This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
It has just occurred to me that we can, with slight modifications, reuse the main parameter validation code to validate the limited list of parameters for {{
cite arxiv}}
. This method could also carry-over to the newly proposed {{
cite bioRxiv}}
and {{
cite citeseerx}}
.
I have created a lists of parameters for {{cite arxiv}}
in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox that are subsets of the basic parameter lists used by all of the other cs1|2 templates. When the module is called, it uses the CitationClass parameter passed to it by the template (in this case arxiv
) to determine which of the lists it uses to validate parameters:
Wikitext | {{cite arxiv
|
---|---|
Live | Alexandrov BS; Gelev V; Bishop AR; Usheva A; Rasmunssen KØ (October 2010). "DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field".
arXiv:
0910.5294. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |issue= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Alexandrov BS; Gelev V; Bishop AR; Usheva A; Rasmunssen KØ (October 2010). "DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field".
arXiv:
0910.5294. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |issue= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (
help)
|
One thing that I think that we should add to {{cite arxiv}}
is support for |vauthors=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
|vauthors=
should definitely be supported (as should all other |author=
variants). I thought it was, but I guess not.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
|vauthors=
is supported by the live template but it was not supported by {{
cite arxiv/new}}
which is used by {{
cite compare}}
and which is the version of the template that calls
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. Fixed.I was doing some |id={{
foobar}}
to |foobar=
conversions last night, and there's quite a few cases that I couldn't handle for a lack of support for some cornercase.
Specifically, if you have |id=
ISBN
978-1-1234-4567-x Parameter error in {{
ISBN}}: invalid character,
ISBN
978-1-4567-1234-9 Parameter error in {{
ISBN}}: checksum
, you can't convert that to |isbn1=978-1-1234-4567-x
|isbn2=978-1-4567-1234-9
. These also happens when articles have |id=
MR
12345,
MR
54321,
MR
9876543
or |id=
OCLC
012345,
12345,
654321
.
Here's an example, taken from Ring (mathematics)
I've seen up to 2 multiple DOIs (usually one for the book, and one for the book chapter), 4 multiple ISBNs (ISBN 10/13 mostly, but also paperback vs hardcover), 3 ISSNs (print, online, cd), 6 multiples MRs (usually for reviews of books), and 10 multiple OCLCs (because the OCLC system is bad at handling dupes). Now you may argue some of this is bad practice, and I certainly would agree to an extent, but some cases are legit and it's nonetheless being done.
So I suggest we allow for
|doi#/doi-#=
, #=1-2|isbn#/isbn-#=
#=1-10|issn#/issn-#=
, #=1-3|oclc#/mr-#=
#=1-10|mr#/mr-#=
#=1-10with |foobar1/foobar-1=
as aliases of |foobar=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 12:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
template), different pagination, different editions, different parts, and perhaps more.KISS is my preference too, as far as what I do. And there's a lot of things the template can do that (ISSNs, publishers for journals, etc...) that I don't think should be used. But I don't think we need to insist on being purposefully unfriendly and force people to resort to the extremely awful
instead of the much better
The template should support that and put multiple identifier use in tracking categories. This will both facilitates cleanup in non-legit cases and supports in legit cases. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
|id={{OCLC|01234|012345}}
, which would merge the two OCLC IDs together à la:
{{
Cite interview}}
identifies the interviewer with the words "Interview with...". But those words commonly introduce the interviewee, e.g.
Interview with the vampire. I ran into this when I saw:
and thought it was an error that the first name displayed didn't match the byline. Then I went to fix it and saw the "interviewer" parameter was set correctly. Could we use a word other than "with"? Perhaps something like:
That uses the much clearer "by" and gets rid of a duplicate word. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 00:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
|translator=
the static text is 'Translated by'; for |cartography=
the static text is 'Cartography by'. So, if we make this change, shouldn't the static text be 'Interviewed by'?{{cite interview}}
, is the repetition of the word "Interview". Currently it appears in the |type=
and to identify the |interviewer=
. It would be nice to get rid of one copy, but this could be a separate revision if that's easier.
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Don't ask why, but I want to know if there's a way to code something like
{{citation | ref=Smith | foo=Smith, W. (1987). ''American History''. p. 123 }}
where foo is some parameter name i.e. I want to manually hard-code the entire citation, but wrap it in {citation} so that citation's ref= feature is available. There are ways to hack this but I want something legal. In other words, is there some way to insert arbitrary text into {citation}'s output, in particular with there being no other output than the arbitrary text? E Eng —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I tried looking through the archives to see if this was discussed before and couldn't find anything. If it was, please excuse me.
Anyways, the quote parameter as described on the help page only indicates that it should be used for "relevant text". This is vague and doesn't really tell you when the parameter should be used. On most articles, I don't see it used at all. On some articles I see it used with every citation. Which is it?
