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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Could someone help create this?
Basically, it should be very similar to {{ cite arXiv}}, except without the "fill this with a bot" code. That is, the supported parameters should be
|authors=
and variants|date=
and variants|title=
|biorxiv=
|doi=
should throw an error, telling people to use |biorxiv=
without the '10.1011' part of the doi. If a valid doi that doesn't start with 10.1011 is used, the message should invite users to instead use {{
cite journal}}.Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
|biorxiv=
parameter with an existing CS1 template? The same holds for citeseerx below. −
Pintoch (
talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of February 2017 (
link)Any progress on this? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Created. Both need documentation which I shall leave to others.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite SSRN}}
: Empty citation (
help) in the future, but right now I don't understand the SSRNs system well enough to be sure that it's needed, or what should or shouldn't be allowed for parameters if there is a need for it. I'll be focusing on biorxiv/citeseerx cleanup for now (and I'll create documentation for them later this week).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 08:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@
Trappist the monk:
When using {{Cite biorxiv | last1 = Goldberg|first1 = Amy |display-authors=etal. |year=2016 |title=Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes|biorxiv=078360}}, the title gets italicized.
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help)It should be put in quotes. Similarly, |journal=
seems to be allowed (see above for the list that should be allowed), and it shouldn't be. There the . at the end of the citation can also appear on a different line, but that may be a wider issue related to access locks and dots.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite biorxiv}}
does not yet exist; {{
cite biorxiv/new}}
does:
{{Cite biorxiv/new | last1 = Goldberg|first1 = Amy |display-authors=etal. |year=2016 |title=Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes|biorxiv=078360}}
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv}}
; still waiting for template documentation.quick query from a by-stander: should the template output some sort of indication of the name of the website or the publisher of the website that's hosting these articles beyond the bioRxiv identifier number? I understand what it is from clicking on the ID number, but maybe we could give just an extra clue for our readers? Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone know how to manage these templates for volumes with publication dates spread over multiple years? (they're unusual, but early 20th century works sometimes had publication dates of 1910-1913, for example). I've done it once before, but can't remember where! Any advice gratefully received... Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=100–110 |date=1910 |volume=1}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |page=78 |date=1911 |volume=2}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=204, 223 |date=1912 |volume=3}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=xxiv, 31–33, 354 |date=1913 |volume=4}}
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#amazon.com Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Can something be done about this template?
|deadurl=no
is ignored, plus |archiveurl=
and |archive-url=
are not the same. It uses
Template:Citation/core instead of Lua module templates like
Template:Cite web.|rfc=
.As an example, right now this template needs to use
Template:Webarchive for the purpose of |archive-url=
, seen in revision
775225151
.
I'd like to see this IETF template go away, or be fixed of its bugs. Any other proposals or suggestions? 80.221.152.17 ( talk) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
According to Template:Citation/core, Template:Cite wikisource is also affected and most templates have been converted to use Module:Citation/CS1. It's used on 2362 articles as of today. 80.221.152.17 ( talk) 00:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
|section-name=
to |title=
, map |title=
to |work=
. Then add proper support for BCP, FYI, IEN, I-D, RFC, RTR and STD identifiers, with auto-url generation. I'd do it, but I can't do anything in LUA.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 07:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author. Title. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author. Title. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
We deprecated |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
sometime in late 2013 to early 2014. These two parameters contributed the vast majority of pages to
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Except for eight stubborn pages (see separate discussion at
WP:VPT), the category is now empty.
In the whitelist sandbox I have disabled the two parameters and will cleanup the supporting code in a bit.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
has been removed from the module sandboxen. I have changed the deprecated parameter category name. After we take the module sandboxen live (we ought to do that, it's been a while)
Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author can be deleted along with its supporting help text at
Help:CS1 errors. Similarly, the new deprecated parameter category needs to be created and the help text pointed to it.{{ Cite web}} generates a warning when a (valid) URL is in Cyrillic (and, I suspect, in any other non-Latin script), which it probably shouldn't, since there is nothing wrong with the URL. An example of this behavior can be seen here. Can someone please take a look into this?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); April 17, 2017; 17:48 (UTC)
хвастовичский-район.рф
to its
Punycode value (xn----7sbbfb0baicf2bdizhdn4c5b.xn--p1ai
) to be usable by DNS but render's a Unicode version for the reader. If I drop the Punycode version of the url into my browser's address bar, I get the correct web site and my browser renders the Cyrillic domain name.We have some access-lock images which are occasionally used to indicate whether a source is paywalled or not. One of them is File:Lock-red.svg. It's bright red ( ), with a transparent background. The {{cite journal}} source code uses it to indicate paywalled sources.
