=
, Missing or empty |url=
, |format=
requires |url=
, |displayauthors=
suggested, and |displayeditors=
suggested;
discussion;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
All of the Talk pages have now dropped out of the error categories (there were about 12 left just now, and I null-edited them just to put them out of my misery). There are a few stubborn pages that refuse to be removed from the categories, despite a null edit. I don't know if this indicates that a change is needed in the Module code or if I should stop GAF'ing and get on with life. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
{{doi|' + regExpMatch[1] + '}}
which looks pretty much like a {{
cite doi}}
template. {{cite doi}}
does not discriminate amongst the namespaces as CS1 does. Other pages contained malformed category page names in the text: [[Category: ...]]
which should have been [[:Category: ...]]
.{{cite doi}}
errors.So, speaking of metadata...Zotero seems to have stopped reading lists of references from Wikipedia pages (i.e., it just gives me the option to save the page as a reference, instead of the little folder in the URL bar to download multiple references). It looks like the citation templates are still producing the correct markup; the "class=Z3988" attribute follows the title of the span, although I don't think that should matter. Anyone else experiencing this with Zotero 4.0.15 for Firefox (current)? Choess ( talk) 14:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This should be a simple request, and I've made it before, but no one seems to act on it. In short, when citing a map that appears in a larger work, such as a specific map in an atlas or a magazine/journal, I'd like a way to differentiate between the larger work's title and the map's title in {{ cite map}}. As an example, if I'm citing the Michigan map on pages 50 and 51 of The Road Atlas by Rand McNally, or a map of Colorado in the journal Colorado Highways, I'd like something like:
For the new parameter, I suggest using |map=
for the component work and then using |title=
for the parent item similar to how |chapter=
and |title=
work in {{
cite book}}. At the same time, we probably should implement whatever needs to be added for volume and issue for the cases where the encompassing work is a journal article instead of an atlas.
Imzadi 1979
→ 13:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite map/sandbox}}
:
|map=
, an alias of |chapter=
; and |mapurl=
an alias of |chapterurl=
.|volume=
and |issue=
for journal-based publications, which I see you typed out in the examples above, but didn't appear. Thanks,
Imzadi 1979
→ 14:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC){{
citation/core}}
.|volume=
can be added but |issue=
is problematic. {{citation/core}}
hides |issue=
if the calling citation isn't a periodical. {{
cite map}}
is somewhat strange in that the map may be included in a book or a journal. The current implementation presumes book. Perhaps this is one of the reasons your request has gone unanswered. I think that |volume=
and |issue=
should be left for
Module:Citation/CS1.|section=
is used in {{
cite map}}
for grid references but it's also an alias for |chapter=
.Done. Post here if you see anything untoward.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
A quick request, but the edition should be moved in display order to come after the title, not after any scale, series and cartographer. The edition is related to the title, but currently separated by publication information. Using the current template, and omitting the name of the map in the atlas in favor of the atlas's name produces:
Imzadi 1979 → 13:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
|edition=
is controlled by {{
citation/core}}
. I would rather not make changes to that because it is used by all of the CS1 templates that have not yet been migrated to
Module:Citation/CS1 and as the reference for those CS1 templates that now use Module:Citation/CS1.{{
cite map}}
has migrated to Module:Citation/CS1.WP:WAYBACK currently suggests using the Wayback Machine like this:
{{citation
|url=http://www.wikipedia.org/
|title=Wikipedia Main Page
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20020930123525/http://www.wikipedia.org/
|archivedate=2002-09-30
|accessdate=2005-07-06
}}
Wouldn't it be easier if we had a parameter to our citation templates that just needs the Wayback timestamp (20020930123525
) and then generates the archiveurl
automatically using url
, as well as archivedate
(the way {{
Wayback}} does)? Like:
{{citation
|url=http://www.wikipedia.org/
|title=Wikipedia Main Page
|wayback_timestamp=20020930123525
|accessdate=2005-07-06
}}
Feasable? -- bender235 ( talk) 12:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
|waybackid=
instead of the more long-winded |wayback_timestamp=
. Is there any reason that Editor Bender235's idea shouldn't be implemented?|waybackid=20020930123525 |archivedate=dmy
could reformat that date to 30 September 2002; |archivedate=mdy
to September 30, 2002; |archivedate=
empty or missing then the date is rendered in ISO-8601 style.|date=
though that could be problematic because |date=
isn't required to have all three of the normal date components (day, month, year).At meta:WebCite, someone recommended using maybe two archiving sites since the fate of WebCitation.org is unknown, as is probably any archiving site that allows specific URLs to be archived. So I would like to archive using WebCite and archive.is. Now I'm wondering what to do with the second archive URL. Should the the Cite Web template allow for two or more archive URLs? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 06:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In the documentation for {{ cite news}} it's not exactly clear how "registration" differs from "subscription". Does the latter mean money is required, whereas the former is free but needs you to sign up? What about sources that cost money but can be purchased on a one-off basis, so no subscription is required? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 12:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Two issues:
and several examples on the page illustrate this practice, which has long been standard in medical articles. That is, the article title is linked via the URL when free full text is available, or via the PMC parameter if that is available and a URL is not supplied.Also give the PMID abstract for medical articles, and the URL if the article is free. PubMed Central free full-text repository links may also be supplied and will link the title if URL not specified, else as additional linked PMC value at the end of the citation.
Somebody changed something, because the PMC parameter is no longer rendering a link in the article title to the free full text. This means, unless our readers are familiar with the PMC terminology, they are unaware they can click on the article title and get a link to the full journal text, as in any source with free full text supplied via URL. This is setting up now a situation where to get our readers to the free full text, we would need to link the PMC code and additionally link that via URL. If a URL is not available to free full text, and a PMC is, then the PMC should link to the article title, as it always did in the past.
Could someone please identify how and why this was changed, and change it back. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If the work has any of the following identifiers, then one of these specific templates may be used: DOI: {{cite doi}} JSTOR: {{cite jstor}} PubMed: {{cite pmid}}
Those templates are sloppy shortcuts, they can be user filled and have been known to return errors, and their use results in inconsistent citation formatting (which isn't acceptable for example on Featured articles). They should not be recommended prominently on a cite journal page; they could be recommended in a footnote, with disclaimers about the formatting issues and error problems. Further, if they are to be mentioned, then the PMID citation filler which renders the format used in most medical articles should also be included. [8] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
version of {{
cite journal}}
and the current
Module:Citation/CS1 version. The example here is taken from the example below the text in
Template:cite journal/doc to which you referred. Most of the citation has been removed for clarity:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
|url=
:
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC151837/
which is the same link as the PMC identifier's link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC151837
|pmc=
to behave more like the other identifiers – |pmc=
is still unique because the link display can be controlled by |embargo=
.
{{cite journal}}
to be remarkably confusing. Perhaps you might have a go at cleaning it up?{{
cite doi}}
, {{
cite jstor}}
, or {{
cite pmid}}
. I suspect that they should remain in
Template:cite journal/doc but perhaps not just where they are. Perhaps in
§See also though it would seem that they could also be included in
§Notes.|title=
parameter will be hyperlinked using the value of the |url=
parameter. If |url=
is not present, |title=
will be linked via the |doi=
value (if present), the |pmc=
value (if DOI is not present), or the |pmid=
value (if DOI and PMC are not present)."That's pretty much all I can explain, and it's not something "I want"-- it's the way it has been done for years, until the recent change. The recent change wiped out article links in boatloads of medical articles that have been built either manually or with the citation filler template over as many years as I can remember. What our readers encounter now is a DOI, a PMID and a PMC, and since most probably don't know the lingo, they have no reason to suspect that clicking on the PMC will take them to free full text, while a blue hyperlinked article title always takes one to full text (or should, if done correctly-- some people erroneously link to abstracts only). I hope this is clear, and apologize if it's not ... I'll keep trying :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
. Stripped for clarity, here is your Bona citation as it was rendered using the old {{
citation/core}}
-based {{cite journal}}
.|doi=
and |url=
, while different link addresses, ultimately wind up at the same location. That redundancy was added by the user.{{cite journal}}
template. That tool could use a bit of an update – multiple authors in a single |author=
parameter creates corrupt
COinS metadata.In short, the situation now is that by some process here, based on limited input, someone has eliminated links that have been in article titles for at least the six or seven years I've been editing. Will you be correcting that mistake and restoring them or not? Because if not, you are forcing thousands of edits for us/someone to go back and add a duplicate URL link to a cite template so that article titles will lead our readers to full text, that was working until it was tinkered with in September. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
So the question is simple "were is the consensus for making this change?" If none switch it back to how it was before. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, accommodate them to the extent that they can by making citation data available to them through COinS. Users of COinS metadata from CS1 templates depend on editors to create correctly formed citations just as general readers depend on editors to write clear and correct prose.[insisted] that the tool must be changed to produce more verbose templates.
Too long, didn't read. Can someone tersely explain what this is about? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In the cite journal template, PMID and DOI (identifiers) link to journal article abstracts. PMC (PubMed Central) is an NIH repository of the free full text of some journal articles. For as many years as I can recall (seven or eight), the cite journal template linked PMCs as URLs in the title of articles, consistent with convention on linking URLs to titles, allowing our readers to access free full text as in any other kind of citation (article title links to content in citation).
This long-standing convention was changed based on a request from one editor in September 2013. That TLDR discussion involves several technical editors, but no medical editors other than the original editor making the request.
Please avoid interspersing comments above, discussion below. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
CS1 | Citation Style 1 Recent changes |
at any rate, that argument is a red herring.What argument is intentionally misleading? I think that in my previous post I was trying to suggest a solution to what I understand to be the complaints of other editors, to wit: that here in the remote outback of Wikipedia, posts on this page or on Module talk:Citation/CS1 are inadequate forms of notice. — Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody just do it? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Trappist the monk could you please answer the queries above? Is this something someone else can do, if so, whom; if not, when do you plan to do it; if neither, should we take the request elsewhere? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Example from above |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
no |url= ; no |embargo=
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
no |url= ; |embargo=past date
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
no |url= ; |embargo=today's date
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
no |url= ; |embargo=future date
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite compare}}
uses |embargo={{date|tomorrow}}
so it will always show as you see it now.|url=
for whatever reason, that is their prerogative|url=
is given a value, it overrides the url created when |pmc=
is given a value. It has been ever thus:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|url=
is not proscribed when {{
cite journal}}
also has |pmc=
. The decision is left to the editor, as it should be.This problem was pointed out here on 16 November. Could we please get a straightforward answer as to when the fix will be implemented? An approximation (one day, four days, one week) will suffice. If this can't be done within a week, it may be time to escalate this discussion. This mistake affects our readers. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Kraxler is removing the accessdate parameter from citations in articles he has created. His argument is here: User talk:Kraxler#Accessdate removal where he states that newspapers are not required to have accessdates. My argument is that online newspaper articles are updated and emended, and we do need to know when it was accessed for a particular fact, since those facts can change in the article. What do other people think? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
because it is very commonly used in legal and academic citing of online sources. I update accessdate every time I repair
WP:DEADLINKs, and wish all editors did. Its use is supported by
WP:CITE#Webpages. The arguments against its use allege (but not document) reader confusion, and allege lack of necessity. Its utility, and established common use trumps both, IMHO. Finally, rampant removal of it from an article constitutes changing the citation format, but
WP:CITE recommends "adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (this principle is known as
WP:CITEVAR)". --
Lexein (
talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
|accesslocation=
parameter, since some content is verifiable from one geolocation, but not another. A book at Google Books wasn't verifiable from the U.K., but it was from the U.S. The version that U.K. Google Books had didn't support the claim made in the article because it was an older edition. Verifiability has its weird angles to deal with. --
Lexein (
talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Recently I've noticed this category Category:CS1 errors: dates popping up for articles I edit like The Shield (professional wrestling) and Hunico. Could someone enlighten me on where exactly are the errors in the articles? I'm not even sure what exactly the error is. Thank you. Starship.paint ( talk) 12:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For the template "Cite book", which ISBN do we use if a book should have more than one of them? Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Some references have additional text in the |date=
parameter (e.g. reference #2 in
(48639) 1995 TL8), which puts the article in
Category:CS1 errors: dates. Would it be better to remove the text from the |date=
or make an exception so these articles do not appear in the category? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 00:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
, {{
harv}}
, when an author has multiple publications in the same year.It doesn't apply in the case mentioned by GoingBatty, but in principle, a publication could be published several times per day, in which case, it might be necessary to include the time together with the date. This would be rare. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:48, 6 December 2013 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I'd like to request the addition of a trans_quote parameter that would be, at least, a repository for a translation of a quote in a foreign-language source. (I'd be happy enough if the parameter were just ignored for display purposes, as long as the quote translation is available to someone who digs deep enough, though if anybody has better ideas about display, cool.) I've actually used this parameter in a few places in hopes that it might exist someday, but that's become problematic now that unknown parameters are showing an error message. Can we add this? —chaos5023 ( talk) 17:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
[Not sure whether this belongs here or on one of the related talk pages]
At some point, it's going to be useful to have the dates in citations made machine-readable, so that they can be included in emitted metadata. That could be achieved in a number of ways, for example, having separate parameters for their day, month and year; using YYYY-MM-DD format, or using a subtemplate. Each has advantages and disadvantages. In the first two examples, it's still possible to have the rendered output in the form "17 May 2013" or "May 17th, 2013", according to a setting (see {{ Start date}} or {{ Birth date}} for examples if this in practice), or even user preference. Anyone got any thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
:oppose until there is a way to set the default date on a page or to read the user preference date. --
Gadget850
talk 16:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
May 17, 2013
would be shown and converted to <time datetime="2013-05-17">
which would not be shown. <time>
is an HTML metadata element now supported by MediaWiki. --
Gadget850
talk 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
<time>
is a standard HTML5 tag. --
Gadget850
talk 10:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
time
element at W3C --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC){{
cite news}}
emits <span class="citation news">Lane, Lois (18 May 2013). "Superman prevents another trainwreck". ''Daily Planet''.</span>
. All of that is generated by
Module:Citation/CS1 using the {{
cite news}}
parameters as input. We could amend the module so that it tests to see if |date=
is a valid date (to cover the situations like 13–19 December 2011, or Summer 1975 mentioned above). If the test succeeds, we put the date through the Lua equivalent of {{#time:Y-m-d}}
to generate a
valid date string, place that in the datetime=
attribute of a <time>...</time>
element which is wrapped around the original date, and output it with the rest, something like <span class="citation news">Lane, Lois (<time datetime="2013-05-18">18 May 2013</time>). "Superman prevents another trainwreck". ''Daily Planet''.</span>
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry. I misread the documentation for
the time
element, so I've rewritten the approprate bits here. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there are a couple of entries in the International Phonetic Alphabet article, Further reading section that are having trouble with the use of the cite book template, because an editor entered two ISBNs for the |isbn= parameter. The books apparently do have two ISBNs: one each for hard bound and for paperback. It seems that the only way to handle this now is to make two separate citation entries, which seems overkill. So how about two parameters that can produce two ISBNs in the listing (and differentiate hb from pb)? Other solutions are fine with me. I'm just looking for some unclunky way to handle such a situation. Evenssteven ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|isbn=0-521-65236-7 (hb); ISBN 0-521-63751-1 (pb)}}
to |isbn=0-521-65236-7 }} ISBN 0-521-63751-1
or to |isbn=0-521-65236-7 }}
- either way, the hardback one is the one that I'd leave inside the {{
cite book}}
. Do the same with the other one as well. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|isbn=
, like any other parameter expecting a single value, should have only a single value; perhaps this should be documented somewhere? In this case the second ISBN should be added following the template. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. If you want 16 ISBNs, then go for it. But you must have read each of them and ensured the page numbers match.
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'm tired of repeating this, and will let it fall out when you try to take the article to FA. --
Gadget850
talk 09:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Here you go:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); templatestyles stripmarker in |ISBN=
at position 41 (
help)Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. -- Gadget850 talk 10:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I used the citation {{cite journal|last=Todd|first=Andrew S|coauthors=R. Mark Sattelberg|title=Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site|journal=Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management|year=2005|month=November|volume=1|issue=4|pages=391–396|pmid=16639905|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.5630010408/pdf|accessdate=9 June 2013}}, and the PMID external link in the reference takes me here instead of here. Am a doing something wrong, or is there an error with the template? Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 19:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site|pmid=16639905|volume=1}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|pmid=
to the end of the citation then there isn't a problem:{{cite journal |title=Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site|volume=1|pmid=16639905}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)In {{cite book| editorlink = Robert J. Sternberg| last = Hyman | first = Ray| authorlink = Ray_Hyman|| editor1 = Robert J. Sternberg |editor2 = Henry L. Roediger| editor3 = Diane F. Halpern| title = Critical Thinking in Psychology| url = http://books.google.com/?id=3mA9NPAgWR0C| year = 2007| publisher = Cambridge University Press| isbn = 978-0-521-60834-3| page = 218| chapter = Evaluating Parapsychological Claims }}
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help)The url links from the title of the chapter, rather than the title of the book. (This link may still not be accurate, because I modified it from one with two authorlink fields, which was, in tern, modified from one which had first and last (referring to the chapter author) and authors (referring to the book authors, which I called editors). Shouldn't the url link from the book title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
links the |chapter=
with |url=
just as the old {{
citation/core}}
version did:Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Hyman, Ray (2007). "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims". In Robert J. Sternberg; Henry L. Roediger; Diane F. Halpern (eds.).
Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. p. 218.
ISBN
978-0-521-60834-3. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Hyman, Ray (2007). "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims". In Robert J. Sternberg; Henry L. Roediger; Diane F. Halpern (eds.).
Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. p. 218.
ISBN
978-0-521-60834-3. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (
help)
|
|url=
should link |title=
and not |chapter=
when |chapterurl=
is omitted. Doing so complies with the {{cite book}}
documentation.|chapterurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=3mA9NPAgWR0C&pg=PA216
to the citation as a work-around.{{
citation/core}}
days, it still should be fixed.... —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC){{
citation/core}}
templates. The point of the comparison was to show that the developers did not introduce a bug into
Module:Citation/CS1.Perhaps someone familiar with this template's intricacies will know what to do: there are template errors showing on the documentation at WP:CS1#Type. I expect they are related to recent reorganization toward a LUA implementation. — EncMstr ( talk) 17:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed -- Gadget850 talk 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way to have the 'publisher' break to a new line below the author's name, year and title? As it is, when the cite book items are all filled out, it generates a source listing that is entirely strung together on one line, often listing the publisher on the other side of the screen. The wrap around isn't much help because often times the only items that wrap to the next line are page numbers and isbn numbers, etc. When panning through a lengthy bibliography it is much easier to read the individual sources when the author's name, year and title are on one line, and the publisher, page number, isbn are on the second line, with the publisher always at the beginning of the second line. Since many cite book listings wrap around to a second line anyway, (unless you're using a very wide screen) it would be nice if this was accomplished with a little order and uniformity. Below is an example of how the listing would look. A <br> has been placed in the publisher field to accomplish this but in practice these are sometimes removed by bots. If there is reluctance to alter this cite book template could an alternative cite book template be created? e.g.'cite book2'. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 22:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)A question recently came up at the Teahouse where an editor was trying to use cite-book for an eBook citation. The problem arose as for an eBook a page number is not really appropriate. There's a sort of workaround with using a "location (LOC)" within an eBook and the "at" parameter. However it seems the template and/or the documentation needs to be adjusted in order to help users wanting to cite specific locations within eBooks easily. -- LukeSurl t c 21:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm the original user that had the issue. I've been thinking about this from the standpoint of a data designer. I think I may have been over thinking this. There are already various interpretations for the page number based on the edition, paperback, hardcover, etc. So the loc is just one more example. I think the right answer here might just be use the loc as a regular page number. Mdebellis ( talk) 02:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why websites are italicised in references when we do not italicise them in any other form on Wikipedia. to me, this seems to be improper formatting, and unless there is a convincing argument in support of it, I propose to have it altered in our system so that websites are no longer italicised in references. an example of this: a reference to an article by the website AllMusic:
True, Chris. "Faith – The Cure: Songs, Reviews, Credits, Awards: AllMusic". AllMusic. AllRovi. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
notice that " AllMusic" is italicised. Lachlan Foley 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|work=
parameter is treated as synonymous with |journal=
, |newspaper=
, |magazine=
(and some others, see
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and search for the entry beginning "['Periodical'] ="). This is the gross work; the |title=
specifies an included work. Gross works are italicised; included works are quoted. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 06:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|website=
parameter (which I have actually only just noticed), and |work=
is the alias, meaning that |work=
is the correct field to put the title of the website under. |publisher=
, it seems to me, is for the entity in charge of or powering the website. the |title=
field is for, in this case, the title of the page which the URL is linking to, not the website itself.
Lachlan Foley 11:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
|work=
for the name of the section of the website or for the type of document this page is, when there are multiple pages of the same type elsewhere on the site.|url=
http://example.com/safety-directives/left-handed-scredrivers
|title=Safety Directives - Safely Using Left-Handed Screwdrivers
|publisher=The Safety Society
|url=
http://example.com/safety-directives/left-handed-scredrivers
|title=Safely Using Left-Handed Screwdrivers
|work=Safety Directives
|publisher=The Safety Society
|work=
italicised, |published=
doesn't. The notion of 'publisher' is much more important for books, and the {{
citation}} templates instruct us not to cite publishers for periodicals. I would never put Allmusic in the title. It needs to go in |publisher=
or |work=
depending on whether it is properly italicised or not. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)It seems that {{
Cite book}} does not display the value in the |others=
parameter, such as this reference from
Johann Heinrich Alsted:
{{cite book | first = Paolo| last = Rossi | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2000 | month = | title = Logic and the Art of Memory | chapter = |others=Translated by Stephen Clucas | others = | edition = | pages = | publisher = University of Chicago Press | location = | id = | url = | isbn = 0-226-72826-9 }}
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors=
and |month=
(
help)GoingBatty ( talk) 01:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|others=
which is blank. --
Gadget850
talk 01:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps others here will be interested by what's going on at d:Wikidata:Books_task_force. Seems like there's some commonality of interest. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why "edition" is not mentioned in the full parameter set of Template:Cite journal? -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 20:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
|edition=
would be useful? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
|location=
. In this instance you would put |location=New York
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Another suggestion for formatting references in order to make them easier to read. When cite web references occupy two or more columns, start the text "archived from the original on {date}" on a new line. Additionally, start any quoted text on a new line. These changes would rarely result in the reference occupying more lines in total. - 109.176.243.180 ( talk) 18:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags- it simply applies the column styling to <references />
which is the tag used by the
Cite software to generate the reference list. --
Gadget850
talk 19:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
reflist-br-condit
- and set up
the global CSS for that, like this br.reflist-br-condit {
display: none;
}
.references-column-count br.reflist-br-condit {
display: inline;
}
<br class=reflist-br-condit />
at suitable points. Linebreaks would then be visible in reflists, only when the multi-column feature is used. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)It's very common these days for web-based material have both a date and time of publication. To my knowledge there's no mechanism to include the time information in the cite templates. I suppose the current closet place for it to be put is in the "date" parameter but that's not what that is meant for. Should a new "time" parameter be introduced? Of course, the question is begged: is this level of granularity necessary for the references? I believe it is valuable when included for two reasons. The time would be useful when used in search engines to find a lost source (e.g. current url is dead) and a time-stamp match would produce confidence that one has actually re-located the proper missing source (date alone is insufficient as big news events often have multiple stories released on the same day). It would be especially useful for the {{ cite web}} and {{ cite news}} templates. Ideas? Jason Quinn ( talk) 04:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite web |title=Title |url=http://www.example.org |date=July 3, 2013 |time=6:21AM BST |timecaption=​}} |
|
The variable meaning of title is a perfect example of what not to do. As for "at", you mean that videos should use the at parameter rather than the minutes or time parameter to specify where within the video the relevant information is? Not unreasonable.
If we're going to stretch the meaning of an existing parameter to include time, I suggest redocumenting the date and accessdate parameters to state they can include publication or access time when that would be helpful. This would be less of a conceptual difference than the difference between time within a video vs. publication time. Jc3s5h ( talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{#time:Y|14:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)}}
yields 2013 ... oh, hang on, that's the old way. Now that it uses a Lua module, I don't know - it's very difficult to trace the code through. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Cite journal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I understand this template is also used for newsletters but not everybody knows that. I would appreciate it if the word "newsletters" was added to the opening description as follows (bold for highlighting here only): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in journals, magazines, newsletters and for academic papers." Helen ( talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Although the wp:VisualEditor (VE) can edit more references than just the wp:CS1 cites, I have created an essay ( wp:VECITE or wp:VEREF) which mentions using the CS1 cite templates within the VisualEditor:
Currently, the responses about using VE have been horrendous, with many experienced users vowing to no longer or never use it, but it can be a " teachable moment" (or "learnable nightmare") about the difficulty of using point-and-click interfaces to select each parameter from a list, rather than using the power of free-form text technology, followed by using a batch-mode " syntax checker" to proofread for invalid parameters in a macro scripting language (in this case, proofreading as red-error messages from the CS1 templates during edit-preview).
As for the fate of VE, with over 300 reported bugs, the onward mandate is pushed by the mindset that there is no "bad software" but that all software is inherently full of bugs and should be used whenever, regardless of the corruption of text files or psychological scarring of users. Hence, I have created that essay to help users cope with problems when being herded into a channel of VE-centric editing. Currently, all users have the option to use the prior edit-source mode for pages, but the VisualEditor provides a slippery slope of luring editors into a point-and-click interface for revising words, which leads to a tedious, slow, click-click-click-on-parameter mode to insert each separate parameter for citations. The new essay wp:VECITE is just a start to providing more help about that slow process. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be easy to create a Lua-based {Cite_fast}, which would format cites even 4x times faster (over 300 per second) for large articles (lists) which have 400-900 cites. I can understand I might sound like the " mad scientist" in wanting even more speed, more speed. However, what if we discovered some new technique which could make the current cites run perhaps 2x faster, as a result of experimenting with even faster speeds. This is just a suggestion, because I think a Lua {cite_fast} could easily be 4x faster (or more). We could break the sound barrier, then the next step: cites on Mars! (just kidding). Things to ponder. Wikid77 ( talk) 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I've found a lot of errors like ". Error: |episodelink= requires |number= when using {{
cite episode}}
: Empty citation (
help). " This comes up when the program doesn't work with episode numbers. Unlike "seasons" or "series" with distinct numbers of episodes (I think it's 20 something, but you'll have to correct me on that), we have a lot of programs over here which are ongoing - that is they have been weekly for years on end. I'm sure they do have a production number, but as far as I know the episode number is effectively the date. Is there any way to get around the error? Should the template require a number, when a link is present?
Flying Buttress (
talk) 14:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
|season=
|seriesno=
|number=
are blank (or omitted). If there is no suitable value for |number=
, do you have something suitable for either |season=
or |seriesno=
? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
{{cite episode| title = Visually impaired people in TV ads, and charities working together | episodelink = http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l0fkf | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l0fkf | series = | serieslink = | credits = | network = BBC | station = Radio 4 | city = | airdate = 24th July 2012}}
{{
cite episode}}
: Check |episodelink=
value (
help); Check date values in: |airdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |city=
and |serieslink=
(
help); External link in |episodelink=
(
help); Missing or empty |series=
(
help); Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help){{
cite AV media}}
:
{{cite AV media |title=Visually impaired people in TV ads, and charities working together |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l0fkf |publisher=[[BBC Radio 4]] |date=24 July 2012 |medium=Radio broadcast |work=[[In Touch (BBC Radio 4 programme)|In Touch]]|author=Miles, Ffion (Reporter) |author2=Kumutat, Lee (Producer)}}
|serieslink=
requiring |number=
, one opposed (me), and from the broader community's general apathy.The documentation is correct, episodelink
is an existing Wikipedia article. The Bradbury Fields example is an incorrect use of the template, and it is being placed into a maintenance category (
Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax), bringing attention to its incorrect use. A perquisite for episodelink
, serieslink
, and url
was brought up in the discussion because we didn't want users to be providing a link that went unused. To activate these links provide the appropriate number
, season
, series
, seriesno
, title
, or trans_title
. If the episode doesn't have these, what is there to link?
117Avenue (
talk) 03:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
For years we have lived with author initials being used to populate |first1=
.. |firstn=
, with resultant confusion. For many cited authors this has not been a large problem. If an editor abbreviates "John Paul" to "J.P.", "J. P." or "JP" no one is terrible surprised. But how to handle "Jean-Paul"? Any of the preceding might be used, plus "J-P", "J.-P.", "J.-P" or even "J. -P". Is it time to discuss supporting a distinct parameter |initial1=
for such choices? Some article editors seem to prefer full names while others want the most succinct initials possible.
Authority control might be used to limit variations, with improved wikidata functionality as a result. See
[6] for more.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Citation Style 1 family of citation templates be modified to always place the date of publication in parentheses immediately after the first element (that is, after the authors or editors if those are given, or after the title if not)? If so, since citations were inspired in part by APA style, should the date be followed by a period after the right parenthesis when the separator is set to the period? Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Since I was unable to find an uninvolved editor to close the discussion, I will ignore all rules and summarize it myself, for the convenience of whoever implements the consistent style. Editors in this section are listed in no particular order.
Eight editors supported having the date consistently as the second element (Dragons Flight, bender235, Carl, sroc, Imzadi1979, Andrew327, Trappist the Monk, and myself).
Three editors supported having the date consistently near the end (Alarics, SlimVirgin, and DoctorKubla). Of these, Alarics and SlimVirgin supported date-second as a second choice.
Two editors indicated support, but there comments didn't seem consistent with the proposal (J Johnson and Lachlan Foley).
The "Let's get specific" section had two editors (Dragons Flight and Trappist the monk) favoring this style for a newspaper article with no author:
On the other hand I preferred to adhere more closely to the APA style:
Alarics consisdered the APA style an improvement over the current situation but would prefer fewer brackets:
Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As the originator of the RFC I favor a fixed location for the date, as do some others in the Date location section above. I favor placing the date as the second element because in articles using parenthetical referencing without linking (or which have been printed on paper) it is easier for the reader to find the full source information. Also, when there is a sorted reference list, it is easier for editors to see if sources by the same author have been sorted correctly. Finally, I favor a period after the right parenthesis because the templates were inspired by APA style and will be more comfortable for the many people who already use APA style. I note that the current cite journal template only separates the last character of the last author's name from the date with a space, while APA style would separate them with a period and a space. Thus in APA style, the example below would read ...Kenneth. (2011)...
Example:
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Jc3s5h ( talk) 10:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
First | (1999). Some Things. Random House Books. p. 24. |
Second | Some Things. (1999). Random House Books. p. 24. |
Late (present behavior) | Some Things. Random House Books. 1999. p. 24. |
{{
cite news}}
; both ref the same newspaper; the only real difference is that one of the two URLs, if followed, shows a credited author, the other shows "By Reading Post" - which I took to be synonymous with "By Staff Reporter", so I omitted it from the {{
cite news}}
, with the result that the two refs are significantly different in layout. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
article title
> title of publication
> year/date
, with the exception of {{
cite news}}, since I feel there is more emphasis on date in that case.
Lachlan Foley (
talk) 10:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC){{
cite news}}
, because {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
exhibit exactly the same inconsistency in date positioning. It is however more noticeable with {{
cite news}}
, because that sometimes has credited authors and sometimes doesn't, whereas {{
cite book}}
/{{
cite journal}}
almost always have credited authors, and a true {{
cite web}}
(one where {{
cite news}}
/{{
cite journal}}
are not appropriate) rarely has a credited author. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC){{
cite}}
templates. My preference would be to have the date nearer the beginning of the citation for consistency with existing citations where authors are named, in keeping with the Harvard referencing system, e.g.:Seeking editor to close discussion. Since the RFC has expired and discussion seems to have more or less reached a consensus, someone should close this discussion. I would suggest the subsections about specifics below also be included in the closure. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
In the above discussion, it appears that most people favor consistency, and a majority also seem to want the date to stay near the front, though that is somewhat less clear. There is also some discussion of style changes (e.g. parenthesis, periods, etc.) but I don't think that is well enough developed to be ready to come to any conclusion. In the following I am going to offer some specific styles for current and future citations that aim to keep the date near the front in various cases, and would like feedback on what people think.
In the examples below, the current case generally shows examples where a date appears at the end. The "Suggestion 1" case places the date as the second element, and "Suggestion 2" case places it as the first element (essentially where it would be if it were left in the same slot even though no author is given).
I think most people want to keep this as is, <AUTHOR> <DATE> <TITLE>, i.e.