If it is supposed to be used more often doesn't that raise the problem of WP:QUOTEFARMs? -- Majora ( talk) 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
|quote=
is simply optional, and whether to include it is an editorial decision more than formatting one. I certainly use it much more with offline sources for the benefit of future editors, but the main reason is if there's some subtlety of meaning or nuanced phrasing that is difficult to paraphrase accurately. Quite a few of the quotes in
Lupton family seem to fall into that category.The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal– Sorry, but that's nonsense; if that were true then Wikiquote would have no entries from anyone born within the last 100 years. Mr. IP 71 is correct. E Eng 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote's quotes fall under fair use.– Yes, and they still would if they were incorporated as a tiresome ==Quotes== section in the author's WP article. QUOTEFARM (a style choice) not QUOTECOPY (a legal issue) is the reason we don't do that. And if we decided, as a style matter, to incorporate a similar body of quotes in references instead of a section, it would still be fair use. E Eng 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legalis incorrect, and it is. All you have to do is look at QUOTEFARM (and compare it to QUOTECOPY) to see that. That's it. E Eng 23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Majora: Wow, I disagree with almost everything here.
I recommend quotes when there's a useful intermediate level of reading effort between the statement in the WP article and ploughing through the source. Just like it's helpful to specify the page which is relied on, sometimes it's helpful to cite the exact words. (And sometimes I can't resist entertaining text like " Patterson then expressed strong doubts about the respectability of the maternal ancestor of the magistrate." Doesn't belong in the article, but directs the interested reader to a fun read.) 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There are clear alternatives to using direct quotes in everything besides offline sources (I grant the use of it in non-English sources is also helpful). If the source is a 300 page document the best course of action would be to put the page number where you got it from. Not the quote. If there are multiple different pages numbers the {{ rp}} template was designed for that very purpose. Citing the exact words in readily available sources is not only unnecessary it can run afoul of our fair use policy if abused and overused. That is fact. -- Majora ( talk) 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter; but when I do, I keep it short, less than one sentence wherever possible. I can't find any examples - which indicates just how rarely I use it. It's another case of "if you feel that you need to justify a ref by including a quote, it's on shaky ground". IIRC there were about two cases where somebody insisted on knowing the exact wording in my source, so only then did I add a quote - and no more than necessary. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
|quote=
a bit more (as described previously), but all I'm saying is that there's a wide range of acceptable usage, and you're not wrong, nor is someone who uses it extensively. Someone doesn't have to write exactly like me to be correct, or good. The point I've been writing so extensively on is that including quotes is an editorial issue; concerns about copyright infringement are wildly overblown. Modern journals ruthlessly abbreviate journal names and usually omit article titles entirely for page-count reasons.
WP:NOTPAPER, so I always include a full article title, and don't mind quotations as well.Hi! I'm a newbie, but have apparently stumbled upon something bot developers might be interested in. At the teahouse I asked a longer question, which I restate here in part. There are many scientific research journals that, after 6 or 12 months post-publication, have "open archives" available from the same doi number that was originally "closed". However, general wp readers have no way of knowing that now, because the open padlock symbol doesn't ever appear (unless someone was to add it manually). I have no ability to actually develop a bot, but, in general, a bot could be instructed to search articles for references citing journals from a list of journals known to have such open access archives, determine if the reference is more than 12 months old, and then automatically add the "|doi-access=free" to the citation after the doi number. If anybody is interested in developing the bot, good luck, but I'd be useless, because my programming skills basically stopped with punch cards and COBAL in the late 70's! DennisPietras ( talk) 05:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) @ Finnusertop:
{{free after|year|month|day}}
template solve this neatly, with no need to run a bot? It would work similarly to {{
Update after}}
. Or maybe something more generic like {{change effective|subscription|free|year|month|day}}
. (A bot could clean out expired templates, but there's no rush.)
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 02:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)In the "Examples" section of the documentation for Template:Cite web, all of the examples use the DMY date format. I suspect that this may lead new users into believing that DMY is Wikipedia's house style for dates in citations. I've seen a number of edits to articles on American subjects where the editor uses the American MDY format for dates within the article text, but DMY in citations—particularly when using the template.
To remove this possible source of confusion, I'd suggest that the template documentation be changed so that the examples use a variety of date formats: DMY, MDY, and YYYY-MM-DD among them. However, before I tweak a page that gets so much use, I'd like to moot the idea here and see if there are any good objections. — Ammodramus ( talk) 13:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
How should a date that uses both multiple seasons and multiple years be entered? An issue of a certain journal ("Medieval Life," used on the Pioneer Helmet page) is dated "Autumn/Winter 1997/8." I've changed the years in the citation to "1997–98," but can't find a workaround for the seasons (e.g., "Autumn–Winter," "Autumn-Winter," or "Autumn to Winter") that doesn't tell me to "Check date values in: |date=." Entering "Autumn–Winter 1997" or "Autumn–Winter 1998" works, but isn't fully consistent with the journal's dating format. Thanks in advance for any suggestions! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 22:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997
works and is sufficiently correct enough to allow readers to find the source. The other date that you suggest, |date=Autumn–Winter 1998
, is obviously wrong unless it is the publisher's intention that this particular date also applies to Autumn (nominally September into December) of 1998. I suspect that that is not the intent so using this second date would mislead readers looking for the source.|date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998
?