I don't like the bright red. Why? Because, as Mark viking pointed out six months ago, [1] many paywalled sources let you read the abstract for free, or a page or two for free. Please correct Mark and I if we're wrong, but we think that bright red may imply "you can't read any of this for free". This may mislead our readers, and dissuade them from clicking through and reading abstracts for free.
I think that we should use some color other than bright red.
We could use dark red (like this). And then we could add a white background or white border, to make sure that users reading Wikipedia on a black background would get sufficient contrast. In fact, if you look through the file history of Lock-red.svg, you'll see that it used to be dark red, until it changed to light red this past September.
Or we could use gray (on a transparent background), or black (on a white background), or any other color.
Thoughts?
Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 02:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The question on the left hasn't yet been answered. After someone replies, please remove this notice. |
border-bottom: 1px dotted #000; cursor: help;
This would help readers realize that there's useful alt text, and that they should wait a second for it to appear. You can see a live preview of the full package at
this link. —
Unforgettableid (
talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah OK fair. Your point about screen readers is a good one. Indeed, I looked into the matter just now; and it turns out that screen readers will indeed read out the image's title
text in this case.
(Source.) And your little speech discussing dummy emails and cookies made me laugh. :) How's this?: "Paid or library access required; but a summary may be available for free. Click for help." —
Unforgettableid (
talk) 19:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
title=
attribute to be used; it is valid on most HTML elements since HTML 4.00, and all elements from HTML5 onward. From
the HTML 4.01 spec: Try hovering your mouse here. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tooltip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak the title information in a similar context.
The question on the left hasn't yet been answered. After someone replies, please remove this notice. |
alt=
attribute text into the title=
attribute. No need to muck with title=
attributes and no need for the image to be clickable.alt=
attribute, and none of them have a title=
attribute. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
alt=
attributes – though some have 'alt' in their name:
alt=
into title=
. Rather, it is done in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration where the lock images are defined like this:
[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=Freely accessible|Freely accessible]]
→ title=
attribute.alt=
attributes. Use your browser's "View page source" feature. Search for the text <img alt="Lock-green.svg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png"
You should find six instances, other than the one in this post. All six are identical: the <img />
tag has seven attributes, being (some values replaced with an ellipsis for clarity) alt="Lock-green.svg" src=... width="9" height="14" srcset=... data-file-width="512" data-file-height="813"
. There is an alt=
attribute; there is not a title=
attribute. The enclosing <a href="/info/en/?search=File:Lock-green.svg" class="image">...</a>
element doesn't have a title=
either. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
alt=
attribute. Better that than nothing I suppose.The
documentation implies that Links inserted by identifiers such as |doi=
are not expected to offer a free full text by default So I am expecting the subscription will be set to yes by default if one of these is set. But it isn't.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 21:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
if |doi=
or other identifier is set, then no, that does not happen. The problem with |subscription=
is that it doesn't specify which external link, |url=
or one of the identifiers – there can be multiples – requires the subscription. As the code stands now, it assumes, correctly, that most identifiers (like |doi=
) rarely offer free access to the source. We do not highlight the norm. When |doi=
refers to a source that is free-to-read, editors may add |doi-access=free
to highlight that identifier. There are exceptions: a couple of identifiers are automatically flagged because it is known that these identifiers are always free-to-read (|arxiv=
, |rfc=
, etc). In the same sense, |url=
and |chapter-url=
and their aliases are assumed to be free-to-read. Again, we don't hightlight the norm but when these are not free-to-read, editors may set |url-access=subscription
, etc.|doi=
card does not trigger a "subscription required" note, nor does a |jstor=
card; so |doi-access=free
is the default.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
card?
|doi-access=free
is not the default because we do not highlight the normal state, either with an icon or with text. For most identifiers the links normally link to sources behind a registration or subscription wall. Because of this, there is no need to clutter the rendered citation with extraneous access signals.(Sorry to add this new section not at the end of the page, but it's related to the one above.)
