This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Concerning Template:Cite journal/doc, to get Vancouver system formatted authors one must add:
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
to the {{ cite journal}} template (see this discussion). Alternatively one can use a single author parameter. I have updated the documentation accordingly. Boghog ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
" has been previously
requested, but as far as I know, never implemented. On a related issued, I have also
requested that pass through parameters be added to the {{
cite doi}} and {{
cite pmid}} templates so that these templates could optionally render authors in the Vancouver style.
Boghog (
talk) 17:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Or, as I have suggested before, create a new set of templates that call these parameters. You also won't have to monitor and fix follow on edits for the next few decades. -- Gadget850 talk 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In the documentation for {{
cite encyclopedia}}, specifically
Template:Cite_encyclopedia#Title, |trans_title=
is repeated, appearing once under |title=
and again under |encyclopedia=
. I believe that I have identified two problems.
1. |trans_title=
goes with |title=
or |article=
. There does not appear to be a way to provide a translation of the title of the encyclopedia itself.
2. The "Pages with citations using translated terms without the original" error appears when there is a translated title and |article=
is used instead of |title=
(|article=
is an alias of |title=
).
I believe that there should be a parameter allowing #1 above to work. It is possible that such a parameter exists but that the documentation is unclear (to me).
I also believe that the presence of a valid |article=
should prevent the error message in #2 from appearing.
Some examples:
A citation where |trans_title=
is intended to translate |encyclopedia=
:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|article=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)The same citation, using |title=
instead of |article=
:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|title=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Am I doing it wrong, which happens a lot, or have I found one or more bugs? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
|article=
is an alias of |chapter=
, not of |title=
. It will give you the same type of citation as your second example . But, that seems wrong because "Danish Biographic ..." is not a translation of Niels Kaas. So, it does look like you've found a bug. Comparing old to live:Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
{{
cite encyclopedia/old}}
:|Title={{{encyclopedia|{{{title|}}}}}}
|TransTitle={{{trans_chapter|}}}
|TransItalic={{{trans_title|}}}
|IncludedWorkTitle={{{title|{{{article|}}}}}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
, |article=
is an alias of |title=
. That isn't the case in
Module:Citation/CS1:
['Chapter'] = {'chapter', 'contribution', 'entry', 'article', 'section' }
|chapter=
is not supported by {{cite encyclopedia/old}}
.Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article". Title. Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article". Title. Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article". Title. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article". Title. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
I think that I conclude from this series of comparisons that
Module:Citation/CS1 isn't too badly broken, if it's broken at all. The {{
citation/core}}
version of {{
cite encyclopedia}}
is flawed so using it as a reference is problematic but I've used it here to show that the Module is fundamentally correct. If we are are to "fix" anything, it might be to alias |encyclopedia=
and |title=
for {{cite encyclopedia}}
– if an editor needed |article=
, |title=
, and |work=
then {{
cite book}}
can be used.
Aliasing |encyclopedia=
and |title=
for {{cite encyclopedia}}
will also improve the metadata because then the encyclopedia's title will be included.
From the above comparisons, I've discovered that Editor Jonesey95's example citation can be properly rendered:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|title=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|article=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)This is how it would render if we alias |encyclopedia=
and |title=
for {{cite encyclopedia}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Further head scratching:
This issue basically involves three parameters: |encyclopedia=
, |title=
, and |article=
. Set or not set gives eight possible combinations:
|article=
|title=
|title=
and |article=
|encyclopedia=
|encyclopedia=
and |article=
|encyclopedia=
and |title=
|encyclopedia=
|title=
, and |article=
Nothing wrong with combinations 2, 3, 4, and 8. For the rest, if, within reason, we re-map parameters to positions of greater specificity, then for:
|encyclopedia=
maps to |title=
|encyclopedia=
maps to |title=
|title=
maps to |article=
and |encyclopedia=
maps to |title=
When |title=
maps to |article=
, |trans_title=
maps to (and overwrites) |trans_chapter=
.