E
Eng 19:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998
. For them, is Winter 1998 only January–March? What about December 1998? What season is that in their way of calculating things? Yeah, I know, these are rhetorical questions that don't deserve an answer.|date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998
and either of |date=December 28, 2016 – January 4, 2017
or |date=December 2016 – January 2017
:
|date=Spring–Summer 1997–1998
|issue=
for oddball dates like this one. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997
as suggested. I'd happily switch over to |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–98
if implemented, although I agree that it's it's an unwieldy date as issued by the journal. @
Jonesey95:, your suggestion is I think less clear, as the journal date is approximately August 1997 to March 1998, whereas |date=Autumn 1997 – Winter 1998
would be likely read as approximately August 1997 to March 1999 (or December 1998, but that's still significantly broader).See a version of "Anno Domini" for an example of the problem. The footnote {{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} is used twice in the article because the text on those pages of the book supports two different claims in the article. This results in the error message Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778.E2.80.939" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)., which is a false error.
I don't want to hear that the editor should have written <ref name = "painInTheNeck">{{harvnb|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} for the first footnote and <ref name="painInTheNeck"/> for the second footnote. This puts an unreasonable burden on the editor's concentration. First, the editor's mind must descend from the level of thinking about the article text and the source text to the level of the internal workings of the template. Second, the editor must be aware of every page number that has ever been cited in the article, even if some of the cites are in a different section and/or added by a different editor.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Compare:
{{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}}
{{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|p=778–9}}
Both produce:
<ref name="FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778–9">
but the content of the <ref>...</ref>
tags are different:
[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], p. 778–9.
[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], pp. 778–9.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags seems not worth the trouble. Even where the editors on a page accept named refs, this kind of "gotcha" is not what I would like to spend time explaining to a new editor. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Given this:
Is there another way to handle the archive.org link, or keep in |chapterurl=
? --
Green
C 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
(and, since we're mucking about with it, {{
cite encyclopedia}}
)?
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]] |year=1999 |title=v. Spy v. Spy |url=http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |archive-date=2004-08-03}}
|url=
or {{chapterurl}} but not both. That makes it easy, just move it into |archiveurl=
. Is that right? --
Green
C 22:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
|url=
and |chapter-url=
(or alias). When there are both |url=
and |chapter-url=
(or alias) and |archive-url=
, the title in |chapter=
(or alias) gets the url from |archive-url=
:
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |url=//example.org |chapter-url=//example.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140317172707/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2014-03-17}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'".
Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop.
St Leonards, NSW:
Allen & Unwin.
ISBN
1-86448-768-2. {{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); |archive-url=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
|url=
field it moves to |archiveurl=
, but in this case it would break the cite unless did the other things like the change to {{cite encyclopedia}}
, |title=
etc.. which a bot can't do safely given all the possibilities. Without |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
the link rot bots won't be able to maintain the links. What about keeping it as is, with the addition of the |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
:{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |url= |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |archivedate=2004-08-03}}
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); |archive-url=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
webarchive}}
's |addlarchives=
feature like this, which has the advantage if the |url=
has content it can retains its own |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
as normal:{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop |url=http://differentsite.com |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl=http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 }}{{webarchive|format=addlarchives|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |date=2004-08-03}}
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Additional archives:
2004-08-03.|chapter-url=
to |archive-url=
as long as the original url is left behind in |chapter-url=
.{{webarchive}}
|addlarchives=
if |archive-url=
is taken. Seems like 8 possibilities it might come across:
@
Redrose64: When I made recent edits (
last reversion) I did not notice |template doc demo=true
. Is this supposed to stop the error messages or otherwise change how the template show the values? –
Allen4
names (
contributions) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised we don't have that one. The SSRN identifier is pure numbers (at least 3, no more than 7). Let's have some error detection. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
What's the reason for excluding that namespace from error tracking? It would be quite beneficial to bots and others doing semi-automated editing to be able to cleanup drafts before they're sent to mainspace. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)In this case, how can I resolve this error?-- Namoroka ( talk) 06:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Archive.is
looks like a scheme (Wikipedia:
) followed by a domain name (Archive
), a separator (.