I brought this up awhile back, but didn't have time to pursue it further then. I'll quote here my main points from before:
And the same is true for "|subscription=yes". Thank you, Trappist the monk, for pointing me to where I would need to make my suggested changes. I have just edited Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to change:
to:
and:
to:
I see that the period after the ")" gets added elsewhere, and may be done in such a way that it would be difficult to omit it for registration=yes and subscription=yes so that the period can be placed inside the parentheses in the above text, so I have not yet looked into that. Before I do, I wanted to see what the reaction was to my suggested changes and the logic behind them. Thank you. -- Dan Harkless ( talk) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
|subscription=
and |registration=
will be going away."the editorial discretion of individual Wikipedians should be allowed and supported"), but aspect B3 imposes them by not offering any other alternative (
"the editorial discretion of individual Wikipedians should be allowed and supported"
This I believe leaves us in some sort of limbo. When previously I asked how we should proceed, I don't think that I got a compellingly definitive answer. There are those who believe that we should revert all of the access-signal-related changes; there are those who believe that we should implement the individual aspects of the RfC that received consensus no matter how slight; there are those who believe that, for now, we should do neither of those things and continue with the status quo pending supplementary RfCs. I find myself in this latter camp because of closer's writing quoted above and because the status quo version of access-signal support is already out there in use and has been since 29 October 2016.There is,however, a greater issue: A significant body of opinion has been expressed below that the entire visual status indicator idea is not acceptable. The above assessment must be interpreted in light of this. I would urge that this close is treated as a tentative indication of how the Citation Template processing would work in a new RfC to see if there is significant buy-in to proceed forward. To move forward with the shaky consensus established below would not comport with WP:CONS. Overall, there is not yet significant consensus on implementation of these citation template behaviors.
Hey, I hope this is the right place. I was wondering if there was a way to use, say {{cite journal}}
without having a title? Sometimes I need to cite pieces in academic journals that don't have a title, per se. The most obvious example of this is a book review, which generally would be cited as [Review of such-and-such a work], where in lieu or or alongside any proper title is a description of the work itself; and titles and descriptions are distinguished in formatting. Right now I just have |title=[Review of such-and-such]
, but that creates the unsightly "[Review of such-and-such]". And if there is a proper title and a description, then it would have to end up as "Author X has done it again [Review of such-and-such]". For examples of this latter type, see this example from APA 6:
And these examples from CMoS 16 (the first two as notes, the third as a bibliography entry):
Does this make sense? Is there a way to not have a title (i.e., something that is surrounded with quotation marks) and instead (or in addition) have a description? Thanks! Umimmak ( talk) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|department=Reviews
or similar. Additionally, you have to include the information that will help others easily discover the source: if the review has a title, you should use that title - or at least as much of the title as would be required to make it a legible, discoverable citation. If the review's title is the title of the reviewed work, then use that. Hopefully, helped by the rest of the citation, the context will be obvious to the average reader.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)|descriptive-title=yes
option would work, turning off the default quotation marks around a news or journal article title?
Imzadi 1979
→ 23:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|department=Sunday Book Review
pretty well describes the type of the article, I made |type=The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, by Michael Pollan
. Similarly, |department=Featured Reviews
means that it is not necessary to describe the type and because the reviewed work's title in in the article title, no need to use |type=
.|type=
and sometimes using |title=
for a description of the work (cf. the proposed templates for Kamp vs Sorby) seems wildly inconsistent.
Umimmak (
talk) 11:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
|type=Review
, problem solved. It is not the purpose of a citation to explain to reader what the cited content contains or describes. The purpose of a citation is to assist readers in locating the source that supports claims made in a Wikipedia article. If I go to the library and checkout the 17 November 2000 issue of Science and look in the table of contents, I likely won't find any reference to Brown & Duguid but I will find the title "Learning by text or context?" and that review's author. (Apparently not possible to directly link to that issue's TOC but a link to the TOC is available at the
summary page).|title=
as a descriptor. In each case, the title of the review was supplied by the source and was obvious to me. I did not set out to be wholly consistent; that isn't my job here. I did set out to show how I think these three reviews might be cited; that I did them differently just shows that there are different possible methods. It is for you to impose consistency when you create citations in articles.We constantly see new users citing other Wikipedia articles. I think it would be very useful if the cite templates generated an error message when a Wikipedia url was placed in the url field (maybe also when "Wikipedia" was placed in {{cite web}}'s publisher and website fields). Maybe something like:
There are rare exception—proper citations to Wikipedia pages such as in articles about Wikipedia—but they're very uncommon. (I don't think the error message should acknowledge these rare exceptions; it should just state the rule that's almost always true.) If anyone agrees we should do this and someone can provide the code (I cannot), we would need a way to turn off the error message for proper uses. If we reached that stage, if necessary, I would volunteer to spend the time (within reason) to find all instances and implement whatever that fix might be (maybe |WP-url=yes), if I had some help in generating a list of all articles with such circular citations.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Can we automatically identify editors with "ed." or "eds." through this template in all instances? I'm doing a source review of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and I really can't imagine that it's clear to a reader when someone is an editor or not. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
insource:/\| *editor[^=]*=[^\|\}]+[,;\.]? +\(?ed/
found 1130 matches – ymmv; insource: searches are not always consistent or reliable. I suppose, as a first step, we might add a test similar to the tests that populate
Category:CS1 maint: Extra text (maybe into its own subcategory) and so gain more knowledge of the extent of this issue. Such tests don't indicate much about 'demand'; only that editors have in the past misused the editor parameters.|author[\ds]*=
: 1728|last[\d]*=
: 428|first[\d]*=
: 2208[B]ecause I think the colon looks terribleseems a rather insubstantial reason for opposition. I'm no grammarian so there may be more substantive grammatical reasons why we should not use the colon to introduce the title at the end of the editor list. I suppose that my preference for the colon stems from the use of the full stop (cs1) or comma (cs2) at the end of the editor list when introducing the title so perhaps an alternate is no punctuation:
be inconsistent with how we cite the book alone?