Some of the above are somewhat complicated edge cases, but then we need to remember that there are many different elements that can end up in citations. Personally, I think I prefer Suggestion 1, though I don't have an overly strong opinion either way. However, I did think it would be useful to further the discussion by showing more examples of possible date location changes. Do people have any additional feedback after seeing more examples? I wanted to add some more examples, in part, because it wasn't entirely clear from the previous discussion how people would want to handle some of these edge cases, and hence it would have been difficult to implement any specific change. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The (book) template automatically prepends 'OL' to the Open Library ID, presumably on the assumption that all Open Library IDs start with that. The problem is, they don't, and this prevents linking to those that have Open Library IDs of other formats. For example, the Open Library uses IDs that begin with 'ia:' to refer to works that originate with the Internet Archive. This results in bad links to the Open Library website for such a work. (One such ID is 'ia:publicrecords02conn', which should link to, e.g., http://openlibrary.org/works/ia:publicrecords02conn but instead links to http://openlibrary.org/OLia%3Apublicrecords02conn.) — Gordon P. Hemsley→ ✉ 13:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |ol=
value (
help)ia:
and adjust the URL.The documentation for Cite news fails to explain what it is for. Is it just for citing paper newspapers? Maybe news telecasts? How about Usenet newsgroups? Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Back on the original point, it would certainly be good if a way could be found of making clearer to editors that "cite news" is to be used in preference to "cite web" for refs to news articles from bona fide news outlets, whether or not said articles are on line. At present a great many refs put "cite web" when it should be "cite news". (I think the Reflinks tool may be to blame for a fair bit of this.) (On the other hand, one also sometimes finds people using "cite news" when they shouldn't, especially in the case of press releases, which have their own "cite press release" template; the distinction matters because a press release is a piece of news produced by a non-news organisation about itself, and is not therefore objective "news" such as one would hope to find in a reliable news source.) -- Alarics ( talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
|type=
parameter added?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)I propose to rename Cite album-notes to Cite album notes because I believe the hyphen is unnecessary and improper use of punctuation. Lachlan Foley ( talk) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Now at {{ Cite AV media notes}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please change the use of "..."
to “...”
for article titles, chapters, etc. in the citation templates? Or is there a style rule requiring "..."
? --
bender235 (
talk) 08:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
“
and ”
are not valid characters in HTML documents unless they are encoded. See
Character Entity Reference Chart at W3. -
79.67.242.207 (
talk) 12:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
, .
which are almost never encoded. Only three characters must always be encoded when they occur in the
text part of a HTML doc: & < >
- a fourth "
should be encoded where its meaning might be ambiguous, such as within an attribute value. All the other encodings are provided for situations where the desired character might not be directly typeable, or where a program which processes the doc might trash a multibyte character. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Is there a way to supress the period after the title in {{ cite book}}?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It seemed that there was agreement to do this. I see no changes.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Where a reference is formatted using cite web or cite news and the source article is date stamped, that information is conveyed using the |date=
parameter. If the source article is not date stamped, the |accessdate=
parameter is used instead. Or, at least that's the theory.
A large number of references have both |date=
and |accessdate=
and in most, if not all, cases there is no need for |accessdate=
to be there.
Should the unwanted |accessdate=
inclusion be ...
|accessdate=
data simply be hidden and not displayed when the reference is shown,or handled some other way?
Your thoughts? -- 86.148.10.139 ( talk) 18:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
|showaccessdate=yes
for those who have a burning desire. --
Gadget850
talk 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
|date=
and |accessdate=
exist, I would use |accessdate=
Lets take a look at a citation I just cleaned up:
The web page had a date at the bottom that was not recorded in the citation, but this was an easy fix.
So- what does the access date tell me? Lets say someone updated the web page in 2002 and did not change the date. How would I know? If I did know the page was changed, what do I do to indicate it using the access date? What if an editor comes along and cleans up the citation and changes it to the date he edited the citation?
I have updated Wikipedia:Using WebCite and Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine to indicate the limitations on archiving.
I don't expect much further from this discussion, but I might be surprised. I would hide access dates, but their existence often shows that the originating editor did not dig into the web page enough to find the proper date. Then there are those who add access dates for books and journals. -- Gadget850 talk 11:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I routinely delete |accessdate=
parameters from web citations that have a proper date. To answer IP editor's original question, if we are to somehow flag citations that contain both |date=
and |accessdate=
parameters, it should be done in the same manner as existing error messages. All error messages and message style must be consistent. The error message More than one of |param1=
, |param2=
, and |param3=
specified with a bit of editing at
Help:CS1_errors to address redundant use of |date=
and |accessdate=
would seem to fit the bill. All of the date parameters |month=
, |year=
, and |date=
need to be included when determining date / |accessdate=
redundancy.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
|date=
and |accessdate=
parameters may be redundant, but it's not an error according to the template documentation. Before adding another red error message visible to readers, I suggest that these steps be taken instead:
|accessdate=
via RfC|accessdate=
from citations where |date=
is valid|date=
and |accessdate=
". I was responding to Trappist's post, so I hope Trappist will provide you an example.
GoingBatty (
talk) 01:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)archivedate
is supplied (with appropriate archiveurl
). As I've argued before, and along the same lines as Codename, is that it is not entirely redundant to date
, because having the accessdate does make finding an appropriate archived version of the page more simple. --
Izno (
talk) 15:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)We will never get consensus on this. Need to create a perennial discussion page. Meanwhile, I simply hide access dates as useless. -- Gadget850 talk 15:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
). I venture to guess that Editor
Gadget850 is referring to this. No need to tread the policy road.Is it possible for the module to detect errors like this one, where multiple journal authors were specified with repeated "first=X last=Y" pairs? -- John of Reading ( talk) 08:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
and module versions of your citation:{{cite compare |mode=encyclopedia
| last = Fiaud | first = J.C.
| last = Kagan | first = H.B.
| editor-last = Eliel | editor-first = E.L.
| editor-last = Wilen | editor-first = S.H.
| year = 1988
| title = Kinetic Resolution
| encyclopedia = Topics in Stereochemistry
| volume = 18
| publisher = John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
| location = New York
| pages =249–340}}
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | Kagan, H.B. (1988). "Kinetic Resolution". In Wilen, S.H. (ed.). Topics in Stereochemistry. Vol. 18. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 249–340. |
Sandbox | Kagan, H.B. (1988). "Kinetic Resolution". In Wilen, S.H. (ed.). Topics in Stereochemistry. Vol. 18. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 249–340. |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's proposed to use a bot to clean cruft from Google Books URLs, in citation templates. Please comment at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Google Books links on how that should be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |registration=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)So, the module includes the functionality of {{ subscription required}}, but not {{ registration required}}.
And why do we have the styling on this? -- Gadget850 talk 00:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Added |registration=
(in a crude sort of way – if only I knew what I were doing) to the sandbox. As you can see, I don't do any error checking and let |subscription=
override |registration=
. I think the functionality of |registration=
matches that of {{
registration required}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
When using {{ cite book}}, using via= to indicate that the citation came from a Google Books copy, the {{ subscription required}} is also dragged into it.
This doesn't seem right, since many via sources do not require a subscription or other payment. Is this the correct place to bring this up? -- Lexein ( talk) 01:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
|via=
parameter is to indicate that the online version you're linking to is behind a paywall; usually, {{
subscription required}} on its own is sufficient, but if you're linking to a well-known database like Highbeam or JStor, which lots of people have access to, some people prefer to note this in the citation, so that readers can tell at a glance whether they can access the source or not.
DoctorKubla (
talk) 11:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I propose that Template:Cite book be changed to instruct editors that, when citing a book where a place of publication is mentioned, the editor NOT add a wikilink around the name of the place. When a wikilink is added to the city of publication, that city then shows up in the "what links here" of many other articles which have nothing to do with that city. For example, let's say a book about "Vegemite" is published in "Greenville, Mississippi". Then an editor uses that book to update the article about Vegemite, and when citing the book, adds a wikilink around "Greenville, Mississippi" (as a convenience to readers who may not know where Greenville--the place of publication--is). Then, some other wiki user who is reading the Greenville article looks at the "what links here", and sees the Vegemite article (which has nothing to do with Greenville). This leads to unnecessary confusion. Thanks for your discussion about this. Richard Apple ( talk) 06:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
|work=
, |publisher=
, |authorlink=
, |editorlink=
, |agency=
, |authorlink=
, etc. This is a software problem, not a template problem. If this really is an issue, you should file for MediaWiki enhancement that distinguishes direct and transcluded links for whatlinkshere, though I don't know how likely this is to be implemented. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 08:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)I'm trying to reference a featurette on a DVD properly, but can't see how I can do it using the fields on offer. The DVD title is The Pearl of Death, but there is no field in which that can comfortably fit while including the featurette name at the same time...
{{
cite AV media}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help)Any thoughts? - SchroCat ( talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)when citing old, public-domain books republished by google books, what should the publisher and publication date be? e.g., philology currently cites the 1880 book Philology, by John Peile, published in 1880 by Macmillan, as {{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/?id=2joVAAAAYAAJ&dq=philology&printsec=frontcover#PPA5,M1 |title=Philology |publisher=Books.google.com |date=2008-02-09 |accessdate=2011-07-16}}. it seems misleading to suggest that a book is less than 5 years old when it's really over 130, but OTOH it seems important to keep track the that info came from the scan, and not a physical copy. opinions? did i miss a settled answer to this? Adavies42 ( talk) 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |last=Peile |first=John |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2joVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3 |title=Philology |edition=4th |location=London |publisher=Macmillan and Co. |date=1880}}
|via=Google Books
. Except for the small problem that via=
drags in (subscription required). Can I get a response to
that question? --
Lexein (
talk) 09:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Considered good form to cite Google Books as the source using ... |via=Google Books
.
Where is that stated?|via=
parameter? Surely the distinction is a separate published edition versus an online scan of a previously published edition, i.e. Google did not create a new edition, they scanned somebody else's. A bot task to set |via=
for Google books would be easy enough. It should also be easy enough to retrieve the actual publisher of the edition digitized from the Google books meta data.
Rjwilmsi 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)|edition=
applies, regardless of publisher. If a publisher simply conveys the the right to print and distribute a work to another entity, either by sale or by license, then the work is new and distinct.{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |type=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: External link in |type=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help)|origyear=
is appropriate.single citation doesn't work well with those conditions, I meant that a single citation doesn't allow an editor to cite the same point of information from two sources. For example if an editor is citing Laws governing the Sterility of first Crosses and of Hybrids that citation, for 1859, is:
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help); External link in |type=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help); External link in |type=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help)crucial to know ... the specific edition consulted, [and] which branch (original edition) that edition derives from? (emphasis mine) Why is it not sufficient to simply cite the work that is at hand? An editor is not obliged to know and record the lineage of the source. Such a requirement would be a rather burdensome. This, it seems to me, follows rather naturally from your statement that
we do not (and should not) expect an editor that consults a derivative ... edition to note the differences.
... year of the original edition ... from which [my] version is taken (e.g.: "1909 [1959 [ sic]]")you won't consult another source? That's nonsense. If you note a discrepancy, surely you will seek resolution regardless of
|origyear=
inclusion in my citation.We might want to compare our approach to two printed style guides. First, here is APA style p. 203 example 19, "Electronic version of a print book" (first two entries) and example 21, "Electronic version of a republished book" (last entry):
Shortton, M. A. (1989). Computer addiction? A study of computer dependency [DX Reader version]. Retrieved from http://www.eboookstore.tandf.co.uk/html/index.asp
Shiraldi, G. R. (2001). The post-traumatic stress disorder sourcebook: A guide to healing, recovery, and growth [Adobe Digital Editions version]. doi:10.1036/0071393722
Freud, S. (1953). The method of interpreting dreams: An analysis of a specimen dream. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmunt Freud (Vol. 4, pp. 96-121). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books (Original work published 1900)
Chicago Manual of Style p. 710–711 says to site the version that agrees with the page numbers in the citation. In the case of reprints and electronic versions, the date of the orignial may be included if relevant. A description of how a reprint differes from the original, such as the addition of new material, may be included in the citation if needed.
Chicago also says the citaion should indicate the citation writer consulted an electronic version if both a paper and electronic version are available, due to the potential for differences (p. 726). The citation if the citation writer colsulted the electronic version is shown first below; the second citation below is if the citation writer consulted the paper version (note the different publication date).
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Penguine Classics, 2007. Kindle edition.
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Penguine Classics, 2003.
According to Chicago (p. 727) if it were relevant to include the original publication date, it would be done as follows (citing a different electronic version form above):
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. London: T. Egerton 1813. Reprint, New York: Penguine Classics, 2008. PDF e-book.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate some guidance, and I would suggest it be added to the Template:Cite journal/doc page, on quarterly periodicals. If the periodical does not have a volume and number, should, for example, "Fall 2012" be in the issue parameter, the date parameter, or both? -- JFH ( talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
|date=Fall 2013
. If the citation will be referenced by {{
sfn}}
or one of the {{
harv}}
family of short form notation templates, include |year=2012
as well.|issue=
. I kind of like it. But doing it as TM describes is quite adequate. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Markup | Rendered HTML |
---|---|
{{cite book |title=Title |date=Fall 2013 |ref=harv}} |
|
-- Gadget850 talk 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
|year=
. This reference link
[1] is {{sfn||2013}}
. The full citation is listed below.Take a look at:
for an example. The article is an editorial from the paper, so I want to attribute that fact using |type=
. The paper's name doesn't include the city, so I want to include that in |location=
. However, the type indication should really fall after the title of the article, and not in between the newspaper name and location. The result is that the location is disconnected from the title, and the type is disconnected from the headline. We also get the less than ideal line up of consecutive items listed in separate parentheses. (Note that if I used |format=
to indicate it was an editorial, that would fall after the title, but that indicator is supposed to be used for the format of the resulting link, like a PDF or Excel spreadsheet file.)
Imzadi 1979
→ 22:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
|author=
to be filled with the name of a person or entity, not a description. Perhaps "|author=
Editorial" should be understood as a special case that requires reference to "publisher" to be fully resolved. Or perhaps we just accept that the metadata isn't perfect, and we are not going to fret about. Actually, I think we're going about this sideways. We should first consider just how such a citation might be formatted, without considering how to do it in a template. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is not a satisfactory explanation for credits whatsoever. It only is aligned with aliases, which doesn't make any sense. This should be elaborated on and an example given. Since these are television episodes, I don't see how an alias will ever fit into the episode mold. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 19:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of the other Citation Style 1 templates display the date in parentheses immediately after the authors' names (or if there is no author, after the title). But the {{ cite web}} template places the date near the end of the citation. When was this change made and why? Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
behave similarly: if there is an author, the date goes in parenthesis after that, otherwise it goes after the publisher. Please give examples of where you see different behaviour. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)|author=
parameter, I find this paragraph:The main function of |author= being used for organizational citation is when the cited source, such as a committee report, specifically names an official body or a sub-unit (of the publisher as the collective author of the work, e.g. |author=Commission on Headphone Safety or |author=Rules Sub-committee. Using this parameter to assert what you think was probably the collective author, when the source itself does not specify that body as the collective author, is original research and falsification of source verifiability and reliability.
I am mainly aware of this problem in "cite news". Many newspaper reports have an author; many do not. In a typical WP article one finds both kinds cited under "cite news" and the final result looks inconsistent on the WP page. This has been raised many times in the past, including by me, but nobody ever does anything about it. I would suggest the date should come near the end of the reference, after the name of the newspaper (and city of publication, where given). -- Alarics ( talk) 11:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So we have an undocumented 'via' parameter. What do we use it for? -- Gadget850 talk 14:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
or similar for such cases if one wants an inline tag. I agree with DoctorKubla that we don't need to mention this, as the source of the citation is what matters. But I think it makes sense to make it clear to readers and editors how the content was actually accessed (not limited to paywalls and such). —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 14:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)|url=
to books in the first place? —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK 15:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|via=
does not add (subscription required) to the citation. If this change is to be kept, then those citations that are out there in the wild that rely on |via=
to provide the link note will need to be updated so that they use |subscription=yes
.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
... I don't think via= should necessarily always drag in paywallcomment. If we are going to keep
|via=
, then it should be usable for citations that aren't hidden behind a pay wall as well as for those that are.|via=
is as a mechanism to show that the cited work is located in a place different from where the reader would expect to find it. As an example, a {{
cite journal}}
citation identifies an article by
Caspar Milquetoast complete with |volume=
, |number=
, |doi=
, etc. and a link to the article. When the link points to Dr Milquetoast's web page instead of the journal's web page there is a minor cognitive dissonance for the reader. If the citation also included |via=CasparMilquetoastCitizenScientist.com
then that dissonance is mitigated. |website=
won't work in this case because it is an alias of |journal=
. When the article is available from the author's web site, (subscription required) is not appropriate.|via=
is two things. It's a tool which formalizes "say where you found it" at the editor's discretion within the syntax of CS1, without requiring external templates like {{
HighBeam}}. It is also a means by which citation requirements imposed by content providers other than the original publishers can be satisfied (such as WebCitation, HighBeam, EBSCO and others which all have terms of use). Parenthetically, for completeness, we could state via=Archive.org
, instead of the current triggered text "from archive" (lowercase) whenever |archiveurl=
is used. AFAICT "from archive" has become generic, due to being lowercase, with no other formal mechanism to indicate explicitly which archive provider has been used (I'd rather not use provider-dependent citation mechanisms or templates, just CS1).|via=
is useful: at
The Bridge (2006 drama film)
User:Cirt found a lot of sources to support keeping the article, while it was at AfD. He apparently used a research provider, but didn't include URLs or "by" or "via" comments. So it was a hard slog for me to verify the sources he dug up. Why did I bother? Because I wanted our readers to be able to more easily verify the sources for claims, and because that was a Scientology-related, and therefore potentially highly controversial article, subject to an extreme level of scrutiny due to ARBCOM decisions. I'm a big fan of easy verifiability, wherever possible.|via=
and not |url=
. The research provider EBSCO's URLs don't link purely to EBSCO domain+assets, they link through libraries/institutions, and so are accessible only to "local" patrons/customers. So I say |via=
EBSCO, so the reader knows they can verify the source via EBSCO just like I did, but I leave out the |url=
because the url wouldn't work unless they are patrons of the same library, with the same account number as me, and there's no way to generalize the URL.|via=
all combine to make WP less verifiable, and, personally, annoying. I guess I'm just saying every little bit helps.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. p. 1 – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Peile, John (1880).