), and a top level domain (is
); a very common description of a URL. You can get round this error message by wrapping that part of the title (or the whole title, doesn't matter) in <nowiki>...</nowiki>
tags:
{{cite web|author=''Wikipedia'' contributors|title=<nowiki>Wikipedia:Archive.is</nowiki> RFC 4|url=/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC_4|website=[[English Wikipedia]]|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|access-date=March 29, 2017}}
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)@ Headbomb: According to the Template documentation, the date parameter is preferred. Also, simply putting just the year in the date parameter serves the same purpose. TemplateData is only relevant to VE. I do not see the problem in suggesting date in VE. —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 09:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Use of |date=
is recommended unless all of the following conditions are met:
. What is the advantage of putting |date=2017
over |year=2017
? The disadvantage is that it encourages the addition of wholly unnecessary month and day information where these are not needed and are not standard practice for journals. Newspapers, magazines, sure, but not scientific journals.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)|date=March 2017
. Do not tell them to remove the month; do not suggest that they should add a day-of-month that isn't actually there. Some journals - such as
Nature - do have full dates, and we must not discourage those. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=YYYYa-MM-DD
is not allowed. When it is necessary to disambiguate a cs1|2 citation that uses YMD date format, the disambituator is attached to |year=YYYYa
so editors can use |date=YYYY-MM-DD
if they choose to do so. If only the year portion of a date is used, then editors may use either of |year=
or |date=
as they choose because
Module:Citation/CS1 treats them as aliases of each other (there is no difference between |date=2017
and |year=2017
).My thoughts, and my editing practices are simple: use the date off the cover of the journal formatted to fit our MOS on dates (so an en dash, not a slash, etc) complete with the month or season, if specified, and if a journal issue has printed volume and issue numbers, include them too. More information, within reason, is beneficial to our readers who want to locate a source. Imzadi 1979 → 04:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, when spaces are used in ISBN numbers, the number can be split over lines as it is allowed to wrap. Should the templates be modified to use {{ nowrap}} or should we deprecate spaces in ISBN numbers and always go with dashes? If the latter then we would need to track those ISBNs using the space format so that they could be converted. Keith D ( talk) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
|isbn=123-4567-89X
is translated to this:
[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X|123-4567-89X]]
<a href="/info/en/?search=International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X" title="Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X">123-4567-89X</a>
character. I use Chrome so the ISBNs on Editor Jonesey95's sandbox page wrap at both hyphen and space separators. It makes me wonder if Firefox also doesn't wrap multi-word hyperlinks or if ISBNs are a special case. What about ISSNs? DOIs? or other identifiers when they have hyphens? The module does not protect any of these from wrapping.|access-date=
and at the next update will insert  
(narrow no-break space) between an access signal icon and its identifier.Issues around indicating the accessibility of a cited reference have been discussed repeatedly here (
example 1;
example 2), usually with a focus on free availability rather than open licensing. However, with more and more scholarly journals — including many
megajournals — now using CC BY and other
Creative Commons licenses (not only open ones), perhaps adding a |license=
parameter to the citation template would be a good way to go.
Initially, it would probably make sense to restrict this to standard copyright licenses, say the seven regularly used Creative Commons licenses (in which CC0 — technically a license waiver — was included) plus public domain. In order to display the information, the respective license icon could be used, which could link to the license text:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
-- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 12:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be responsible for labeling citations with license status. You appear (to me anyway) to be talking about, and supporting, the access-signalling icons that cs1|2 now supports. Can you clarify?
Hi, I would like to know what I need to do to better localize CS1 on the Scots Wikipedia. For one, I would like to know how to make reference templates convert English dates put in the templates into Scots on the article (via sco:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation). Also, I would like to know how to localize the languages to where pages would go into sco:Category:CS1 Swadish-leid soorces (sv). At the moment, they either go into an incorrect category ( sco:Category:CS1 Swedish-leid soorces (sv)) or into the error category ( sco:Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognised leid). I can't find where any language name localization takes place in any of the modules. So, what needs to be done? Thanks in advance. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 01:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
if not is_set(error_message) then
test where a call is made to a new function that spins through the date_parameters_list
and makes the translation; perhaps with a variant of this:
string.gsub('June 17, 1994', '%a+', {['January']='Januar', ['February']='Februar', ['March']='Mairch', ['April']='Aprile', ['May']='Mey', ['June']='Juin', ['July']='Julie'})
(in Scots, August through December are the same as in English?){{#language:}}
uses the same code as mw.language.fetchLanguageName()
– I get the same result when comparing the one with the other:
{{#language:sv|fr}}
→ suédois (French){{#language:sv|nl}}
→ Zweeds (Dutch){{#language:sv|sco}}
→ Swaidish (Scots){{#language:sv|tgl}}
→ Swedish (Tagalog)=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'fr')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'nl')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'sco')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'tgl')
I will be making (assuming my proposal is accepted) a presentation on Journals Cited by Wikipedia at Wikimania 2017, in Montreal.
If you are interested in attending, please sign up! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
[1] Came across these .. the article has more. Is it just someone's notes? -- Green C 17:03, 7 April 2017 (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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
It has just occurred to me that we can, with slight modifications, reuse the main parameter validation code to validate the limited list of parameters for {{
cite arxiv}}
. This method could also carry-over to the newly proposed {{
cite bioRxiv}}
and {{
cite citeseerx}}
.