|chapter=
should not be set. But if we were citing a part of the book written by someone else, we'd use |contributor=
in addition to the author and editor.
Kanguole 11:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|in=
. This parameter is a rarely used alias of |language=
.While I was cleaning out
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters I saw a lot of misused |author=
and |editor=
parameters where editors had added inappropriate annotations. That experience and this discussion were the impetus to add name checks to the Module sandbox. I have added code that detects a variety of editor annotations that occur at the end of values assigned to author, contributor, interviewer, editor, and translator names. Still to do is similar annotations that occur at the begining of the name value. For examples see my sandbox:
Special:Permalink/776334484
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added checks for annotation that precedes a name. See Special:Permalink/776493274. Are there other variants of inappropriate editor annotation that I've missed? Do these tests catch things that they should not catch?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a minor rendering bug in the live module that inserts extra punctuation between <author list> and <editor list> when |contributor=
is set and |date=
is not set. Fixed, I think in the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | <contributor list>. Preface. Title. By <author list>. <editor list> (ed.). {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | <contributor list>. Preface. Title. By <author list>. <editor list> (ed.). {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|language=
with
Template:Cite JournalHey, I was just wondering why the |language=
gets displayed between |journal=
and |volume=
. The |language=
describes the language of the article (i.e., what |title=
describes) not the entire journal, so I would imagine it to be either near the title of the article or somehow modifying the entire citation. Right now it makes it seem like the entire series of a journal is in whatever language instead of just the article under discussion, which is quite often not the case as there are multi-language journals. For a concrete example, see below, which suggests to me at least the entire journal Africa is in German instead of just the article by Lukas, especially as there's no punctuation separation between |journal=
and |language=
:
Is there a reason for this, or am I missing something obvious? This just doesn't seem to be super clear for a reader. Umimmak ( talk) 14:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|title=
, |department=
, and |journal=
all don't suggest the article would be in anything other than English, and the JSTOR link doesn't provide a preview for this work unless you log into your account/have access. I agree, though, that it probably isn't necessary to add the language a work is written in; I just thought that all non-English sources had to be explicitly tagged since otherwise sources are assumed to be English and that's why |
[or rather |language=en
] doesn't show up (although there certainly are times when the |journal=
would suggest a work would not be in English and the |title=
is of no help.
Umimmak (
talk) 15:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)|trans-title=
? Especially since any |url=
would be linked to by |title=
and |trans-title=
combined, see, e.g.:
Especially since any. -- Izno ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)|url=
would be linked to by|title=
and|trans-title=
combined
|trans-title=
linked) used the module's sandbox by calling {{
cite journal/new}}
. All of the cs1|2 templates have a '/new' version so that changes to the module sandboxen can be evaluated. The '/new' versions of the template are not for use in article space. At the next module update from sandbox to live, |trans-title=
will no longer be linked anywhere on en.wiki.|trans-title=
gets linked (or rather doesn't get linked). Thanks for clarifying. (Can you tell I'm new to this, haha).I'll start a new section on this, since TTM's post about it got lost: It's been nearly 6 months since our previous release. Maybe we should update the module soon? -- Izno ( talk) 15:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|coauthor(s)=
the plan was (and still is) to announce an update to the live module this weekend with the update to follow a week later as it normally does.I chose ssrn limits to be 100 and 3 million. This insource: search pattern, insource:/\| *ssrn *= *294[0-9]{4,}/i
, finds one use in the 2,940,000–2,949,999 range (2940297). That would suggest that the 3 million upper limit is sufficient for the time being.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |ssrn=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I expect to update the live cs1|2 modules on the weekend of 29–30 April. Changes since the last update are:
{{
cite interview}}
parameters; (
discussion)to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:11, 22 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Could someone help create this?