Philology (4th ed.). London: Macmillan and Co. p. 1 – via Google Books. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|via=
parameter is a republisher, and it shouldn't be disconnected from the original publisher. As for the "subscription required" or "registration required" indications, those are good at the end of the citation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)|via=
comes into play when there is reasonable doubt either as to the fidelity of the copy or the specific edition upon which a (possibly incomplete) copy was based.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added documentation for |via=
under
Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher for all to review. Hopefully it is not seen as any sort of policy change, merely documenting an important two-function parameter, and its justified uses: a) saywhereyoufoundit and/or b) politely attributing the content deliverer, as may be requested/required by their terms of use. So I would like sandbox to be moved live, so the |subscription=
parameter can be activated, and then documented. --
Lexein (
talk) 16:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
|via=
documented. I'm not talking about "linking restrictions", I'm talking about citation attribution such as presented in examples by HighBeam and EBSCO and others. I have further not "made a decision", I'm documenting a feature, and providing use cases where it makes sense. Everybody stopped talking, so I just f'ing documented the damned thing. I fully know that Google Books both simply delivers (where there is a prior published/printed work) and also publishes (where there is no prior published/printed work). |via=
is about those deliverers who are not acting as publishers. Jeez. There's only one publisher field. Think it through. --
Lexein (
talk) 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)|via=
documentation at
Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher:when the deliverer requests attribution (HighBeam, EBSCO, etc). ...
|via=
also satisfies citation attribution requests by content providers (such as HighBeam, EBSCO and others which have terms of use).
References
|via=
simply identifies the provider – more for the reader than as a response to a perceived request or requirement imposed by Grace's Guide.Hey folks, I appreciate all of the careful discussion here. My original thinking with citations from donated accounts was that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applied for identifying the actual site where research was conducted and the version which was actually read. That guideline may leave us in a bit of a gray area as it excludes search engines and library catalogues which led to research... I'm not exactly sure what its intended status on archives/databases that host the research is though. So, Linking to the HighBeam article, for example, was expected if an editor read the article there; actually attributing HighBeam in the reference was not explicitly required--though the citation example did encouraged it. I do think there's also a decent argument that subscription required, is more useful if you know subscription to what. For example, if there's a HighBeam citation on a page, I'd think editors/readers would benefit from knowing if that's a source they have access to. And you know thereby that you're reading the same version the editor was. This is in the context of always providing the original citation information so anyone can look it up in whatever location they have easiest access to. There may, realistically, also be benefit in attracting future donations of this kind if the via parameter is used, but I wouldn't put that motive first in our considerations. In short, there is no contractual agreement with the donors to attribute the source (there's no contract of any kind in fact), but there were usage expectations for editors for linking to the source and citation examples that encouraged giving in-reference attribution. Happy to discuss all this... Ocaasi t | c 15:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The documentation for the publisher parameter claims "Most professional and academic citation standards (and thus everyone familiar with any of them) do expect the publisher to be explicitly included, even where this may seem redundant. Adding it doesn't hurt anything, and eliminates the possibility that later editors will assume it was left out by mistake and waste time looking up the missing information."
That statement is true for books, but false for periodicals, especially academic journals. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
|publisher=
but there has never been a clear consensus. In the last discussion, vote count was in favor of not excluding it in some cases but the reason was more or less "
I just don't like it" or "others do it", which is responded by "
Wikipedia is full of things you might not like that are going to stay put" and "we do a lot of things others don't do".|publisher=
. I think, and the prior consensus-based text supported, by implication, that adding |publisher=
improves verifiability, especially for some use cases: lesser-known, or similarly-named publications. I'm a big, big, fan of improved verifiability, and not hiding the treasure, as I've mentioned elsewhere. The common sense of the editor creating the citation should be engaged, not discouraged. --
Lexein (
talk) 12:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
|publisher=
to |accessdate=
?
I believe my edit is very much in line with WP:CITE#What information to include . The idea of treating Citation Style 1 as a distinct citation style, rather than a template to be used in any old way, is a rather new concept, and the documentation here is really not up to the job of specifying a citation style. I am not aware of any discussion supporting a departure from the universal academic practice of not citing publishers of journals and a number of other kinds of works. Certainly there is no navigation aid in the project page to find such a discussion. (Of course, additional information can always be added to any citation when normal citation practices will result in ambiguity.)
As for citations to support the ommission of the the publisher for many kinds of works, see the following:
The APA style manual has equivalent advice, but I don't have time to find the page just now. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's my opinion on the matter: most of the time, I've followed the usual academic writing practices from my years in high school and college, which is to omit the publisher on most periodicals. However, there are cases where including it for lesser-known publications is beneficial. Each editor in each situation is going to need to make a value judgement on whether or not including a publisher is necessary in those cases. I think this is a case where the documentation is going to need to describe the established practices already followed, rather than establishing the practices to follow. Imzadi 1979 → 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think in the case of widely known periodicals and highly reputed journals publisher is not needed. However as mentioned in WP:SCHOLARSHIP there are journals "that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" and "that appear to be reliable journals, are instead of very low quality". Giving the publisher can help identify if a journal or periodical is from a source recognized by the academic community. I am of the opinion that the more information about a source the better, balanced my keeping references as concise as possible. Joining in the off topic discussion, WP:ISSN states, " Normally an ISSN is not part of a citation to a particular article. An ISSN is used to identify the serial, i.e., the journal or periodical. Only use an ISSN in a citation for a particular article if the journal is relatively unknown and the ISSN is provided for verification of the existence of the journal." I think use of DOI is important as it can lead to an item that has moved. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really editing here any more, I just logged in because someone e-mailed me that I've been mentioned by name recently in an blame-casting way, and upon seeing it, I feel like responding, because it was unnecessarily personalizing. I do not propose that anyone be given a finger-wagging "talking to" for not adding the publisher to a periodical citation, nor that the Citation Style 1 templates spit out huge red error messages when a publisher is not given in one. It is useful (often very, very useful) information to include, however, especially in politically-charged topic areas or when citing obscure sources. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. I don't know why people cannot seem to get this through their heads: WP is emphatically not bound to cite its sources the way your field or industry happens to do so. WP does not care what other publication do for their own internal purposes. Wikipedia does what is best for its own purposes, which generally means whatever is best for its readers, first and foremost. Providing useful information clearly does what is best for WP's readers, rather than discarding the info for no reason other than to conform to some external expectation that is really of zero relevance here. Another thing people are not "getting" is that periodical citation templates are not used only for academic journals, but for all types of periodicals; the fact that professional academics in a field generally already know who the publishers of famous academic journals in their field are, is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's interests, goals, procedures, and audiences. Get your head out of your own little fiefdom and think about other people, with different needs, knowledge and expectations for a change. Sometimes the number of oh-so-credentialled academics editing here, unable to see past their own noses, are a curse as much as the boon they obviously are in adding a professional level of expertise on academic topics. <sigh> Now, one could say that when the publisher is visually redundant to add, as in |journal=Proceedings of the Botswanan Society of Omphaloskeptics
, that the utility-of-the-data argument is potentially inapplicable. However, fans of metadata and the semantic Web would argue that it would actually be better to add a |hide-pub=y
parameter and keep the publisher info without displaying it, since the data can still be found and operated on by third-party tools, e.g. one that wanted to compare the number of times that journals by one university were cited on WP vs. those of another, or whatever. Oh, and per
WP:CONSENSUS, the fact that "my" wording, making the publisher of the standard dataset of a Style 1 citation (incl. for periodicals), has been around for a long time without controversy actually indicates that it does in fact have consensus; trying to attack it on the basis that it was written by one person instead of arrived at through a long committee process – especially a committee that included you and pandered to your personal pet peeves – is total
WP:BOLLOCKS, and clearly forget that
WP:BOLD is a matter of policy. No one needs your permission to institute a best practice here, community acceptance of one without a process you personally favor doesn't mean the acceptance is magically invalid, and that acceptance means that the onus is on you to demonstrate why the idea should be revoked. I'm logging back out and going away again, so feel free to rant and rave at whatever strawman you're going to erect in my absence, since its so important for some of you to personalize the issue and point "SMcCandlish is a bad guy, and we can undo everything he ever did" fingers now that I'm generally not around any more. Have fun with that. I have a real life to get back to, thanks. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ
Contrib. 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Last. Title. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
Last. Title. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |registration=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
Seems to me that if one is linked, the other should be linked as well. -- Gadget850 talk 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
|registration=
links to
WP:V, a Wikipedia policy which has as its target audience Wikipedia editors, not readers.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Last. Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Like this?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite compare}}
examples are not currently showing what my "Like this?" question was about. That's because I found a bug in the current live version of
Module:Citation/CS1 so I copied live to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, fixed it there where it awaits movement to live version – I'm not special enough to do those kinds of things.<span title=""></span>
for the text and <abbr></abbr>
for the text decoration. I think that this violates the proper use of the <abbr></abbr>
tags. Perhaps there is another way to accomplish the same thing without the violation.<abbr></abbr>
tags:
{{
cite compare}}
above now reflects my latest thinking regarding the Subscription / Registration link note help text.{{
cite web}}
is acceptable.<code></code>
tags and displays yes
in the proper font)?What on Earth happened to the Cite book template? Wherever I used it, there is now an error saying: |accessdate= requires |url= (help). See, for example, Margaret of Burgundy, Dauphine of France#References and Royal touch#References. How can this be fixed? Surtsicna ( talk) 10:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
refers to the date upon which the on-line citation is accessed by the editor citing it. If you are referring to a printed work, it's pretty obvious that it's the edition of the book (or its ISBN) that matters to the person wanting to look up the physical work. The date on which the person who input the citation read it is utterly unimportant. In the case where there is no url, the existence of the warning suggests that the best option is to remove the access date. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 10:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In the old version of the templates, 'accessdate' without 'url' did not show. That change was made years ago and the discussion is buried in archives linked at the top of the page. We often got questions about why 'accessdate' did not show. Now we give an error telling you that it is either redundant or something is wrong in the citation markup. -- Gadget850 talk 14:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Morewedge, Rosemarie Thee (1975). The Role of Woman in the Middle Ages: Papers of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies. State University of New York Press. pp. 97–98, 114–115.
ISBN
1438413564. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Morewedge, Rosemarie Thee (1975). The Role of Woman in the Middle Ages: Papers of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies. State University of New York Press. pp. 97–98, 114–115.
ISBN
1438413564. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
Someone might wonder, "Why are only "10" people complaining about the excessive cite messages?" Well, people have talked and talked, and explained and explained, for months and months, but some just refuse to listen:
For example, "page=[http://www.x.com/p8 8] |accessdate=7 May 2011" where the URL is coded inside the "page=" or likewise, inside a "volume=" or inside an "issue=" (etc.), but instead we get these dim, wrong error messages:
So, we have 2 wrong error messages, which completely ignore the URL in the page number and insist on scarring the cite as being doubly-invalid, with an accessdate but supposedly no URL (hello, see the URL in the page number?). Unfortunately, many people do not have the patience, the time, the tolerance, nor the self-control, to keep explaining (over & over) how the restrictions about accessdate and "url=" are wrong, wrong, wrong, and what's the word? ...oh yes, wrong. Consequently, many people are utterly, totally, completely, and thoroughly fed-up, sick, tired, and over-it about the continual forcing of these narrow, severe, trivial messages which are wrong, wrong, WRONG, as explained for months and months. The cite templates should never flag the use of accessdate, nor insist that "url=" must be set, when a URL can be passed in other cite parameters. At most, set a link to a warning category. In fact, for many web news stories, a source webpage (by title/date or author) can be found at many URLs which published the same story (such as by AP feed), and there is no need to restrict to one URL of several matches. - Wikid77 ( talk) 04:29/04:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
A URL can be in a page number, volume or issue, and accessdate applies.
|page=
, |pages=
, or |at=
corrupts the metadata. The metadata for your example citation is:<span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp_talk%3ACitation+Style+1&rft.btitle=Report+Z&rft.genre=book&rft.pages=%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.x.com+8%5D&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988">
&rft.pages=%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.x.com+8%5D
, which should be just: &rft.pages=8
.|pageurl=
parameter at
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests which will allow CS1 citations to present a linked page number without also corrupting the COinS metadata.A bot request has sensibly been made to fix the errors discussed in the preceding section. I suggest that, in the short term, we turn off the error warning (while retaining the category), specify the bot and let it do its job, then turn on the error warning to catch future issues. The same should apply to any other error states that might be waiting to be flagged up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The numerous excessive red-error messages, in the wp:CS1 cites, can be re-hidden by fixing Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to reset each newly activated message, back to "hidden=true" (set "false" on 26 August 2013 by User:Gadget850, see: dif410). For example, the message named by anchor = 'cite_web_url' (which displays "Missing or empty |url=") can again be hidden, as during the past 5 months, by setting the associated variable as "hidden=true". Do a similar reset to hide other messages which are flooding major articles with numerous annoying messages about fixing dozens of URL parameters or other tedious busywork. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we turn off the latest batch of error messages, temporarily, until this bot (or another) has completed fixing those that can be automatically resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
requires |url=
. Here is the text from the help page:To resolve this error, provide a value for
|url=
or remove|accessdate=
. Editors should try to determine why the citation has|accessdate=
without|url=
. For example, the citation may never have had a|url=
, or|url=
may have been removed because it links to a site that violates the creator's copyright (see WP:COPYLINK), or because|url=
was deemed to be dead and (mistakenly) removed. If the citation never had|url=
or it was removed for copyright violations, remove|accessdate=
. When a dead|url=
has been removed, restore the|url=
and if possible repair it (see WP:LINKROT).
|accessdate=
or hiding <!--
|accessdate=
-->
fails to make any actual repair; all that has been accomplished is a masking of the issue, once masked, no one knows if that citation could have been properly repaired because an indicator, perhaps the only indicator, of a problem is no longer visible to editors who could make the appropriate repairs.I noticed this while editing Dan Roberts (singer):
|via=
is used with or without a |subscription=
, the hidden category
Category:Subscription required using via is still invoked.-- Lexein ( talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
|subscription=no
should not cause a CS1 template to display the subscription required link note, I'm not sure of the benefit of changing its current operation. What I understand you to be saying and I think what you tried to do by setting |subscription=no
is to cancel the subscription required state partially invoked by |via=
. To do that would require extensive work that I'm not sure needs doing.|subscription=
works. If we can get an admin to check my work and synch
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration please.|via=
and |subscription=
as entirely independent:
|via=
should generate only
Pages containing links to a secondary content provider (or words to that effect).|subscription=yes
should generate only
Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content.|subscription=
and |subscription=no
should generate nothing.|subscription=yes
alone (without via=) is valid.|via=
is used, but no subscription is required anywhere, yet during editing two wrong hidden categories are asserted now:
Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content and
Category:Subscription required using via. After saving, just the
Category:Subscription required using via remains. '"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000010A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1"></cite> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Empty citation ([[Help:CS1 errors#empty_citation|help]])</span>
Done.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
See e.g. Bulimia_nervosa#cite_note-34: notice that the automatically generated URL that the article title points to (a) is duplicated by the URL after the internal link " PMC", and (b) is an HTTP link, whereas the one after " PMC" is an HTTPS link. It Is Me Here t / c 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
prefix = '//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC',
http:
or the https:
url schemes. There is code in
Module:Citation/CS1 that creates the external link for |title=
from the |PMC=
value. That code explicitly uses the http:
url scheme.http:
or the https:
url schemes, the PMC element link is somehow inheriting https:
from Wikipedia which is now https:
by default.https:
url scheme while the OSTI element specifies http:
url scheme:
prefix = '//www.worldcat.org/oclc/',
prefix = 'http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=',
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Broft, Allegra (July 2012).