I have created a lists of parameters for {{cite arxiv}}
in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox that are subsets of the basic parameter lists used by all of the other cs1|2 templates. When the module is called, it uses the CitationClass parameter passed to it by the template (in this case arxiv
) to determine which of the lists it uses to validate parameters:
Wikitext | {{cite arxiv
|
---|---|
Live | Alexandrov BS; Gelev V; Bishop AR; Usheva A; Rasmunssen KØ (October 2010). "DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field".
arXiv:
0910.5294. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |issue= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Alexandrov BS; Gelev V; Bishop AR; Usheva A; Rasmunssen KØ (October 2010). "DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field".
arXiv:
0910.5294. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |doi= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |issue= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |volume= ignored (
help)
|
One thing that I think that we should add to {{cite arxiv}}
is support for |vauthors=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
|vauthors=
should definitely be supported (as should all other |author=
variants). I thought it was, but I guess not.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
|vauthors=
is supported by the live template but it was not supported by {{
cite arxiv/new}}
which is used by {{
cite compare}}
and which is the version of the template that calls
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. Fixed.I was doing some |id={{
foobar}}
to |foobar=
conversions last night, and there's quite a few cases that I couldn't handle for a lack of support for some cornercase.
Specifically, if you have |id=
ISBN
978-1-1234-4567-x Parameter error in {{
ISBN}}: invalid character,
ISBN
978-1-4567-1234-9 Parameter error in {{
ISBN}}: checksum
, you can't convert that to |isbn1=978-1-1234-4567-x
|isbn2=978-1-4567-1234-9
. These also happens when articles have |id=
MR
12345,
MR
54321,
MR
9876543
or |id=
OCLC
012345,
12345,
654321
.
Here's an example, taken from Ring (mathematics)
I've seen up to 2 multiple DOIs (usually one for the book, and one for the book chapter), 4 multiple ISBNs (ISBN 10/13 mostly, but also paperback vs hardcover), 3 ISSNs (print, online, cd), 6 multiples MRs (usually for reviews of books), and 10 multiple OCLCs (because the OCLC system is bad at handling dupes). Now you may argue some of this is bad practice, and I certainly would agree to an extent, but some cases are legit and it's nonetheless being done.
So I suggest we allow for
|doi#/doi-#=
, #=1-2|isbn#/isbn-#=
#=1-10|issn#/issn-#=
, #=1-3|oclc#/mr-#=
#=1-10|mr#/mr-#=
#=1-10with |foobar1/foobar-1=
as aliases of |foobar=
.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 12:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
template), different pagination, different editions, different parts, and perhaps more.KISS is my preference too, as far as what I do. And there's a lot of things the template can do that (ISSNs, publishers for journals, etc...) that I don't think should be used. But I don't think we need to insist on being purposefully unfriendly and force people to resort to the extremely awful
instead of the much better
The template should support that and put multiple identifier use in tracking categories. This will both facilitates cleanup in non-legit cases and supports in legit cases. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
|id={{OCLC|01234|012345}}
, which would merge the two OCLC IDs together à la:
{{
Cite interview}}
identifies the interviewer with the words "Interview with...". But those words commonly introduce the interviewee, e.g.
Interview with the vampire. I ran into this when I saw:
and thought it was an error that the first name displayed didn't match the byline. Then I went to fix it and saw the "interviewer" parameter was set correctly. Could we use a word other than "with"? Perhaps something like:
That uses the much clearer "by" and gets rid of a duplicate word. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 00:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
|translator=
the static text is 'Translated by'; for |cartography=
the static text is 'Cartography by'. So, if we make this change, shouldn't the static text be 'Interviewed by'?{{cite interview}}
, is the repetition of the word "Interview". Currently it appears in the |type=
and to identify the |interviewer=
. It would be nice to get rid of one copy, but this could be a separate revision if that's easier.
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 19:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Don't ask why, but I want to know if there's a way to code something like
{{citation | ref=Smith | foo=Smith, W. (1987). ''American History''. p. 123 }}
where foo is some parameter name i.e. I want to manually hard-code the entire citation, but wrap it in {citation} so that citation's ref= feature is available. There are ways to hack this but I want something legal. In other words, is there some way to insert arbitrary text into {citation}'s output, in particular with there being no other output than the arbitrary text? E Eng —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I tried looking through the archives to see if this was discussed before and couldn't find anything. If it was, please excuse me.
Anyways, the quote parameter as described on the help page only indicates that it should be used for "relevant text". This is vague and doesn't really tell you when the parameter should be used. On most articles, I don't see it used at all. On some articles I see it used with every citation. Which is it?
If it is supposed to be used more often doesn't that raise the problem of WP:QUOTEFARMs? -- Majora ( talk) 01:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
|quote=
is simply optional, and whether to include it is an editorial decision more than formatting one. I certainly use it much more with offline sources for the benefit of future editors, but the main reason is if there's some subtlety of meaning or nuanced phrasing that is difficult to paraphrase accurately. Quite a few of the quotes in
Lupton family seem to fall into that category.The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legal– Sorry, but that's nonsense; if that were true then Wikiquote would have no entries from anyone born within the last 100 years. Mr. IP 71 is correct. E Eng 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikiquote's quotes fall under fair use.– Yes, and they still would if they were incorporated as a tiresome ==Quotes== section in the author's WP article. QUOTEFARM (a style choice) not QUOTECOPY (a legal issue) is the reason we don't do that. And if we decided, as a style matter, to incorporate a similar body of quotes in references instead of a section, it would still be fair use. E Eng 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The main purpose of QUOTEFARM is not aesthetic but legalis incorrect, and it is. All you have to do is look at QUOTEFARM (and compare it to QUOTECOPY) to see that. That's it. E Eng 23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Majora: Wow, I disagree with almost everything here.