Basically, it should be very similar to {{ cite arXiv}}, except without the "fill this with a bot" code. That is, the supported parameters should be
|authors=
and variants|date=
and variants|title=
|biorxiv=
|doi=
should throw an error, telling people to use |biorxiv=
without the '10.1011' part of the doi. If a valid doi that doesn't start with 10.1011 is used, the message should invite users to instead use {{
cite journal}}.Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
|biorxiv=
parameter with an existing CS1 template? The same holds for citeseerx below. −
Pintoch (
talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of February 2017 (
link)Any progress on this? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Created. Both need documentation which I shall leave to others.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite SSRN}}
: Empty citation (
help) in the future, but right now I don't understand the SSRNs system well enough to be sure that it's needed, or what should or shouldn't be allowed for parameters if there is a need for it. I'll be focusing on biorxiv/citeseerx cleanup for now (and I'll create documentation for them later this week).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 08:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@
Trappist the monk:
When using {{Cite biorxiv | last1 = Goldberg|first1 = Amy |display-authors=etal. |year=2016 |title=Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes|biorxiv=078360}}, the title gets italicized.
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help)It should be put in quotes. Similarly, |journal=
seems to be allowed (see above for the list that should be allowed), and it shouldn't be. There the . at the end of the citation can also appear on a different line, but that may be a wider issue related to access locks and dots.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite biorxiv}}
does not yet exist; {{
cite biorxiv/new}}
does:
{{Cite biorxiv/new | last1 = Goldberg|first1 = Amy |display-authors=etal. |year=2016 |title=Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes|biorxiv=078360}}
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv}}
; still waiting for template documentation.quick query from a by-stander: should the template output some sort of indication of the name of the website or the publisher of the website that's hosting these articles beyond the bioRxiv identifier number? I understand what it is from clicking on the ID number, but maybe we could give just an extra clue for our readers? Imzadi 1979 → 06:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone know how to manage these templates for volumes with publication dates spread over multiple years? (they're unusual, but early 20th century works sometimes had publication dates of 1910-1913, for example). I've done it once before, but can't remember where! Any advice gratefully received... Hchc2009 ( talk) 08:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=100–110 |date=1910 |volume=1}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |page=78 |date=1911 |volume=2}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=204, 223 |date=1912 |volume=3}}
{{cite book |author=Author |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |pages=xxiv, 31–33, 354 |date=1913 |volume=4}}
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#amazon.com Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Can something be done about this template?
|deadurl=no
is ignored, plus |archiveurl=
and |archive-url=
are not the same. It uses
Template:Citation/core instead of Lua module templates like
Template:Cite web.|rfc=
.As an example, right now this template needs to use
Template:Webarchive for the purpose of |archive-url=
, seen in revision
775225151
.
I'd like to see this IETF template go away, or be fixed of its bugs. Any other proposals or suggestions? 80.221.152.17 ( talk) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
According to Template:Citation/core, Template:Cite wikisource is also affected and most templates have been converted to use Module:Citation/CS1. It's used on 2362 articles as of today. 80.221.152.17 ( talk) 00:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
|section-name=
to |title=
, map |title=
to |work=
. Then add proper support for BCP, FYI, IEN, I-D, RFC, RTR and STD identifiers, with auto-url generation. I'd do it, but I can't do anything in LUA.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 07:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author. Title. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author. Title. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
We deprecated |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
sometime in late 2013 to early 2014. These two parameters contributed the vast majority of pages to
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Except for eight stubborn pages (see separate discussion at
WP:VPT), the category is now empty.
In the whitelist sandbox I have disabled the two parameters and will cleanup the supporting code in a bit.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
has been removed from the module sandboxen. I have changed the deprecated parameter category name. After we take the module sandboxen live (we ought to do that, it's been a while)
Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author can be deleted along with its supporting help text at
Help:CS1 errors. Similarly, the new deprecated parameter category needs to be created and the help text pointed to it.{{ Cite web}} generates a warning when a (valid) URL is in Cyrillic (and, I suspect, in any other non-Latin script), which it probably shouldn't, since there is nothing wrong with the URL. An example of this behavior can be seen here. Can someone please take a look into this?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); April 17, 2017; 17:48 (UTC)
хвастовичский-район.рф
to its
Punycode value (xn----7sbbfb0baicf2bdizhdn4c5b.xn--p1ai
) to be usable by DNS but render's a Unicode version for the reader. If I drop the Punycode version of the url into my browser's address bar, I get the correct web site and my browser renders the Cyrillic domain name.We have some access-lock images which are occasionally used to indicate whether a source is paywalled or not. One of them is File:Lock-red.svg. It's bright red ( ), with a transparent background. The {{cite journal}} source code uses it to indicate paywalled sources.