"Striatal dopamine in bulimia nervosa..." International Journal of Eating Disorders. 45 (5): 648–656.
doi:
10.1002/eat.20984.
PMC
3640453.
PMID
22331810. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Broft, Allegra (July 2012).
"Striatal dopamine in bulimia nervosa..." International Journal of Eating Disorders. 45 (5): 648–656.
doi:
10.1002/eat.20984.
PMC
3640453.
PMID
22331810. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
http:
url scheme. The title element link and the PMC element link are now the same in the sandbox version of the citation. Looks like this change is correct and needs to be applied to all of the identifiers in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox.{{
citation/core}}
) version has both title and PMC links as https:
.|title=
.{{
citation/identifier}}
(the part of the {{
citation/core}}
suite that deals with PMC) has a mixture of http and protocol relative urls. There is no https in either place. So, the protocol relative urls are being converted to https by some mechanism outside of {{citation/core}}
and outside of
Module:Citation/CS1.{{
citation/identifier}}
. The ones that are now using the http://
URI scheme did not work proper with http://
. The links that worked with both use the protocol relative scheme. It appears that changes have been made to some sites: OSTI now appears to work using either method. But, doi still fails with http://
. Before suggesting mass changes, we need to test all. Here are samples of the current implementation:Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=arxiv |input1=0709.0674}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=asin |input1=B00086U61Y}} |
HTTP / HTTPS |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=bibcode |input1=2007A&A...474..653V}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=doi |input1=10.3998/3336451.0004.203}} |
HTTP / (HTTPS requires login) |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=isbn |input1=978-0-471-70410-2}} |
links to Special:BookSources (links there are HTTP) |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=issn |input1=0028-0836}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=jfm |input1=54.0271.04}} |
HTTP / (HTTPS came up as untrusted site) |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=jstor |input1=2118559}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=lccn |input1=sn2006058112}} |
HTTP |
{{citation/identifier |identifier=mr |input1=96d:11071}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=oclc |input1=22239204}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=ol |input1=18319A}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=osti |input1=6851152}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=pmc |input1=1408034}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=pmid |input1=12122621}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=rfc |input1=882}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=ssrn |input1=512922}} |
|
{{citation/identifier |identifier=zbl |input1=0823.11029}} |
HTTP |
-- Gadget850 talk 22:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a list of all of the identifier-urls currently in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Currently, none of them are specified as https; rather, they are a mix of http and protocol relative. Those that don't work (all either https or protocol relative where the result is https) are noted.
Identifier-urls currently in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. Select show to expand.
|
---|
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 03:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
|PMC=
and only when used with {{
cite journal}}
. This cite book, for example, doesn't create a title link.{{cite journal}}
-unique parameter |embargo=
. |embargo=
takes a date value that is compared to the current date. If the date in |embargo=
is in the future,
Module:Citation/CS1 does not create a title link from the value in |PMC=
though it does create a link for the PMC element in the rendered citation. If the date in |embargo=
is in the past, Module:Citation/CS1 creates title and PMC element links from the value in |PMC=
. These links point to the same location.|PMC=
. I can understand why Module:Citation/CS1 would not create a link to an embargoed PMC but I see no reason why Module:Citation/CS1 should ever create a title link from it when no other id is handled that way.Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Embargo date is in the future".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Embargo date is in the future".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Example 1 |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Embargo date is in the past".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Embargo date is in the past".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Example 2 |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"No embargo date".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"No embargo date".
PMC
3640453. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Example 3 |
{{
cite compare}}
s.|embargo=
is in the future. I haven't yet sussed out how to do that.|embargo=<date>
is in the future, then |PMC=<id>
is not linked (Example 1). When |embargo=<date>
is in the past (Example 2), or when |embargo=
is empty or omitted (Example 3), |PMC=<id>
is linked.Done.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
All the links to cite-id external sources (PMID, PMC, OSTI, OCLC, etc.) should be changed to use protocol-relative format (omitting "http" or " https" where workable) as just "https://..." so users with high-security browsers will not switch between http/https protocols for the typical cite-id websites. Some browsers can be set to tediously warn/ask users when switching back-and-forth with http-mode, as a dangerous risk to expose viewable activity as "circumstantial evidence" in the midst of an all-secure browser session, perhaps when handling company-proprietary or mil-std secrets. However, for "url=" parameters, then each website should be checked for support of https-protocol pages; for example, some have suggested how Google Translate cannot handle "https" secure-protocol URL links to translate a whole webpage. Now, Lua is fast enough to auto-reset each URL, for http/https preference, but perhaps a special code of all-caps "HTTP:" (inside a link) could be used in Lua-based cites to bypass protocol-relative format and link via http non-secure protocol when the link prefix uses all-caps "HTTP" but that is a separate issue to discuss, after making all cite-id links as relative "https://..." format. - Wikid77 ( talk) 05:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add "trans_quote" for a translated quote from the book? - Ɍưɳŋınɢ 02:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
|transquote=
parameter? Could you not simply enclose the translation in square brackets? |quote=Original language quotation [English translation]
Was there a "notes" parameter in the past? I've seen it used [7] (and other places) but it's generating error messages now. — rybec 19:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
|notes=
parameter should be added to
Citation Style 1 but I'm not aware any previous implementation of that parameter. Before conversion to the
Module:Citation/CS1 engine, unknown parameters were simply ignored. The new engine expects all parameters included in a citation template to have meaning.I just used {{ Cite journal}} to make this edit that resulted in this Note 4. The title of a journal article is meant to be in quotation marks and not in italics, correct? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Emily Litella! (Never mind.) Seems to be okay, now. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
|volume=
into |issue=
:{{Cite journal |authorlink=Paul Kurtz |author=Kurtz, Paul |url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_18_2.html |title=Darwin Re-Crucified: Why Are So Many Afraid of Naturalism? |journal=[[Free Inquiry]] |date=Spring 1998 |volume=18 |issue=2}}
On
Template:Cite_journal/doc#Examples, the example labelled "If the article is in a foreign language, and the original title is unknown" now shows an error stating |trans_title=
requires |title=
. Should the example be changed, or should the error not be displayed? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 01:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There is plan to use a bot to trim cruft from Google Books URLs in citations. We need someone familiar with their format, to advise on which parameters can safely be trimmed, and which, if any, should be left. Can anyone advise, at Trimming cruft from Google Books URLs, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
"|regsitration=}}" should be: |registration=}} -- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 02:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
In just under five months, I fixed 5,000+ out of the original 8,000+ articles, and User:Gilo1969 fixed at least 1,350 articles, in Category:Pages with citations having wikilinks embedded in URL titles. There are 96 articles remaining, mostly Talk space articles that I believe should be prevented from showing up in the category, since we shouldn't "fix" them by messing with editors' writing in Talk space. Can Talk space (and other *Talk space) articles be set to display the errors (they are useful to alert editors to citation problems and to demonstrate malformed citations) but exclude the articles from this category?
The benefit of excluding Talk space articles would be to display an actual count and list of real articles and templates with errors. Scanning a list of 96 articles to look for one Article space link is no fun.
This situation also applies to other subcategories of Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Namespaces | |||
---|---|---|---|
Subject namespaces | Talk namespaces | ||
0 | (Main/Article) | Talk | 1 |
2 | User | User talk | 3 |
4 | Wikipedia | Wikipedia talk | 5 |
6 | File | File talk | 7 |
8 | MediaWiki | MediaWiki talk | 9 |
10 | Template | Template talk | 11 |
12 | Help | Help talk | 13 |
14 | Category | Category talk | 15 |
100 | Portal | Portal talk | 101 |
118 | Draft | Draft talk | 119 |
710 | TimedText | TimedText talk | 711 |
828 | Module | Module talk | 829 |
Former namespaces | |||
108 | Book | Book talk | 109 |
442 | Course | Course talk | 443 |
444 | Institution | Institution talk | 445 |
446 | Education Program | Education Program talk | 447 |
2300 | Gadget | Gadget talk | 2301 |
2302 | Gadget definition | Gadget definition talk | 2303 |
2600 | Topic | 2601 | |
Virtual namespaces | |||
-1 | Special | ||
-2 | Media | ||
Current list (API call) |
So what's the next step to make this happen? Do I/we need to do something formal? Am I being impatient? I've made a lot of minor edits, so I know my way around page editing and citations, but I'm very new to the wikiocracy side of things, RfCs and all that.
Do any of this page's 100 other watchers want to comment on this proposal? (FWIW, Module talk:Citation/CS1 has 31 watchers, probably a subset of the people watching this page.) Let's hear from the lurkers.... – Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I am opposed to generating error messages in talk-page archives, *live* articles, or even in project-space "WP:" pages. Instead, we need to continually think about auto-correction of invalid parameters. For example:
Those are enough examples, but I think it becomes fairly obvious how over 95% of error messages can be removed, as replaced by auto-correction of data. There is no need to show thousands of error messages in talk-pages or archives forever, or in live articles viewed by millions of people. In today's computer systems of "live typesetting" then the displayed page needs to be auto-formatted, as text is auto-aligned and images are floated into position as the text is wrapped. Let people put "section=Part C" and perhaps one day, we will retro-format a "section=" parameter as being similar to a chapter. The big design flaw in Wikipedia editing, the colossal failure of software development, was to omit a "preview-mode" tag for critical warning messages (aka "<previewonly>" as "<includeonly>"), which would only display during edit-preview as proofreader's marks to the editor, but be suppressed for live typesetting, or talk-pages, when saved. Otherwise, hide those messages and auto-correct to improve the auto-typesetting of text. The warnings in tracking categories are the way to pinpoint common problems, and to focus maintenance editing. - Wikid77 ( talk) 11:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Since wikilinks are discouraged in the template, it may be helpful to include a field equivalent to authorlink
for when a specific article exists. --
Nessunome (
talk) 20:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |title=On the Origin of Species |titlelink=On the Origin of Species |last=Darwin |first=Charles}}
|titlelink=
wins:{{cite book |title=On the Origin of Species |titlelink=On the Origin of Species |url=http://www.example.com |last=Darwin |first=Charles}}
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |titlelink=
ignored (|title-link=
suggested) (
help)I've cited the introduction to a book, as:
<ref name="Mabey">Mabey, Richard, Introduction to {{cite book|last=Ashby |first=Eric |title=The Secret Life of the New Forest |year=1989 |publisher=[[Chatto & Windus]] |isbn=0701134046 }}</ref>
Is there a better way to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |last= Phipps |first= Makena Elizabeth |year= 2004 |chapter= Forward |editor1-last= Phipps |editor1-first= Terry W |title= Seasons of Sleeping Bear |location= Ann Arbor, MI |publisher= University of Michigan Press |page=5 |isbn= 0-472-11445-X}}
others = Introduction by Richard Mabey
together with at = Introduction, p. vii
The Chicago Manual of Style recommends a format like:
or else like:
I prefer the look of the original method, which gives a result closer to the Chicago Manual of Style, over the "others" method. It is more obvious that Mabey is being cited. This is a bit awkward to achieve using {{sfn}}, which I also prefer, but a close-enough effect is possible. [1] Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still relatively new around here, so there may be an obvious answer to this question. What is the best tool to fix articles in Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs?
In its most common form, the error in question is a CS1 citation with a url but no title, like this:
{{cite web|url=http://foo.com|author=John Doe|date=January 1, 2000|title=}}
which renders thus:
John Doe (January 1, 2000).
http://foo.com. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
(And yes, I know there are other conditions that cause this error, but let's look at this basic one for now.)
I have discovered and used the delightful
WP:REFLINKS, but that seems to do its best work only on truly bare URLs, such as "<ref>http://foo.com</ref>"
. It does not appear to be subtle enough to see a "cite web" template with no title, dig one up, and insert it for me.
Is there another similar tool that people use to grab titles for citations that lack them? There must be some semi-automated way to fix the 10,000 articles in this category. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
In {{
cite journal}}
, if all the authors are placed in |coauthors=
, none are displayed and no error is thrown. See
ref 3 here. The actual {{
cite journal}}
is
{{cite journal|coauthors=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers�, Cathleen G. Staggs, Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); replacement character in |coauthors=
at position 26 (
help)but I have determined that the "�" is not a contributory factor. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); replacement character in |coauthors= at position 26 (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); replacement character in |coauthors= at position 26 (
help)
|
|authorn=
or |lastn=
/ |firstn=
pairs.Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | McCabe-Sellers�, Beverly J.
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (
help); replacement character in |last= at position 15 (
help)
|
Sandbox | McCabe-Sellers�, Beverly J.
"Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge". Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65. {{
cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (
help); replacement character in |last= at position 15 (
help)
|
{{cite journal|last2=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers |last3 = Cathleen G. Staggs |last4 = Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help){{cite journal|editor2=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers |editor3 = Cathleen G. Staggs |editor4 = Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing |editor1=
(
help){{cite journal|last1=Beverly J. McCabe-Sellers |last3 = Cathleen G. Staggs |last4 = Margaret L. Bogle|title=Tyramine in foods and monoamine oxidase inhibitor drugs: A crossroad where medicine, nutrition, pharmacy, and food industry converge|journal=Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19 (2006) S58–S65|url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/7351/PDF}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing |author2=
(
help){{
cite compare}}
above. Help documentation will need to be done when and if this change becomes live.One of my interests is artists who work as illustrators. For {{
Cite book}} (and perhaps others), we should have an |illustrator=
parameter; not least as |others=
doesn't really offer sufficient
data granularity.
We should replicate the |authormask=
parameter as |illustratormask=
(and probably also as |editormask=
), so that we can use the template in bibliographies for such people.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite newsgroup has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
. The URL structure for accessing posts through the Google Groups Web API appears to have changed slightly. The URL's already generated through googleid still work but now brings up a web interface as opposed to the original raw posting. I've added a rawid param in the sandbox code to allow for generation of links to raw postings without additional clutter. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
|rawid=
is supposed to be used?{{{googleid}}}
- Google Groups specific identifer used to link to the original version of a posting archived at Google Groups. The Google specfic-identifer can be determined by clicking 'Show Original' in the Groups UI. The Google Style id is the number between the "/msg/" and "?dmode=" portions of the URL used to show the original concerned.
{{{rawid}}}
- Google Groups specifc id for linking to the raw text version of an archived posting at google-groups. This identifer can be determined from the URL of the raw posting concerned as the portion after the newsgroup name, for example in https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.books.pratchett/kBy-RgLTI5w/4zMfQKz5vKkJ the rawid param would kBy-RgLTI5w/4zMfQKz5vKkJ
The template will recognise either of these, all though use of a rawid is preferable as it links directly to the raw source posting, without the encumbrance of the Groups UI."