I recommend quotes when there's a useful intermediate level of reading effort between the statement in the WP article and ploughing through the source. Just like it's helpful to specify the page which is relied on, sometimes it's helpful to cite the exact words. (And sometimes I can't resist entertaining text like " Patterson then expressed strong doubts about the respectability of the maternal ancestor of the magistrate." Doesn't belong in the article, but directs the interested reader to a fun read.) 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 00:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There are clear alternatives to using direct quotes in everything besides offline sources (I grant the use of it in non-English sources is also helpful). If the source is a 300 page document the best course of action would be to put the page number where you got it from. Not the quote. If there are multiple different pages numbers the {{ rp}} template was designed for that very purpose. Citing the exact words in readily available sources is not only unnecessary it can run afoul of our fair use policy if abused and overused. That is fact. -- Majora ( talk) 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
|quote=
parameter; but when I do, I keep it short, less than one sentence wherever possible. I can't find any examples - which indicates just how rarely I use it. It's another case of "if you feel that you need to justify a ref by including a quote, it's on shaky ground". IIRC there were about two cases where somebody insisted on knowing the exact wording in my source, so only then did I add a quote - and no more than necessary. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
|quote=
a bit more (as described previously), but all I'm saying is that there's a wide range of acceptable usage, and you're not wrong, nor is someone who uses it extensively. Someone doesn't have to write exactly like me to be correct, or good. The point I've been writing so extensively on is that including quotes is an editorial issue; concerns about copyright infringement are wildly overblown. Modern journals ruthlessly abbreviate journal names and usually omit article titles entirely for page-count reasons.
WP:NOTPAPER, so I always include a full article title, and don't mind quotations as well.Hi! I'm a newbie, but have apparently stumbled upon something bot developers might be interested in. At the teahouse I asked a longer question, which I restate here in part. There are many scientific research journals that, after 6 or 12 months post-publication, have "open archives" available from the same doi number that was originally "closed". However, general wp readers have no way of knowing that now, because the open padlock symbol doesn't ever appear (unless someone was to add it manually). I have no ability to actually develop a bot, but, in general, a bot could be instructed to search articles for references citing journals from a list of journals known to have such open access archives, determine if the reference is more than 12 months old, and then automatically add the "|doi-access=free" to the citation after the doi number. If anybody is interested in developing the bot, good luck, but I'd be useless, because my programming skills basically stopped with punch cards and COBAL in the late 70's! DennisPietras ( talk) 05:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC) @ Finnusertop:
{{free after|year|month|day}}
template solve this neatly, with no need to run a bot? It would work similarly to {{
Update after}}
. Or maybe something more generic like {{change effective|subscription|free|year|month|day}}
. (A bot could clean out expired templates, but there's no rush.)
71.41.210.146 (
talk) 02:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)In the "Examples" section of the documentation for Template:Cite web, all of the examples use the DMY date format. I suspect that this may lead new users into believing that DMY is Wikipedia's house style for dates in citations. I've seen a number of edits to articles on American subjects where the editor uses the American MDY format for dates within the article text, but DMY in citations—particularly when using the template.
To remove this possible source of confusion, I'd suggest that the template documentation be changed so that the examples use a variety of date formats: DMY, MDY, and YYYY-MM-DD among them. However, before I tweak a page that gets so much use, I'd like to moot the idea here and see if there are any good objections. — Ammodramus ( talk) 13:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
How should a date that uses both multiple seasons and multiple years be entered? An issue of a certain journal ("Medieval Life," used on the Pioneer Helmet page) is dated "Autumn/Winter 1997/8." I've changed the years in the citation to "1997–98," but can't find a workaround for the seasons (e.g., "Autumn–Winter," "Autumn-Winter," or "Autumn to Winter") that doesn't tell me to "Check date values in: |date=." Entering "Autumn–Winter 1997" or "Autumn–Winter 1998" works, but isn't fully consistent with the journal's dating format. Thanks in advance for any suggestions! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 22:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997
works and is sufficiently correct enough to allow readers to find the source. The other date that you suggest, |date=Autumn–Winter 1998
, is obviously wrong unless it is the publisher's intention that this particular date also applies to Autumn (nominally September into December) of 1998. I suspect that that is not the intent so using this second date would mislead readers looking for the source.|date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998
?