I don't like the bright red. Why? Because, as Mark viking pointed out six months ago, [1] many paywalled sources let you read the abstract for free, or a page or two for free. Please correct Mark and I if we're wrong, but we think that bright red may imply "you can't read any of this for free". This may mislead our readers, and dissuade them from clicking through and reading abstracts for free.
I think that we should use some color other than bright red.
We could use dark red (like this). And then we could add a white background or white border, to make sure that users reading Wikipedia on a black background would get sufficient contrast. In fact, if you look through the file history of Lock-red.svg, you'll see that it used to be dark red, until it changed to light red this past September.
Or we could use gray (on a transparent background), or black (on a white background), or any other color.
Thoughts?
Kind regards, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 02:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The question on the left hasn't yet been answered. After someone replies, please remove this notice. |
border-bottom: 1px dotted #000; cursor: help;
This would help readers realize that there's useful alt text, and that they should wait a second for it to appear. You can see a live preview of the full package at
this link. —
Unforgettableid (
talk) 02:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah OK fair. Your point about screen readers is a good one. Indeed, I looked into the matter just now; and it turns out that screen readers will indeed read out the image's title
text in this case.
(Source.) And your little speech discussing dummy emails and cookies made me laugh. :) How's this?: "Paid or library access required; but a summary may be available for free. Click for help." —
Unforgettableid (
talk) 19:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
title=
attribute to be used; it is valid on most HTML elements since HTML 4.00, and all elements from HTML5 onward. From
the HTML 4.01 spec: Try hovering your mouse here. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Values of the title attribute may be rendered by user agents in a variety of ways. For instance, visual browsers frequently display the title as a "tooltip" (a short message that appears when the pointing device pauses over an object). Audio user agents may speak the title information in a similar context.
The question on the left hasn't yet been answered. After someone replies, please remove this notice. |
alt=
attribute text into the title=
attribute. No need to muck with title=
attributes and no need for the image to be clickable.alt=
attribute, and none of them have a title=
attribute. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
alt=
attributes – though some have 'alt' in their name:
alt=
into title=
. Rather, it is done in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration where the lock images are defined like this:
[[File:Lock-green.svg|9px|link=|alt=Freely accessible|Freely accessible]]
→ title=
attribute.alt=
attributes. Use your browser's "View page source" feature. Search for the text <img alt="Lock-green.svg" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png"
You should find six instances, other than the one in this post. All six are identical: the <img />
tag has seven attributes, being (some values replaced with an ellipsis for clarity) alt="Lock-green.svg" src=... width="9" height="14" srcset=... data-file-width="512" data-file-height="813"
. There is an alt=
attribute; there is not a title=
attribute. The enclosing <a href="/info/en/?search=File:Lock-green.svg" class="image">...</a>
element doesn't have a title=
either. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
alt=
attribute. Better that than nothing I suppose.The
documentation implies that Links inserted by identifiers such as |doi=
are not expected to offer a free full text by default So I am expecting the subscription will be set to yes by default if one of these is set. But it isn't.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 21:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
if |doi=
or other identifier is set, then no, that does not happen. The problem with |subscription=
is that it doesn't specify which external link, |url=
or one of the identifiers – there can be multiples – requires the subscription. As the code stands now, it assumes, correctly, that most identifiers (like |doi=
) rarely offer free access to the source. We do not highlight the norm. When |doi=
refers to a source that is free-to-read, editors may add |doi-access=free
to highlight that identifier. There are exceptions: a couple of identifiers are automatically flagged because it is known that these identifiers are always free-to-read (|arxiv=
, |rfc=
, etc). In the same sense, |url=
and |chapter-url=
and their aliases are assumed to be free-to-read. Again, we don't hightlight the norm but when these are not free-to-read, editors may set |url-access=subscription
, etc.|doi=
card does not trigger a "subscription required" note, nor does a |jstor=
card; so |doi-access=free
is the default.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) 23:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
card?
|doi-access=free
is not the default because we do not highlight the normal state, either with an icon or with text. For most identifiers the links normally link to sources behind a registration or subscription wall. Because of this, there is no need to clutter the rendered citation with extraneous access signals.(Sorry to add this new section not at the end of the page, but it's related to the one above.)