The sandbox version was used in 2 live examples at /info/en/?search=Havelock_Vetinari, with no seeming issue. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
|googleid=
(the Show only message button) so if an editor wants only the raw post then the editor can get the url of the raw post and put the url in |url=
to get the same result as |rawid=
. Doing this seems to me to be just about the same amount of work. I agree with Editor Wikid77 that a better name for the parameter might be preferred if this change is to be made. So my real question is: just what is being fixed here?(browser overhead) and there is no guarantee that this redirection will be maintained longer term. Also accessing the post via the groups UI is tracked whereas the rawtext via Googleraw is not. (It's my view Wikipedia should not inadvertently support user tracking, where means to avoid it exist.) Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 10:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{{rawid}}}
to {{{googleraw}}}
Sfan00 IMG (
talk) 10:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC){{
cite newsgroup}}
citation:|googleraw=
:
{{cite newsgroup/sandbox |author=Niel |title=60009 Union of South Africa |date=Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT) |newsgroup=uk.railway |id=ef67006-16f6-45f8-9974-0dfda8a19b56@googlegroups.com |googleraw=yKUWdsleodw/WvT39YDCLtQJ}}
{{
cite newsgroup}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |googleraw=
ignored (
help)|url=
:
{{cite newsgroup/sandbox |author=Niel |title=60009 Union of South Africa |date=Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT) |newsgroup=uk.railway |id=ef67006-16f6-45f8-9974-0dfda8a19b56@googlegroups.com |url=https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=uk.railway/yKUWdsleodw/WvT39YDCLtQJ}}
{{
cite newsgroup}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)|url=
parameter is very common so editors who have spent any time with the more common
Citation Style 1 templates will understand its purpose. Not so with |googleid=
or |googleraw=
with which most editors will be unfamiliar. The |url=
parameter meets all of the points addressed in your first reason without the creation of a new parameter.|url=
and linking to the UI version:
{{cite newsgroup/sandbox |author=Niel |title=60009 Union of South Africa |date=Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT) |newsgroup=uk.railway |id=ef67006-16f6-45f8-9974-0dfda8a19b56@googlegroups.com |url=https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/uk.railway/yKUWdsleodw/WvT39YDCLtQJ}}
{{
cite newsgroup}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)|googleraw=
prevents tracking.which is probably more in keeping with the CS1 style you mention. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite newsgroup}}
. That being the case, I propose to deprecate |googleid=
and then remove it altogether. Comments?Why don't the CS1 blank template examples (the things you copy and past into articles) all follow the same basic logic/order of something like AUTHOR -> DATE -> TITLE -> WORK -> PUBLISHER -> QUOTE (or whatever)? Why is each template example in a different order? Is it intentional or is it just the result of organic growth/lack of coordination/no one has gotten to it yet? Having each one in a different order makes CS1 referencing seem harder than it is - its confusing, especially to newbies. Not only is each blank template ordered differently (Cite web vs. Cite news, for example), the order of each individual template doesn't even necessarily match what is displayed when you publish (assuming no fields are left blank). Cite web's blank template, for example, is ordered URL -> TITLE-> AUTHOR -> DATE etc. despite the fact that when the article is published the citation displays in the order AUTHOR -> DATE -> TITLE (with URL embedded) -> WEBSITE etc. When an author is cited, the author is always listed first in the published citation, but author isn't always the first entry in the template examples (as in Cite News, Cite Web) and that doesn't make sense to me. I realize that each template has some unique entries, but that doesn't mean we can't do a better job of bringing some consistency to the blank templates by putting entries in a more consistent order from template to template, in my opinion. (I realize that we can put the info in any order we want and it won't change the way the citation is displayed when published. My complaint is about usability/ease of understanding rather than coding/functionality.) Please educate me a bit on why things are as they are. Thanks. 65.102.187.47 ( talk) 04:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Joe |year=1974 |title=Book of Bloggs |last=I made a mistake}}
{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Joe |year=1974 |title=Book of Bloggs |last=}}
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)|last=
suppresses the display of |first=
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
|author=
always the first thing listed in every CS1 template example? The variation seems arbitrary, is unfriendly to newbies and degrades the user experience. Thank you.
174.21.215.184 (
talk) 01:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)|url=
", so some sorting based on usage needs to be prioritised. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
|
|last1=
|first1=
|authorlink1=
or |year=
|month=
have been lost. Placing an author's information into three widely-separated positions makes it easier to put the information into the wrong parameter - or to overlook one. Then, having located one or two of the
Template:Cite book#Identifiers - say |id=
and |isbn=
- it's easy to miss the others.Thanks to all who replied, those responses all address my question. Like Roger(Dodger67) and Jc3s5h, I would like the examples published in the help documentation to follow what is actually displayed when the code is published (and obviously apply the same logic to each CS1 template) and I feel that it makes sense to maintain the "natural semantic groups" that Redrose64 refers to. In addition to Redrose64's points, Ohc's alphabetical scheme also gives me heartburn because it makes the documentation less ideal. The long hand explanations describing the parameters should track the order displayed in the example. If you break up related items, it gets hard to convey that, for example, |author=
and |last= |first=
are equivalent and the user must pick one or the other but not both (plus alphabetical breaks up first and last which I really don't like at all).
Using Cite press release as an example, the help documentation is currently showing:
{{cite press release |last= |first= |title= |trans_title= |language= |date= |publisher= |location= |url= |format= |accessdate= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl= |quote= |ref= }}
but I would like the help documentation to show:
{{cite press release |author= |last= |first= |date= |title= |trans_title= |url= |format= |language= |location= |publisher= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl= |accessdate= |quote= |ref= }}
because this is how Cite press release publishes:
My friend Paul just played the best song ever written.
{{
cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)I'm willing to work on "standardizing" the documentation pages, but don't want to begin until those with objections have a chance to continue the discussion. 174.21.204.77 ( talk) 02:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
|author=
not appear in the same copypaste list as |last=
- they are aliases, and so are mutually exclusive. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the "number" parameter a synonym for "issue"? Or it it related to "series" and "version"? Some journals (quite a few, and seemingly more common in the past) use a volume/number system instead of a volume/issue system. The "number" parameter needs to be in the docs anyway. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
|number=
is an alias of |issue=
.
The 'work' parameter applies italics to the work's content. Should website names which do not have an attached print periodical, like Metacritic or IMDB, be italicized? And if not, how should that be accomplished? -- Odie5533 ( talk) 19:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite web |url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/seven-samurai |title=Seven Samurai (re-release) |website=[[Metacritic]] |accessdate=2013-10-05}}
{{
noitalics}}
but both of those do corrupt the
COinS metadata so are not viable mechanisms to subvert the template's normal operation."smaller" of largerI intended to convey the idea of the similar "chapter" of book or "article" of journal model that WP:MOSTITLE specifies in that "page" of website is analogous.
|website=
an alias of |work=
or similar, or a parameter in its own right? --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
field instead. I certainly don't think that |website=
should be lumped in (and italicise) with |work=
because their nature, in MOS terms, are not the same. Our convention is to italicise only a very small proportion of websites, so the technology does not follow our conventions. Having |website=
will create many problems and editors may attempt to toggle fix (with italicisation). --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|noitalics=
, to somehow not show italics for certain works. --
Odie5533 (
talk) 04:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|website=
parameter was added as an alias for |work=
because editors weren't understanding how to use |work=
.|website=
is an alias of |work=
. Bearing in mind that the majority of websites are unitalicised per our convention, thus automatically (and wrongly) italicised. For me, it matters less what the parameters are called, but it's important that the different parameters within a citation template render the content deliberately and as desired. On that basis, it would be more user-friendly to give parameters meaningful names as to the output because use of |website=
leads to wrong formatting in eight cases out of ten. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC){{
cite web}}
documentation to see if |work=
has ever been anything other than italicized and if websites were ever part of the |work=
definition. Here is what I found:Date | Description |
---|---|
31 August 2006 | First definition of
|work= in {{
cite web}} documentation
|
27 September 2007 | Website as one of the definitions of |work=
introduced
|
19 October 2007 | |work= definition
refined
|
15 January 2010 | Note that editors should not italicize |work= value
added
|
2 July 2011 | |work= definition
expanded and clarified
|
15 February 2012 | Template:Citation Style documentation/work created |
15 February 2012 |
|work= definition from
Template:Citation Style documentation/work via
Template:Citation Style documentation
|
14 July 2012 | Template:Citation Style documentation/work moved without leaving a redirect to Template:Citation Style documentation/web |
27 April 2013 |
|website= as alias for |work=
|
First |work= code:
| |
21 February 2006 |
First {{cite web}} code:
|
may or may notsay.
use of |website=
leads to wrong formatting in eight cases out of ten
?Can I take it from the above that "BBC News" (meaning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ -- the BBC website formerly called BBC News Online) should be italicised? I think it should, but have been taken to task by some editors for doing so. We ought to be clear about this because it is a source we use so much. -- Alarics ( talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
BBC News is the value for |work=
or |website=
and so is italicized in the rendered citation. Outside of a CS1 template, I think that you must try to interpret what
WP:MOSTITLE may or may notrequire. Interpreting WP:MOSTITLE as it applies outside of CS1 is a topic best discussed elsewhere so that this discussion doesn't wander off into the weeds.
{{
cite news}}
is |publisher=
and not |work=
(etc.) so that it would not be italicised. That's the issue in dispute. --
Alarics (
talk) 21:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
):
{{cite news |title=Syria chemical arms removal begins |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24419468 |work=[[BBC News]] |department=Middle East |publisher=[[BBC]] |date=6 October 2013}}
|work=
or an alias thereof and shall be italicized. Alas, I am not king. Do you choose elsewise, then without we change CS1, you are left with handcrafting your citations.|publisher=
rather than |work=
so that less "handcrafting" would be required. But as this page seems to be watched by only a few, it's probably not the best place to be discussing CS1 vs MOS:ITALIC. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
I think should be left alone and not used for this purpose. But perhaps |website=
should be changed to no longer be an alias to |work=
and instead output the website name without italics. Per MOSTITLE, it seems like BBC News actually should be italicized as it publishes original content much like HuffPo or Salon. But the point still holds that many websites, per MOSTITLE, should not be italicized. --
Odie5533 (
talk) 03:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=
. The news channel resides at
BBC News (TV channel); the outlet with original content is the website,
BBC News Online. None of the above three articles are given italics for now. The new media landscape is still causing a lot of confusion and uncertainty as to what needs italics. And whether BBC News Online should be italicised or not should depend on the consensus at that page. In the meantime, we should try as best to mirror that when filling in the appropriate field in the citation for correct format. --
Ohc
¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)|publisher=[[BBC]]
is generally redundant which is why I included the parenthetical disclaimer in my post.Huffington Post, Digital Spy, Reason, Salon, The Registerare identified as
italicisingand
non-italicisingall in the same sentence. Clarify please.
... these [italicizing/]non-italicising websites represent 80 percent of occurrences.Occurrences of what? Can you show data that supports the 80 percent claim?
an overwhelming majority of occurrences [that] are non-italicising, are there data to support that claim? Occurences of what? Citaions? Websites? Articles about the websites?
Hi there, here you can find a comment from Sue Gardner about some aspects of the template she's having trouble with (please disregard that it was filed as a VE bug). I think that conversation belongs here, so I'll redirect further comments to this page. Please ping her directly if you have thoughts/answers? Thank you! -- Elitre (WMF) ( talk) 11:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
What is the status of the bot request to fix CS1 errors? In the discussion around the RfC above, there were claims that a bot was going to fix many of the errors that were made visible via error messages on August 26. I have not seen evidence that bots have fixed a significant number of these errors. Paging the editors who supported the RfC: @ Pigsonthewing:, @ Panyd:, @ Wikid77:, @ Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:, @ GoingBatty:, @ Maile66:, @ Raintheone:, @ Ben MacDui: What is your plan?
For reference, the errors that were changed to display on August 26 were:
|displayauthors=8
or |displayeditors=3
to each of the broken citations, as appropriate. Editors of individual articles could then choose to modify the citations to match the article's prevailing citation variant. 100% bot-fixableFeel free to correct anything that I have written above.
And while we're at it, a bot should be able to fix the majority of articles in Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs by looking up article titles in the same way that Reflinks does. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
when the citation parameters |url=
, |archiveurl=
, and |deadurl=
are all empty or missing. No attempt is made to discriminate among the various CS1 templates; no attempt is made to discover if the citation ever had a valid |url=
.I had thought the RfC to suppress new messages might enter further discussion, but consensus has been called to hide the recent messages (activated 26 August 2013), and any cite-fixup editors should ensure they can see the hidden red-error messages afterward:
That line could be placed in a browser-skin file ( Special:MyPage/vector.css) so that other skins would omit the red-error messages.
The tracking categories (among those in wp:CS1CAT) as of 8 October 2013:
At the current rate of cleanup, it was taking months and months (years?) to fix all error messsages (as more invalid cites were being added unaware), but the categories will remain for long-term fixes. I have been working on a version of the CS1 Lua module which could auto-correct the errors, and show one small " [fix cite]" blue-link (for each type of repeated error) but no large red-error messages to alarm the casual readers. A common mistake is for people to forget to put "url=" before "http:" and another common mistake is when a user puts "url=www." without the "http" prefix. However, the auto-correction of "url=" to insert "http" might trigger a blacklist-website warning when a page is re-edited (but a very rare situation). Anyway, I just wanted people to know how auto-correction of many cite errors is possible with minor changes to the current CS1 Lua module, and we could continue to show hidden red-error messages at the same time. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:26/05:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, just posted here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Non-English-language_sites. 219.78.115.45 ( talk) 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia entries that contain many citations of news reports often cite articles developed by news agencies or wire servies, such as Reuters, the Associated Press, or AFP. In fact, my general sense is that the Associated Press are now cited more frequently as a source of news reporting than any other entity. Yet if you are using the cite news template with Wikipedia:RefToolbar/2.0 to cite an Associated Press article that was published in, say, the Washington Post or the New York Times, you have to click on "Show Extra Fields" to bring the Agency field from out of hiding. Many editors probably don't even realize that Agency is an option available specifically for cases such as these involving news agencies, since the field is hidden. (I certainly didn't until I had already been editing on Wikipedia for months and months.)
Can the Agency field be moved to the main window so that that extra step of having to click to display the secondary parameters won't be necessary (and so that editors will be more aware of having the option of naming the Agency in their citation)? I'm assuming that the reason the Agency field was not included in the main window is that it was felt that situations in which there is a need to use the field are relatively uncommon. I think today they are actually very common. Dezastru ( talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned in a separate thread that it would be extremely useful to have the Agency field moved to the main window of the Cite News template form. There are a couple of other tweaks that would also be very helpful, although not quite as necessary as moving the Agency field.
Second Author fields
While most news articles are written by a single bylined author, there are a large number of additional articles, especially on major pieces of reporting, that have a second author. Far more than have 3, or more, authors. Any chance that the second author fields (last2 and first2) could be moved to the main window? Even as the template form stands, there is just a "second author" field, not "second author last name" and "second author first name" fields. So with these articles I always have to go back after submitting the form and manually add in the second author's first and last names. That extra step, aside from being an annoyance, is just two more places to introduce errors.
Work field, rather than just "Newspaper" field
Increasingly, many of the news items editors are citing come from sources other than newspapers, yet the cite news template form does not reflect this fact. Could maybe the Work field, or another appropriate alternative, be placed on the main window? "Newspaper" just doesn't work if you are citing NPR's Morning Edition, CNN's The Situation Room, or BBC's Newsnight.
Dezastru (
talk) 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
template itself, but with a tool that you haven't identified. Perhaps the visual editor?Based on the discussion above regarding template to template documentation consistency, I've updated Template:Cite press release's documentation page. Please take a look and discuss your concerns here. I'd like to get Cite press release in a form that most accept/agree upon so I can then go forward and apply similar logic on the other CS1 documentation pages. (Note: I have not created "Full Parameter Set" templates yet on Cite press release.) 174.21.150.66 ( talk) 20:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|deadurl=
near |archiveurl=
, which is consistent with other templates and represents the conventional wisdom. While I understand that placement from a coding logic standpoint, it is not helpful to users in my opinion. Placing |deadurl=
directly after |archiveurl=
suggests that the user is being asked to note if the archiveurl is dead, which is incorrect. Placing |deadurl=
directly after |url=
helps guide users into answering the correct question "Is the main URL dead?". I realize that from a coding/dependency standpoint |deadurl=
and |archiveurl=
"go together" and the conventional wisdom puts them together in the documentation, but this is a case where I feel the conventional wisdom in wrong. We need to ask "What would a relatively new user who is struggling to learn to do things the "right" way expect to see?" I think they'd expect to see a declaration about the main URL directly after the URL parameter, not 7 entries after it. (FWIW, you can add |deadurl=
without a corresponding |archiveurl=
entry and it causes no problems - the |deadurl=
entry is ignored.) Suggestions?
174.21.150.66 (
talk) 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)|deadurl=
would do something with regard to |url=
. When it didn't, I'd be surprised and confused.|deadurl=yes
, that perhaps a better name for the parameter might be something like |prearchive=
for preëmptive archive. This is consistent with the original and still valid purpose of |deadurl=no
: to indicate that the archive is included in the citation as a backup in case the url goes 404.|ref=
, |trans_title=
, |format=
and |language=
, for example. I rarely run across articles using HARV or SFN referencing and in my experience, editors rarely cite foreign language sources. Those parameters are probably better referred to as "good to be aware of for those few times when you may need them." (Admittedly I do see |format=
, but only from time to time, not every day in every article.)|deadurl=
and |prearchive=
. I have some ideas. Where is that discussion happening? I will post my thoughts in that place so we don't get off in the weeds here.
174.21.150.66 (
talk) 01:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)|deadurl=
. There are several in the archives. Start another?In the pre-LUA days, one could just view the code of a CS1 template by hitting the edit link and it would show all the parameters, their aliases, etc. in read only mode. I've been reading the LUA documentation and some other related resources and I can't figure out how one views the coded parameters of a CS1 template now (again, I just want to look, not edit). It's probably laughably easy, so feel free to give me some mild grief, as long as you help me out first. Thanks. 174.21.208.110 ( talk) 22:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
invoke:citation/CS1|citation
" which means it calls function citation
in
Module:Citation/CS1. While viewing the source of the template, there is a list of stuff called at the bottom of the page that includes a link to that module. In principle you could read through the module, but it's complex, and I guess you are reliant on the documentation instead (which is very good). Searching for "args" in the module (and with some luck) leads to
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist which lists (I think) the expected arguments, although from a technical point of view, a module could access a template argument at just about any line in the entire series of modules, so the brief answer is that you cannot readily determine what parameters are used.