E
Eng 19:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998
. For them, is Winter 1998 only January–March? What about December 1998? What season is that in their way of calculating things? Yeah, I know, these are rhetorical questions that don't deserve an answer.|date=Autumn–Winter 1997–1998
and either of |date=December 28, 2016 – January 4, 2017
or |date=December 2016 – January 2017
:
|date=Spring–Summer 1997–1998
|issue=
for oddball dates like this one. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=Autumn–Winter 1997
as suggested. I'd happily switch over to |date=Autumn–Winter 1997–98
if implemented, although I agree that it's it's an unwieldy date as issued by the journal. @
Jonesey95:, your suggestion is I think less clear, as the journal date is approximately August 1997 to March 1998, whereas |date=Autumn 1997 – Winter 1998
would be likely read as approximately August 1997 to March 1999 (or December 1998, but that's still significantly broader).See a version of "Anno Domini" for an example of the problem. The footnote {{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} is used twice in the article because the text on those pages of the book supports two different claims in the article. This results in the error message Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778.E2.80.939" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)., which is a false error.
I don't want to hear that the editor should have written <ref name = "painInTheNeck">{{harvnb|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}} for the first footnote and <ref name="painInTheNeck"/> for the second footnote. This puts an unreasonable burden on the editor's concentration. First, the editor's mind must descend from the level of thinking about the article text and the source text to the level of the internal workings of the template. Second, the editor must be aware of every page number that has ever been cited in the article, even if some of the cites are in a different section and/or added by a different editor.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Compare:
{{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|pp=778–9}}
{{sfn|Blackburn|Holford-Strevens|2003|p=778–9}}
Both produce:
<ref name="FOOTNOTEBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003778–9">
but the content of the <ref>...</ref>
tags are different:
[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], p. 778–9.
[[#CITEREFBlackburnHolford-Strevens2003|Blackburn & Holford-Strevens 2003]], pp. 778–9.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags seems not worth the trouble. Even where the editors on a page accept named refs, this kind of "gotcha" is not what I would like to spend time explaining to a new editor. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Given this:
Is there another way to handle the archive.org link, or keep in |chapterurl=
? --
Green
C 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
(and, since we're mucking about with it, {{
cite encyclopedia}}
)?
{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]] |year=1999 |title=v. Spy v. Spy |url=http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |archive-date=2004-08-03}}
|url=
or {{chapterurl}} but not both. That makes it easy, just move it into |archiveurl=
. Is that right? --
Green
C 22:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
|url=
and |chapter-url=
(or alias). When there are both |url=
and |chapter-url=
(or alias) and |archive-url=
, the title in |chapter=
(or alias) gets the url from |archive-url=
:
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |url=//example.org |chapter-url=//example.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140317172707/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2014-03-17}}
McFarlane, Ian (1999). "Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy'".
Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop.
St Leonards, NSW:
Allen & Unwin.
ISBN
1-86448-768-2. {{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); |archive-url=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
|url=
field it moves to |archiveurl=
, but in this case it would break the cite unless did the other things like the change to {{cite encyclopedia}}
, |title=
etc.. which a bot can't do safely given all the possibilities. Without |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
the link rot bots won't be able to maintain the links. What about keeping it as is, with the addition of the |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
:{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop]] |url= |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |archivedate=2004-08-03}}
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); |archive-url=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help){{
webarchive}}
's |addlarchives=
feature like this, which has the advantage if the |url=
has content it can retains its own |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
as normal:{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop |url=http://differentsite.com |last=McFarlane |first=Ian |authorlink= Ian McFarlane |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |location=[[St Leonards, New South Wales|St Leonards, NSW]]|year=1999 |chapter=Encyclopedia entry for 'v. Spy v. Spy' |chapterurl=http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |isbn=1-86448-768-2 |accessdate=10 November 2008 }}{{webarchive|format=addlarchives|url=http://web.archive.org/web/20040803171805/www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=750 |date=2004-08-03}}
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Additional archives:
2004-08-03.|chapter-url=
to |archive-url=
as long as the original url is left behind in |chapter-url=
.{{webarchive}}
|addlarchives=
if |archive-url=
is taken. Seems like 8 possibilities it might come across:
@
Redrose64: When I made recent edits (
last reversion) I did not notice |template doc demo=true
. Is this supposed to stop the error messages or otherwise change how the template show the values? –
Allen4
names (
contributions) 19:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised we don't have that one. The SSRN identifier is pure numbers (at least 3, no more than 7). Let's have some error detection. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
What's the reason for excluding that namespace from error tracking? It would be quite beneficial to bots and others doing semi-automated editing to be able to cleanup drafts before they're sent to mainspace. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)In this case, how can I resolve this error?-- Namoroka ( talk) 06:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Archive.is
looks like a scheme (Wikipedia:
) followed by a domain name (Archive
), a separator (.