I brought this up awhile back, but didn't have time to pursue it further then. I'll quote here my main points from before:
And the same is true for "|subscription=yes". Thank you, Trappist the monk, for pointing me to where I would need to make my suggested changes. I have just edited Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to change:
to:
and:
to:
I see that the period after the ")" gets added elsewhere, and may be done in such a way that it would be difficult to omit it for registration=yes and subscription=yes so that the period can be placed inside the parentheses in the above text, so I have not yet looked into that. Before I do, I wanted to see what the reaction was to my suggested changes and the logic behind them. Thank you. -- Dan Harkless ( talk) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
|subscription=
and |registration=
will be going away."the editorial discretion of individual Wikipedians should be allowed and supported"), but aspect B3 imposes them by not offering any other alternative (
"the editorial discretion of individual Wikipedians should be allowed and supported"
This I believe leaves us in some sort of limbo. When previously I asked how we should proceed, I don't think that I got a compellingly definitive answer. There are those who believe that we should revert all of the access-signal-related changes; there are those who believe that we should implement the individual aspects of the RfC that received consensus no matter how slight; there are those who believe that, for now, we should do neither of those things and continue with the status quo pending supplementary RfCs. I find myself in this latter camp because of closer's writing quoted above and because the status quo version of access-signal support is already out there in use and has been since 29 October 2016.There is,however, a greater issue: A significant body of opinion has been expressed below that the entire visual status indicator idea is not acceptable. The above assessment must be interpreted in light of this. I would urge that this close is treated as a tentative indication of how the Citation Template processing would work in a new RfC to see if there is significant buy-in to proceed forward. To move forward with the shaky consensus established below would not comport with WP:CONS. Overall, there is not yet significant consensus on implementation of these citation template behaviors.
Hey, I hope this is the right place. I was wondering if there was a way to use, say {{cite journal}}
without having a title? Sometimes I need to cite pieces in academic journals that don't have a title, per se. The most obvious example of this is a book review, which generally would be cited as [Review of such-and-such a work], where in lieu or or alongside any proper title is a description of the work itself; and titles and descriptions are distinguished in formatting. Right now I just have |title=[Review of such-and-such]
, but that creates the unsightly "[Review of such-and-such]". And if there is a proper title and a description, then it would have to end up as "Author X has done it again [Review of such-and-such]". For examples of this latter type, see this example from APA 6:
And these examples from CMoS 16 (the first two as notes, the third as a bibliography entry):
Does this make sense? Is there a way to not have a title (i.e., something that is surrounded with quotation marks) and instead (or in addition) have a description? Thanks! Umimmak ( talk) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|department=Reviews
or similar. Additionally, you have to include the information that will help others easily discover the source: if the review has a title, you should use that title - or at least as much of the title as would be required to make it a legible, discoverable citation. If the review's title is the title of the reviewed work, then use that. Hopefully, helped by the rest of the citation, the context will be obvious to the average reader.
65.88.88.126 (
talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)|descriptive-title=yes
option would work, turning off the default quotation marks around a news or journal article title?
Imzadi 1979
→ 23:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|department=Sunday Book Review
pretty well describes the type of the article, I made |type=The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, by Michael Pollan
. Similarly, |department=Featured Reviews
means that it is not necessary to describe the type and because the reviewed work's title in in the article title, no need to use |type=
.|type=
and sometimes using |title=
for a description of the work (cf. the proposed templates for Kamp vs Sorby) seems wildly inconsistent.
Umimmak (
talk) 11:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
|type=Review
, problem solved. It is not the purpose of a citation to explain to reader what the cited content contains or describes. The purpose of a citation is to assist readers in locating the source that supports claims made in a Wikipedia article. If I go to the library and checkout the 17 November 2000 issue of Science and look in the table of contents, I likely won't find any reference to Brown & Duguid but I will find the title "Learning by text or context?" and that review's author. (Apparently not possible to directly link to that issue's TOC but a link to the TOC is available at the
summary page).|title=
as a descriptor. In each case, the title of the review was supplied by the source and was obvious to me. I did not set out to be wholly consistent; that isn't my job here. I did set out to show how I think these three reviews might be cited; that I did them differently just shows that there are different possible methods. It is for you to impose consistency when you create citations in articles.We constantly see new users citing other Wikipedia articles. I think it would be very useful if the cite templates generated an error message when a Wikipedia url was placed in the url field (maybe also when "Wikipedia" was placed in {{cite web}}'s publisher and website fields). Maybe something like:
There are rare exception—proper citations to Wikipedia pages such as in articles about Wikipedia—but they're very uncommon. (I don't think the error message should acknowledge these rare exceptions; it should just state the rule that's almost always true.) If anyone agrees we should do this and someone can provide the code (I cannot), we would need a way to turn off the error message for proper uses. If we reached that stage, if necessary, I would volunteer to spend the time (within reason) to find all instances and implement whatever that fix might be (maybe |WP-url=yes), if I had some help in generating a list of all articles with such circular citations.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Can we automatically identify editors with "ed." or "eds." through this template in all instances? I'm doing a source review of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and I really can't imagine that it's clear to a reader when someone is an editor or not. Ed [talk] [majestic titan]
insource:/\| *editor[^=]*=[^\|\}]+[,;\.]? +\(?ed/
found 1130 matches – ymmv; insource: searches are not always consistent or reliable. I suppose, as a first step, we might add a test similar to the tests that populate
Category:CS1 maint: Extra text (maybe into its own subcategory) and so gain more knowledge of the extent of this issue. Such tests don't indicate much about 'demand'; only that editors have in the past misused the editor parameters.|author[\ds]*=
: 1728|last[\d]*=
: 428|first[\d]*=
: 2208[B]ecause I think the colon looks terribleseems a rather insubstantial reason for opposition. I'm no grammarian so there may be more substantive grammatical reasons why we should not use the colon to introduce the title at the end of the editor list. I suppose that my preference for the colon stems from the use of the full stop (cs1) or comma (cs2) at the end of the editor list when introducing the title so perhaps an alternate is no punctuation:
be inconsistent with how we cite the book alone?