Johnuniq (
talk) 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)( edit conflict):These:
In LUA converted templates, one can enter and display up to 100 authors and editors per
Wikipedia:Lua-based_cite_templates. I updated the Authors and editors sections for
Help:Citation_Style_1 to reflect the LUA changes (and made some other improvements), but I'm concerned that's a goof up because not all CS1 templates are LUA converted. I went to
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/display and was about to update |display-authors=
to reflect the LUA changes, but that's when it hit me that I may have jumped the gun... Advice?
174.21.229.136 (
talk) 23:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
|last=100
, there is nothing in the essay or in the code that limits the number of authors and editors. As long as the numbered list of authors is monotonically increasing and begins with |last1=
(or the appropriate alias) editors can list however many authors as they would like to list. This same applies to the |editorn=
parameters as well.I went into
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/display to update the template documentation to reflect LUA coding changes, particularly those affecting |display-authors=
and |display-editors=
. However, once I got into the document and took a closer look, there are already notes specific to LUA template documentation that are preceded by a logic phrase {{#if: {{{lua|}}}
. However, I looked at the template documentation for both
Template:Cite press release and
Template:Cite web and the "Display options" section of each shows the wrong, non-LUA information. For whatever reason, the template documentation is not picking up the "if LUA" logic and displaying the correct LUA specific documentation. Fixing this is beyond my capabilities - help needed! Thanks.
97.113.6.193 (
talk) 02:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
|lua=yes
to the {{
csdoc}}
template in the CS1 template's documentation page. So in this case, {{csdoc|display}}
changed to {{csdoc|display|lua=yes}}
.I have updated the Template:Cite news documentation according to the discussion items above to bring more uniformity to the CS1 help docs. Both the Template:Cite press release and Template:Cite news docs now follow the same basic format with minor changes as needed based on typical usage for each citation type. (Cite news still lacks most commonly used vertical skeletons; I'll get to that.) 97.113.6.193 ( talk) 05:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Type parameter and cite press release and cite thesis which I should have started here. Your opinion is solicited.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if "supplement" is covered by something else or what is meant by that. If it needs to be here can someone add it? Or documenatation on how to cite stuff like "67 Suppl 4:3-7." in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16683856 and fix like here SSRI_discontinuation_syndrome#cite_note-17 that I just happened to stumble upon. comp.arch ( talk) 11:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
{{cite journal |last=Shelton |first=RC |title=The Nature of the Discontinuation Syndrome Associated with Antidepressant Drugs |journal=[[Journal of Clinical Psychiatry]] |volume=67 |issue=Suppl 4 |year=2006 |pmid=16683856 |pages=3–7}}
cite journal
in use at the time did not support a |supplement=
. As far as I know, it never has.Please see Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Date_checking. Comments and opinions solicited.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss the parameters. I believe the parameters should be as is, but there is potential for an edit war, so I wanted to discuss. Personally, there are a few issues with doing that. First of all, it can be inconvenient or confusing, such as changing quote of source to just quote., which we're also not Simple English Wikipedia and it is often more specific and descriptive for the reader. Any thoughts? Sportsguy17 ( click to talk • contributions) 02:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
|nopp=
, compound parameters like |trans_title=
and |archiveurl=
or for differentiating similar parameters like |last2=
from |last3=
. I'm fine with the labels used in cite book, cite web, cite news and cite journal and think they area good examples of appropriate labeling. Unfortunately, cite press release doesn't compare to those other templates. It takes the idea way too far. Cite press release actually gives instructions in the label field, which is clearly not the intent of a "Label". That's the purpose of the description field. To jonesy95's point above, if the description is inadequate, then we take the obvious route and expand the description, not expand the scope of the other columns. If someone believes that the Visual Editor team has made the wrong decision and wishes to change from Label/Description to Short description/Long description, then you need to have that discussion with them and the result needs to be applied consistently throughout the CS1 template documentation. (Although I'd argue that we don't need two description fields of varying lengths...that's silly. One description field is entirely adequate.) There is nothing so special about cite press releases that justifies it being different from all the other CS1 templates.Could someone please add |contribution=
to the documentation for
Template:Cite web? It appears to work on pages such as
Conyers baronets. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Within the next couple of days I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration from their respective sandboxes. Details at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Update to the live CS1 module.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The current display for archived urls, when the original is a deadlink, looks like this:
The "Retrieved [accessdate]" snippet is in the wrong place. It should instead display as:
Otherwise there is confusion about whether the archive or the original was retrieved on accessdate, and the default interpretation would be wrong. – SJ + 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
All three dates are significant, for pages that change over time. I'm not sure how best to display them compactly, but we should store all three somewhere in the page's data. A given source was published on [pubdate], read by the editor on [accessdate], and archived by a snapshot on [archivedate].
– SJ + 19:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
There should be an option for including links to archiveurls that isn't so clumsy. Right now, on a page where this is widely used, the text
appears next to every footnote.
As an alternative, I propose two additional display modes.
This would be less wordy, and visible at a distance as related to archiving and historical context, rather than two separate relevant links.
This could be implemented by adding a compactarchive option rather than changing the default for everyone; until there is consensus that a new display format is better than what we currently have. – SJ + 00:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
, |archivedate=
and |deadurl=
). WP is already byzantine enough in my opinion. If changes are going to be made, I'd prefer to see your proposal (or whatever all agree upon) replace the existing formatting, not supplement it. I'm OK with change on this issue, but I'm not excited about an added parameter that doesn't offer additional functionality or address an unmet need. Right now our needs are met - we are able to archive urls and control which url hyperlinks to [title] - you just don't like the way the elements are worded or displayed when published. That's fine, you have good points. Can we meet the need by focusing on modifying what we've already got rather than creating something new?
174.21.142.226 (
talk) 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
"Tweet2Cite" is a web service that accepts the URL of an individual tweet. and returns a pre-formatted citation in various formats (MLA, APA). At my request, they have added Wiki-markup (using {{ cite web}} to that list.
For example, submitting https://twitter.com/tweet2cite/status/395347292854562816 returns:
{{cite web |title= Tweet Number 395347292854562816 |url= https://twitter.com/tweet2cite/status/395347292854562816 |author= Tweet2Cite |date= 30 October 2013|accessdate= 30 October 2013 |quote= I can now produce properly formatted #Wikipedia citations for tweets. Thanks to @pigsonthewing for the great idea! #edtech #research |work= [[Twitter]] }}
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
On 21 October an anonymous editor changed the "most common parameters in horizontal format" on the "cite book" documentation. What the editor did makes very little sense to me and the reason cited was that somewhere up above (on this talk page) there was a consensus that better template-to-template uniformity was needed. One of the things this editor did was copy the "cite web" template which has a suggested format when there are no authors. This is bound to be confusing for new editors, as if somehow this is important. Whereas on web pages it is common to have no authors, this is rare for books. Also the suggested parameter set was changed from "year" to "date" and while putting the year in for the date parameter works, this may may also confuse new editors since books are published by year and not a specific date. My own opinion is that you can take template-to-template uniformity too far. In the non-electronic world, books versus journals versus newspapers have entirely different citation requirements and I think the "most common parameters" suggestions should conform to that, not to template-to-template uniformity. In a way it is not a big deal, so I am not going to push the issue very hard, but at some point if people agree with me I may change it back. LaurentianShield ( talk) 19:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite techreport}}
is similar to {{
cite thesis}}
and {{
cite press release}}
in that under certain conditions it sets a default |type=
. If |number=
is set, then |type=Technical report {{{number}}}
otherwise a default |type=
is not specified. This behavior is inconsistent because when |number=
is empty or omitted, |type=
is not set to a default.
So, as part of migrating {{cite techreport}}
I propose to change the behavior so that it mimics
proposed changes to {{cite thesis}}
and {{cite press release}}
.
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= and |type= missing or empty
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Technical report). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= set; |type= missing or empty
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= missing or empty; |type= set
|
{{cite techreport}}
uses |number=
to control |type=
display. Unlike |degree=
in {{cite thesis}}
, |number=
is not unique to {{cite techreport}}
. |number=
(an alias of |issue=
) is routinely used in periodical-type citations ({{
cite journal}}
). As the Lua code currently exists, if |title=
is set to any value (including none
) and |number=
is set, then the rendered citation includes |number=
as shown in these two citation examples:
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL? (Another type). DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= and |type= set
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL?. DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Ouyang, M.; N. Johnson (1996). How good are branching rules in DPLL?. DIMACS. 96-38. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|number= set; |type=none
|
In {{cite thesis}}
, |degree=
is ignored when |type=none
. Regardless of the state of |type=
, {{cite thesis}}
displays |number=
if it's set so in that sense, the behavior of the two Lua-based citations is the same.
Should {{cite techreport}}
ignore |number=
if |type=
is set?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
|type=none
? At that point, haven't you pretty much reduced the citation to {{
cite journal}}
(perhaps disguised as {{
cite document}}
which is the same thing) or {{
cite web}}
?|number=
in {{
cite techreport}}
. |number=
, as it is used with the other citation templates that have migrated to
Module:Citation/CS1, is an alias of |issue=
though this fact doesn't seem to be well documented. Were I writing a citation to one of the IBM Research Reports Editor Jc3s5h noted and I didn't have {{cite techreport}}
I would very likely use {{cite web}}
; perhaps like this:{{cite web |url=http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/papers/4AE4B674EEF2BE1185257BFA0057FBB0/$File/rc25412.pdf |format=pdf |title=A Functional Data Model for Analytics |first=Doug |last=Kimelman |first2=Manny |last2=Perez |id=RC25412 |type=Research Report |website=IBM Research Division |publisher=[[IBM]] |date=30 September 2013}}
|number=
, this citation uses |id=
which, I think, is a more appropriate parameter.{{cite thesis}}
, {{cite press release}}
, and {{cite techreport}}
have much use beyond editor shorthand for the simplest of citations.|type=
a bit differently. |type=
can be a pamphlet, a leaflet, a sign, a plaque, a restaurant menu, a DVD, a CD, a wax cylinder, etc. Books, journals, magazines, websites are also some type of medium. A techreport, which is really just a document, fits that description. Yeah, a technical report is a purpose; so is press release, thesis, encyclopedia, journal, etc. I think type is here to give the citation information that is otherwise not available in the standard parameters that reading between the lines of a book or journal or encyclopedia citation deliver.|number=
in {{
cite techreport}}
should go away? should be replaced? with what? I confess to not fully understanding your last post.|title=none
?So I've tweaked CS1/sandbox. Because, to me, |number=
is the wrong parameter to be using because it has other meaning in other CS1 templates, I've changed the code to assign whatever value is set by |number=
to |id=
.
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (Technical report). 12345. {{
cite tech report}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite techreport
|
---|---|
Live | Title (Technical report). 98765. {{
cite tech report}} : More than one of |id= and |number= specified (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (Technical report). 98765. {{
cite tech report}} : More than one of |id= and |number= specified (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
With this in place, |number=
can be deprecated and ultimately removed from existing templates.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
|number=
doesn't end up in the
COinS metadata:{{cite techreport/new |title=Title <!-- |id=12345 --> |number=88888}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000234-QINU`"'<cite class="citation techreport cs1">''Title'' (Technical report). 88888.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=report&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+3" class="Z3988"></span>
I give up on techreport. I'll be sure to avoid using it. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
|id=
is a generic parameter for things like
MathSciNet review number or
Bibcode or
ISBN (but not those three because they have their own parameters): identifiers assigned by some other agency. |number=
is the parameter that should be used for the number of a technical report in a technical report series (where the series is apparently specified by |type=
and may be "Research report" or whatever as Jc3s5h says. I believe the correct behavior is to default type to "Technical report", use the number when it is supplied, and use the id only the same way as it is used for other CS1 types: tacked on to the end. As for me, I have generally avoided techreport; I use {{
cite book}} or {{
citation}} (depending on the citation style of the article) with |series=Technical report
(or whatever other parameter value would match the type of technical report) and with the report number in the |volume=
parameter. My preference would be for {{
cite techreport}} to format things in the same way that {{
cite book}} does, because I don't see a good reason for them to differ. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)|id=
is a generic parameter for things like
MathSciNet review number or
Bibcode or
ISBN... : identifiers assigned by some other agency.
assigned by some other agencyrequirement documented?
|number=
, an alias of |issue=
, has this
definition:
{{cite techreport}}
citations that used |number=
. In twelve of those citations, |number=
was a mix of alphanumeric characters often containing dashes of one form or another. In two cases, simple two-digit numbers might have been series sequence numbers (or not because in both cases the number was used as the filename in the document's url and not in the document itself). In one instance, the template should have been {{
cite journal}}
where the number refers to "Preprint No.411". From this small, simple sampling, it would seem that, when they use it, editors are treating |number=
as |id=
.{{
cite techreport}}
formats the citation in the same way as {{
cite book}}
(and {{
cite journal}}
) as long as |number=
is treated as an ID. Does this not align with your stated preferences?
{{cite techreport/new |title=Title |number=88888}}
{{cite book |title=Title |type=Technical report |id=88888}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) {{cite journal |title=Title |type=Technical report |id=88888}}
What I meant was more like
which produces
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help)(I don't like the period between "Technical report" and the TR number but whatever. Basically, I don't see the conceptual difference between a technical report series and a book series — they're both a series of standalone publications produced by some publisher — so I think they should be formatted the same way. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
|series=
would be the title of the series (|volume=
is used here as the series sequence number):
{{cite techreport/new |author=Author|year=year|title=Title |series=Series Title |volume=26 |id=88888 |publisher=Publisher}}
{{
cite tech report}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |year=
(
help){{
cite techreport}}
migrated into the Lua module with the least amount of disruption. Perhaps this portion of the discussion should move to a different thread – either here or to
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests.A citation of with a |url=http:// produces a retrieved date formatted: 'Retrieved --date-- '
So does a reference to a .pdf file with a |format=PDF tag (It didn't used to)
But, a citation with a |url=https:// produces a retrieved date formatted: 'retrieved --date-- ' with a lower case 'r'. Can this be made consistent. Stuffed cat ( talk) 21:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
{{cite web | url=http://www.example.com | title= Example http url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{cite web | url=https://www.example.com | title= Example https url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{citation | url=http://www.example.com | title= Example http url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{citation | url=https://www.example.com | title= Example https url | accessdate = 23 Nov 2003}}
produces:{{
Citation}}
is a hybrid of the old {{
citation/core}}
and the new
Module:Citation/CS1. The part of {{citation}}
that uses {{citation/core}}
has to do with patents; the rest of the {{citation}}
functionality is handled by CS1.|separator=
, which for {{citation}}
defaults to a comma and for the other CS1 templates defaults to a full stop. As these two comparisons of old and new show, this behavior is consistent with the last version of {{citation/core}}
:Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 |
Sandbox | Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 |
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live |
Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 {{
citation}} : Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Example http url, retrieved 23 Nov 2003 {{
citation}} : Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (
help)
|
Does anybody have a script that can be used on each CS1 template to extract all the valid parameter names? The "all parameters" listing for cite web is now well out of date in the documentation. Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1 is that, unless specifically excluded, all parameters in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist are available to all of the cite templates marked in green in the
table.The {{subst:date}}
template doesn't seem to substitute the current date when used inside the {{
cite web}} template (see
Agoncillo, Batangas for example). Please have this corrected. Thanks. --
P 1 9 9
✉ 15:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags, I'm afraid. See
Help:Substitution#Limitation. --
John of Reading (
talk) 15:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Using |trans_title=
without |title=
but with |encyclopedia=
results in a cite error. See
Niels Kaas for an example. --
Auric
talk 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
|encyclopedia=
is an alias of |work=
. As far as I know, there has never been a |trans-work=
parameter like |trans-title=
or |trans-chapter=
. |trans-title=
is associated with |title=
(same with |trans-chapter=
and |chapter=
). So, the error message that you are seeing is correct.{{cite encyclopedia |ref=harv |last=Bricka |first=Carl Frederik |authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka |encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]] |trans-chapter=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814 |url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html |edition=1st |year=1895 |volume=IX |pages=65–71 |article=Niels Kaas |language=da}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)|language=da
so {{
da icon}}
can go away.|trans_title=
in the absence of an English title:{{cite encyclopedia |ref=harv |last=Bricka |first=Carl Frederik |authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka |encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]] [Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814] |url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html |edition=1st |year=1895 |volume=IX |pages=65–71 |article=Niels Kaas |language=da}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)Template:DNB creates a citation that is showing a CS1 date error with today's new module code. The date parameter uses "1885–1900" because the cited source was initially published in 60+ volumes over the course of 16 years.