), and a top level domain (is
); a very common description of a URL. You can get round this error message by wrapping that part of the title (or the whole title, doesn't matter) in <nowiki>...</nowiki>
tags:
{{cite web|author=''Wikipedia'' contributors|title=<nowiki>Wikipedia:Archive.is</nowiki> RFC 4|url=/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC_4|website=[[English Wikipedia]]|publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]]|access-date=March 29, 2017}}
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)@ Headbomb: According to the Template documentation, the date parameter is preferred. Also, simply putting just the year in the date parameter serves the same purpose. TemplateData is only relevant to VE. I do not see the problem in suggesting date in VE. —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 09:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Use of |date=
is recommended unless all of the following conditions are met:
. What is the advantage of putting |date=2017
over |year=2017
? The disadvantage is that it encourages the addition of wholly unnecessary month and day information where these are not needed and are not standard practice for journals. Newspapers, magazines, sure, but not scientific journals.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)|date=March 2017
. Do not tell them to remove the month; do not suggest that they should add a day-of-month that isn't actually there. Some journals - such as
Nature - do have full dates, and we must not discourage those. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
|date=YYYYa-MM-DD
is not allowed. When it is necessary to disambiguate a cs1|2 citation that uses YMD date format, the disambituator is attached to |year=YYYYa
so editors can use |date=YYYY-MM-DD
if they choose to do so. If only the year portion of a date is used, then editors may use either of |year=
or |date=
as they choose because
Module:Citation/CS1 treats them as aliases of each other (there is no difference between |date=2017
and |year=2017
).My thoughts, and my editing practices are simple: use the date off the cover of the journal formatted to fit our MOS on dates (so an en dash, not a slash, etc) complete with the month or season, if specified, and if a journal issue has printed volume and issue numbers, include them too. More information, within reason, is beneficial to our readers who want to locate a source. Imzadi 1979 → 04:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, when spaces are used in ISBN numbers, the number can be split over lines as it is allowed to wrap. Should the templates be modified to use {{ nowrap}} or should we deprecate spaces in ISBN numbers and always go with dashes? If the latter then we would need to track those ISBNs using the space format so that they could be converted. Keith D ( talk) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
|isbn=123-4567-89X
is translated to this:
[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X|123-4567-89X]]
<a href="/info/en/?search=International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="/info/en/?search=Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X" title="Special:BookSources/123-4567-89X">123-4567-89X</a>
character. I use Chrome so the ISBNs on Editor Jonesey95's sandbox page wrap at both hyphen and space separators. It makes me wonder if Firefox also doesn't wrap multi-word hyperlinks or if ISBNs are a special case. What about ISSNs? DOIs? or other identifiers when they have hyphens? The module does not protect any of these from wrapping.|access-date=
and at the next update will insert  
(narrow no-break space) between an access signal icon and its identifier.Issues around indicating the accessibility of a cited reference have been discussed repeatedly here (
example 1;
example 2), usually with a focus on free availability rather than open licensing. However, with more and more scholarly journals — including many
megajournals — now using CC BY and other
Creative Commons licenses (not only open ones), perhaps adding a |license=
parameter to the citation template would be a good way to go.
Initially, it would probably make sense to restrict this to standard copyright licenses, say the seven regularly used Creative Commons licenses (in which CC0 — technically a license waiver — was included) plus public domain. In order to display the information, the respective license icon could be used, which could link to the license text:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
-- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 12:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be responsible for labeling citations with license status. You appear (to me anyway) to be talking about, and supporting, the access-signalling icons that cs1|2 now supports. Can you clarify?
Hi, I would like to know what I need to do to better localize CS1 on the Scots Wikipedia. For one, I would like to know how to make reference templates convert English dates put in the templates into Scots on the article (via sco:Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation). Also, I would like to know how to localize the languages to where pages would go into sco:Category:CS1 Swadish-leid soorces (sv). At the moment, they either go into an incorrect category ( sco:Category:CS1 Swedish-leid soorces (sv)) or into the error category ( sco:Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognised leid). I can't find where any language name localization takes place in any of the modules. So, what needs to be done? Thanks in advance. -- AmaryllisGardener talk 01:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
if not is_set(error_message) then
test where a call is made to a new function that spins through the date_parameters_list
and makes the translation; perhaps with a variant of this:
string.gsub('June 17, 1994', '%a+', {['January']='Januar', ['February']='Februar', ['March']='Mairch', ['April']='Aprile', ['May']='Mey', ['June']='Juin', ['July']='Julie'})
(in Scots, August through December are the same as in English?){{#language:}}
uses the same code as mw.language.fetchLanguageName()
– I get the same result when comparing the one with the other:
{{#language:sv|fr}}
→ suédois (French){{#language:sv|nl}}
→ Zweeds (Dutch){{#language:sv|sco}}
→ Swaidish (Scots){{#language:sv|tgl}}
→ Swedish (Tagalog)=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'fr')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'nl')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'sco')
=mw.language.fetchLanguageName('sv', 'tgl')
I will be making (assuming my proposal is accepted) a presentation on Journals Cited by Wikipedia at Wikimania 2017, in Montreal.
If you are interested in attending, please sign up! Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
[1] Came across these .. the article has more. Is it just someone's notes? -- Green C 17:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)