|chapter=
should not be set. But if we were citing a part of the book written by someone else, we'd use |contributor=
in addition to the author and editor.
Kanguole 11:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|in=
. This parameter is a rarely used alias of |language=
.While I was cleaning out
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters I saw a lot of misused |author=
and |editor=
parameters where editors had added inappropriate annotations. That experience and this discussion were the impetus to add name checks to the Module sandbox. I have added code that detects a variety of editor annotations that occur at the end of values assigned to author, contributor, interviewer, editor, and translator names. Still to do is similar annotations that occur at the begining of the name value. For examples see my sandbox:
Special:Permalink/776334484
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added checks for annotation that precedes a name. See Special:Permalink/776493274. Are there other variants of inappropriate editor annotation that I've missed? Do these tests catch things that they should not catch?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a minor rendering bug in the live module that inserts extra punctuation between <author list> and <editor list> when |contributor=
is set and |date=
is not set. Fixed, I think in the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | <contributor list>. Preface. Title. By <author list>. <editor list> (ed.). {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | <contributor list>. Preface. Title. By <author list>. <editor list> (ed.). {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
|language=
with
Template:Cite JournalHey, I was just wondering why the |language=
gets displayed between |journal=
and |volume=
. The |language=
describes the language of the article (i.e., what |title=
describes) not the entire journal, so I would imagine it to be either near the title of the article or somehow modifying the entire citation. Right now it makes it seem like the entire series of a journal is in whatever language instead of just the article under discussion, which is quite often not the case as there are multi-language journals. For a concrete example, see below, which suggests to me at least the entire journal Africa is in German instead of just the article by Lukas, especially as there's no punctuation separation between |journal=
and |language=
:
Is there a reason for this, or am I missing something obvious? This just doesn't seem to be super clear for a reader. Umimmak ( talk) 14:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|title=
, |department=
, and |journal=
all don't suggest the article would be in anything other than English, and the JSTOR link doesn't provide a preview for this work unless you log into your account/have access. I agree, though, that it probably isn't necessary to add the language a work is written in; I just thought that all non-English sources had to be explicitly tagged since otherwise sources are assumed to be English and that's why |
[or rather |language=en
] doesn't show up (although there certainly are times when the |journal=
would suggest a work would not be in English and the |title=
is of no help.
Umimmak (
talk) 15:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)|trans-title=
? Especially since any |url=
would be linked to by |title=
and |trans-title=
combined, see, e.g.:
Especially since any. -- Izno ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)|url=
would be linked to by|title=
and|trans-title=
combined
|trans-title=
linked) used the module's sandbox by calling {{
cite journal/new}}
. All of the cs1|2 templates have a '/new' version so that changes to the module sandboxen can be evaluated. The '/new' versions of the template are not for use in article space. At the next module update from sandbox to live, |trans-title=
will no longer be linked anywhere on en.wiki.|trans-title=
gets linked (or rather doesn't get linked). Thanks for clarifying. (Can you tell I'm new to this, haha).I'll start a new section on this, since TTM's post about it got lost: It's been nearly 6 months since our previous release. Maybe we should update the module soon? -- Izno ( talk) 15:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
|coauthor(s)=
the plan was (and still is) to announce an update to the live module this weekend with the update to follow a week later as it normally does.I chose ssrn limits to be 100 and 3 million. This insource: search pattern, insource:/\| *ssrn *= *294[0-9]{4,}/i
, finds one use in the 2,940,000–2,949,999 range (2940297). That would suggest that the 3 million upper limit is sufficient for the time being.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |ssrn=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I expect to update the live cs1|2 modules on the weekend of 29–30 April. Changes since the last update are:
{{
cite interview}}
parameters; (
discussion)to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)