Any ideas on how to resolve this error? This template is transcluded in 6,375 articles. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite DNB}}
as a default when editors don't supply a volume number. It would seem the rare case where an editor is citing the entirety of the DNB. In the preponderance of cases, DNB citations should be pointing to specific articles in specific volumes.{{
venn}}
at
Template_talk:Venn#Citing Venn or citing ACAD?.The current CS1 module places articles using |coauthors=
in
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters but does not display an error message (for me). This makes it more difficult to find and fix the problem, since it's then a matter of guessing which deprecated parameter is in use and where in the article it is located.
Is there a way to choose to show error messages for the citations that contain deprecated parameters? I wouldn't want them to show up for everyone, but I'd like to see them. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
|day=
, |month=
, |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
are concatenated into other Lua module variables. So, these parameters don't show up as unique items in the ciataion. Because deprecated parameters aren't necessarily related to each other, the error may be detected multiple times in a citation. To avoid multiple error messages and multiple categorization, the error messaging code emits only one error message and adds the page to the
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters only once per citation.MOS:YEAR allows a year range (with n dash): 2005–06 and so, I expect, 2008–2013. But over in Template:Infobox hassium I cannot get rid of the error message. Anything I could learn? (Doing the edit is fine with me too). - DePiep ( talk) 07:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
|date=2008–2013
come from?|accessdate=2012-10-19
are not dated. The hassium video is not dated.
{{cite web|title=Hassium|date=2008–2013|url=http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/108.htm|work=[[The Periodic Table of Videos]]|publisher=The University of Nottingham|accessdate=2012-10-19}}
|date=2008–2013
come from?|date=2008–2013
. Or, just leave date off and use |accessdate=2012-10-19
.{{
cite conference}}
. But, I wonder about that. The proscription to
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT would suggest that citing a conference is problematic. If you were there as an attendee, then citing the conference and its date range might be permissible. If you were not there, then it isn't. In the cases of the
Americum cites, was the editor at these conferences or was the editor citing the proceedings of the conference? If the latter then |date=
should be the publication date of the proceedings.{{
cite conference}}
page) is another citation similar to Editor DePiep's
Americum cite:{{cite conference |last=Tholen |first=D. J. |title=Asteroid taxonomic classifications |booktitle=Asteroids II; Proceedings of the Conference |pages=1139–1150 |publisher=University of Arizona Press |date=March 8–11, 1988 |location=Tucson, AZ |url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989aste.conf.1139T |accessdate=April 14, 2008}}
{{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)|conference=
. Also, the |url=
value doesn't refer to the conference website but rather, is the same as would be provided by |bibcode=
.{{cite book |last=Tholen |first=D. J. |chapter=Asteroid taxonomic classifications |title=Asteroids II; Proceedings of the Conference, Tucson, AZ, Mar. 8-11, 1988 (A90-27001 10-91) |pages=1139–1150 |publisher=University of Arizona Press |date=1989 |location=Tucson, AZ |bibcode=1989aste.conf.1139T}}
{{cite conference}}
.That seems like a reasonable fix. I'll post here if I come across others that do not seem to be fixable via this method.
This discussion began with a report that ranges of years were not supported. I have reported a couple of sources that provide a valid, MOS-compliant range of years in their copyright date, and year ranges (and day ranges) are explicitly allowed by the MOS. I hope you'll consider supporting both in the validation code, since the initial reasoning behind implementing the code was to comply with the MOS. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
{{Citation |first=Gamal Essam |last=El-Din |title=Islamists consolidate their lead |newspaper=Al-Ahram Weekly |date=22-28 December 2011 |url=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1077/eg10.htm |accessdate=25 January 2012}}
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Within the next handful of days I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox ( diff) and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox ( diff). This update changes several things:
|accessdate=
requires |url=
, Missing or empty |url=
, |format=
requires |url=
, |displayauthors=
suggested, and |displayeditors=
suggested;
discussion;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
All of the Talk pages have now dropped out of the error categories (there were about 12 left just now, and I null-edited them just to put them out of my misery). There are a few stubborn pages that refuse to be removed from the categories, despite a null edit. I don't know if this indicates that a change is needed in the Module code or if I should stop GAF'ing and get on with life. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
{{doi|' + regExpMatch[1] + '}}
which looks pretty much like a {{
cite doi}}
template. {{cite doi}}
does not discriminate amongst the namespaces as CS1 does. Other pages contained malformed category page names in the text: [[Category: ...]]
which should have been [[:Category: ...]]
.{{cite doi}}
errors.So, speaking of metadata...Zotero seems to have stopped reading lists of references from Wikipedia pages (i.e., it just gives me the option to save the page as a reference, instead of the little folder in the URL bar to download multiple references). It looks like the citation templates are still producing the correct markup; the "class=Z3988" attribute follows the title of the span, although I don't think that should matter. Anyone else experiencing this with Zotero 4.0.15 for Firefox (current)? Choess ( talk) 14:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This should be a simple request, and I've made it before, but no one seems to act on it. In short, when citing a map that appears in a larger work, such as a specific map in an atlas or a magazine/journal, I'd like a way to differentiate between the larger work's title and the map's title in {{ cite map}}. As an example, if I'm citing the Michigan map on pages 50 and 51 of The Road Atlas by Rand McNally, or a map of Colorado in the journal Colorado Highways, I'd like something like:
For the new parameter, I suggest using |map=
for the component work and then using |title=
for the parent item similar to how |chapter=
and |title=
work in {{
cite book}}. At the same time, we probably should implement whatever needs to be added for volume and issue for the cases where the encompassing work is a journal article instead of an atlas.
Imzadi 1979
→ 13:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite map/sandbox}}
:
|map=
, an alias of |chapter=
; and |mapurl=
an alias of |chapterurl=
.|volume=
and |issue=
for journal-based publications, which I see you typed out in the examples above, but didn't appear. Thanks,
Imzadi 1979
→ 14:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC){{
citation/core}}
.|volume=
can be added but |issue=
is problematic. {{citation/core}}
hides |issue=
if the calling citation isn't a periodical. {{
cite map}}
is somewhat strange in that the map may be included in a book or a journal. The current implementation presumes book. Perhaps this is one of the reasons your request has gone unanswered. I think that |volume=
and |issue=
should be left for
Module:Citation/CS1.|section=
is used in {{
cite map}}
for grid references but it's also an alias for |chapter=
.Done. Post here if you see anything untoward.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
A quick request, but the edition should be moved in display order to come after the title, not after any scale, series and cartographer. The edition is related to the title, but currently separated by publication information. Using the current template, and omitting the name of the map in the atlas in favor of the atlas's name produces:
Imzadi 1979 → 13:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
|edition=
is controlled by {{
citation/core}}
. I would rather not make changes to that because it is used by all of the CS1 templates that have not yet been migrated to
Module:Citation/CS1 and as the reference for those CS1 templates that now use Module:Citation/CS1.{{
cite map}}
has migrated to Module:Citation/CS1.WP:WAYBACK currently suggests using the Wayback Machine like this:
{{citation
|url=http://www.wikipedia.org/
|title=Wikipedia Main Page
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20020930123525/http://www.wikipedia.org/
|archivedate=2002-09-30
|accessdate=2005-07-06
}}
Wouldn't it be easier if we had a parameter to our citation templates that just needs the Wayback timestamp (20020930123525
) and then generates the archiveurl
automatically using url
, as well as archivedate
(the way {{
Wayback}} does)? Like:
{{citation
|url=http://www.wikipedia.org/
|title=Wikipedia Main Page
|wayback_timestamp=20020930123525
|accessdate=2005-07-06
}}
Feasable? -- bender235 ( talk) 12:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
|waybackid=
instead of the more long-winded |wayback_timestamp=
. Is there any reason that Editor Bender235's idea shouldn't be implemented?|waybackid=20020930123525 |archivedate=dmy
could reformat that date to 30 September 2002; |archivedate=mdy
to September 30, 2002; |archivedate=
empty or missing then the date is rendered in ISO-8601 style.|date=
though that could be problematic because |date=
isn't required to have all three of the normal date components (day, month, year).At meta:WebCite, someone recommended using maybe two archiving sites since the fate of WebCitation.org is unknown, as is probably any archiving site that allows specific URLs to be archived. So I would like to archive using WebCite and archive.is. Now I'm wondering what to do with the second archive URL. Should the the Cite Web template allow for two or more archive URLs? – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 06:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In the documentation for {{ cite news}} it's not exactly clear how "registration" differs from "subscription". Does the latter mean money is required, whereas the former is free but needs you to sign up? What about sources that cost money but can be purchased on a one-off basis, so no subscription is required? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 12:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Two issues:
and several examples on the page illustrate this practice, which has long been standard in medical articles. That is, the article title is linked via the URL when free full text is available, or via the PMC parameter if that is available and a URL is not supplied.Also give the PMID abstract for medical articles, and the URL if the article is free. PubMed Central free full-text repository links may also be supplied and will link the title if URL not specified, else as additional linked PMC value at the end of the citation.
Somebody changed something, because the PMC parameter is no longer rendering a link in the article title to the free full text. This means, unless our readers are familiar with the PMC terminology, they are unaware they can click on the article title and get a link to the full journal text, as in any source with free full text supplied via URL. This is setting up now a situation where to get our readers to the free full text, we would need to link the PMC code and additionally link that via URL. If a URL is not available to free full text, and a PMC is, then the PMC should link to the article title, as it always did in the past.
Could someone please identify how and why this was changed, and change it back. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If the work has any of the following identifiers, then one of these specific templates may be used: DOI: {{cite doi}} JSTOR: {{cite jstor}} PubMed: {{cite pmid}}
Those templates are sloppy shortcuts, they can be user filled and have been known to return errors, and their use results in inconsistent citation formatting (which isn't acceptable for example on Featured articles). They should not be recommended prominently on a cite journal page; they could be recommended in a footnote, with disclaimers about the formatting issues and error problems. Further, if they are to be mentioned, then the PMID citation filler which renders the format used in most medical articles should also be included. [8] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
version of {{
cite journal}}
and the current
Module:Citation/CS1 version. The example here is taken from the example below the text in
Template:cite journal/doc to which you referred. Most of the citation has been removed for clarity:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
|url=
:
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC151837/
which is the same link as the PMC identifier's link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC151837
|pmc=
to behave more like the other identifiers – |pmc=
is still unique because the link display can be controlled by |embargo=
.
{{cite journal}}
to be remarkably confusing. Perhaps you might have a go at cleaning it up?{{
cite doi}}
, {{
cite jstor}}
, or {{
cite pmid}}
. I suspect that they should remain in
Template:cite journal/doc but perhaps not just where they are. Perhaps in
§See also though it would seem that they could also be included in
§Notes.|title=
parameter will be hyperlinked using the value of the |url=
parameter. If |url=
is not present, |title=
will be linked via the |doi=
value (if present), the |pmc=
value (if DOI is not present), or the |pmid=
value (if DOI and PMC are not present)."That's pretty much all I can explain, and it's not something "I want"-- it's the way it has been done for years, until the recent change. The recent change wiped out article links in boatloads of medical articles that have been built either manually or with the citation filler template over as many years as I can remember. What our readers encounter now is a DOI, a PMID and a PMC, and since most probably don't know the lingo, they have no reason to suspect that clicking on the PMC will take them to free full text, while a blue hyperlinked article title always takes one to full text (or should, if done correctly-- some people erroneously link to abstracts only). I hope this is clear, and apologize if it's not ... I'll keep trying :) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
. Stripped for clarity, here is your Bona citation as it was rendered using the old {{
citation/core}}
-based {{cite journal}}
.|doi=
and |url=
, while different link addresses, ultimately wind up at the same location. That redundancy was added by the user.{{cite journal}}
template. That tool could use a bit of an update – multiple authors in a single |author=
parameter creates corrupt
COinS metadata.In short, the situation now is that by some process here, based on limited input, someone has eliminated links that have been in article titles for at least the six or seven years I've been editing. Will you be correcting that mistake and restoring them or not? Because if not, you are forcing thousands of edits for us/someone to go back and add a duplicate URL link to a cite template so that article titles will lead our readers to full text, that was working until it was tinkered with in September. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
So the question is simple "were is the consensus for making this change?" If none switch it back to how it was before. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, accommodate them to the extent that they can by making citation data available to them through COinS. Users of COinS metadata from CS1 templates depend on editors to create correctly formed citations just as general readers depend on editors to write clear and correct prose.[insisted] that the tool must be changed to produce more verbose templates.
Too long, didn't read. Can someone tersely explain what this is about? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
In the cite journal template, PMID and DOI (identifiers) link to journal article abstracts. PMC (PubMed Central) is an NIH repository of the free full text of some journal articles. For as many years as I can recall (seven or eight), the cite journal template linked PMCs as URLs in the title of articles, consistent with convention on linking URLs to titles, allowing our readers to access free full text as in any other kind of citation (article title links to content in citation).
This long-standing convention was changed based on a request from one editor in September 2013. That TLDR discussion involves several technical editors, but no medical editors other than the original editor making the request.
Please avoid interspersing comments above, discussion below. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
CS1 | Citation Style 1 Recent changes |
at any rate, that argument is a red herring.What argument is intentionally misleading? I think that in my previous post I was trying to suggest a solution to what I understand to be the complaints of other editors, to wit: that here in the remote outback of Wikipedia, posts on this page or on Module talk:Citation/CS1 are inadequate forms of notice. — Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody just do it? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Trappist the monk could you please answer the queries above? Is this something someone else can do, if so, whom; if not, when do you plan to do it; if neither, should we take the request elsewhere? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Example from above |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help)
|
no |url= ; no |embargo=
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
no |url= ; |embargo=past date
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
no |url= ; |embargo=today's date
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity".
doi:
10.1172/JCI16567.
PMC
151837.
PMID
12511592. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |embargo= ignored (|pmc-embargo-date= suggested) (
help)
|
no |url= ; |embargo=future date
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite compare}}
uses |embargo={{date|tomorrow}}
so it will always show as you see it now.|url=
for whatever reason, that is their prerogative|url=
is given a value, it overrides the url created when |pmc=
is given a value. It has been ever thus:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title".
PMC
12345. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|url=
is not proscribed when {{
cite journal}}
also has |pmc=
. The decision is left to the editor, as it should be.This problem was pointed out here on 16 November. Could we please get a straightforward answer as to when the fix will be implemented? An approximation (one day, four days, one week) will suffice. If this can't be done within a week, it may be time to escalate this discussion. This mistake affects our readers. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Kraxler is removing the accessdate parameter from citations in articles he has created. His argument is here: User talk:Kraxler#Accessdate removal where he states that newspapers are not required to have accessdates. My argument is that online newspaper articles are updated and emended, and we do need to know when it was accessed for a particular fact, since those facts can change in the article. What do other people think? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
|accessdate=
because it is very commonly used in legal and academic citing of online sources. I update accessdate every time I repair
WP:DEADLINKs, and wish all editors did. Its use is supported by
WP:CITE#Webpages. The arguments against its use allege (but not document) reader confusion, and allege lack of necessity. Its utility, and established common use trumps both, IMHO. Finally, rampant removal of it from an article constitutes changing the citation format, but
WP:CITE recommends "adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (this principle is known as
WP:CITEVAR)". --
Lexein (
talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
|accesslocation=
parameter, since some content is verifiable from one geolocation, but not another. A book at Google Books wasn't verifiable from the U.K., but it was from the U.S. The version that U.K. Google Books had didn't support the claim made in the article because it was an older edition. Verifiability has its weird angles to deal with. --
Lexein (
talk) 00:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Recently I've noticed this category Category:CS1 errors: dates popping up for articles I edit like The Shield (professional wrestling) and Hunico. Could someone enlighten me on where exactly are the errors in the articles? I'm not even sure what exactly the error is. Thank you. Starship.paint ( talk) 12:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For the template "Cite book", which ISBN do we use if a book should have more than one of them? Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Some references have additional text in the |date=
parameter (e.g. reference #2 in
(48639) 1995 TL8), which puts the article in
Category:CS1 errors: dates. Would it be better to remove the text from the |date=
or make an exception so these articles do not appear in the category? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 00:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
, {{
harv}}
, when an author has multiple publications in the same year.It doesn't apply in the case mentioned by GoingBatty, but in principle, a publication could be published several times per day, in which case, it might be necessary to include the time together with the date. This would be rare. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)