I've tweaked the sandbox code so now we get this (|url=
and |chapterurl=
added to make sure that they follow their proper title parameters):
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | Encyclopedia
//example.com. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Encyclopedia
//example.com. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 5 |
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 6 |
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 7 |
This tweak fixes Editor Jonesey95's first example:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|article=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
|title=
, |chapter=
, and |article=
, and the existing documentation is not helping me. Should these two citations behave in the same way?Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 6 with article name in "article" but no trans_chapter |
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live |
"Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 7 with article name in "title" but no trans_chapter |
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
? Are people using |title=
for the article title? I expect they are either using |title=
or |article=
, but those two parameters are apparently not equivalent. We might be able to make a very nice change to the template if we could first get a bot to substitute appropriate parameter names in existing articles and templates that use {{
cite encyclopedia}}
. Maybe.|title=
to |article=
|title=
to |encyclopedia=
(mirroring {{
cite book}}
, since encyclopedias are books)|trans_title=
apply to |encyclopedia=
|trans_article=
for translated article names (it would be equivalent to |trans_chapter=
){{
citation/core}}
. This issue was one that didn't get resolved. See his comment above regarding the snippet of code from {{citation/core}}
.|article=
(an alias of |chapter=
) as the citation element with the smallest scope. This is reflected in its leftmost position in the rendered citation. Next is |title=
and then finally |encyclopedia=
. When |article=
isn't present, the next "larger" parameter, |title=
gives its value to |article=
; the now vacant |title=
gets its value from |encyclopedia=
. In this way we adjust to what we've been given and produce a more-or-less sensibly rendered citation. Is it optimal? Probably not. Were we designing {{cite encyclopedia}}
anew, we might choose to have only |encyclopedia=
and |article=
. It would make things simpler.|article=
and |encyclopedia=
. Since there is no |title=
, |encyclopedia=
gives up its value to |title=
. Because |title=
did not give its value to |article=
, |trans_title=
will not give up its value to |trans_chapter=
. Similarly, in your second example, |title=
gives its value to |article=
, |trans_title=
gives its value to |trans_chapter=
, and |encyclopedia=
gives its value |title=
. "So that, as clear as is the summer's sun," explains that. (Quoted bit from Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2){{
cite encyclopedia}}
is used. You'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about getting a robot to do anything and do it reliably. I remember that not too long ago there were assertions made that a "bot remedy [was] in hand"; assertions that seem to have been unfounded.|encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia
is self explanatory. As |article=
is an alias for |title=
, it is simplest to eschew it and simply use |title=
and |trans_title=
in reference to the cited article. Any use of |title=Encyclopaedia
is simply an error, that should be corrected if found, to |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia
. Doing so should not create any problems.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 02:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC){{
cite encyclopedia}}
documentation is pretty much the same as the current documentation because of how the CS1 documentation is structured. All of the CS1 templates share bits, pieces, and parts from {{
Citation Style documentation}}
which transcludes multiple other templates that contain the actual documentation for the various parameters.|title=
so that |trans_title=
can be used and the two rendered properly in the template's output.|
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LeadSongDog (
talk •
contribs) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reflecting upon Jonesey95's last comment, I checked the use of 'title' in all the templates. They are split between using 'title' for the main work or the included work; {{ cite news}} uses it for both conditionally. This doesn't change the issue that the way {{ cite encyclopedia}} uses 'title' is wrong. -- Gadget850 talk 14:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Template | Main title italics |
Included title quotes |
---|---|---|
{{ Cite AV media}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite AV media notes}} | title | notestitle |
{{ Cite book}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite conference}} | title | booktitle |
{{ Cite DVD-notes}} | title | |
{{ Cite encyclopedia}} | encyclopedia | title |
{{ Cite episode}} | series | title |
{{ Cite interview}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite journal}} | work | title |
{{ Cite mailing list}} | mailinglist | title |
{{ Cite map}} | title | map |
{{ Cite music release notes}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite news}} | work | title displays in quotes if work is not defined |
{{ Cite newsgroup}} | id and title | |
{{ Cite podcast}} | website | title |
{{ Cite press release}} | title | |
{{ Cite serial}} | series | title |
{{ Cite sign}} | title | |
{{ cite speech}} | title | |
{{ cite techreport}} | work | title |
{{ Cite thesis}} | title, chapter | |
{{ Cite web}} | website | title |
This suggestion is for Template:Cite web. There is a quote= parameter for use when giving an exact quotation from the source. There is also a laysummary= arg which is used to point to a URL, and is a synonym for layurl.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there is no provision for adding additional text, which is an on-the-spot summary, or perhaps a paraphrase (if it is partial rather than full). Suggest that there be a new arg or two, which permit these things to happen, plus a generic one for explanatory/disclamatory(sp?)/similar text of purposely-unspecified nature.
Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
p.s. The particular use-case here is for a high-school athletics program, which from time to time wins awards at the state championship level, for the dozen different sports they compete in. I would like to have a reference using ((cite web)) which points to the story about the championship, and then specify the traditional details like this.
That level of detail is mind-numbing for inclusion in the main body as prose... there, I would just say "2013 Boys Golf State Champs" or something similarly brief.
I realize that I could create the necessary references without using ((cite web)), and include my additional disclaimer-text... but the article already exists, and is already using ((cite web)). I'm just trying to push the overly-detailed stuff into a footnote-sort-of-area, where it belongs. Thanks for any suggestions on the best way forward. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As User:Debresser/Sandbox shows, the title and article parameters are treated the same by {{ Cite encyclopedia}}, unless they are given both, in which case the title parameter is italicized. The documentation on Template:Cite_encyclopedia/doc#Title says that title and article are aliases. Could somebody please explain this seeming contradiction, and propose how to change the documentation or the template accordingly. Debresser ( talk) 02:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Toward the end of this week I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox ( diff), Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox ( diff) and Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to match Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox ( diff). This update is, for the most part, bug fixes and minor enhancements:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the templates now convert any hyphens in page numbers. I had to use the code for a hyphen in this edit to get them to appear as hyphens again. (Environmental impact studies tend to use hyphenated pagination for the chapter and the page number within the chapter.) I understand that people don't always use a dash for page ranges, but it seems to be very counterintuitive to resort to codes like this when a hyphen is correct, and I had to dig to find the code which isn't documented, and instead the documentation says to use at... :( Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|pages=
. A hyphenated page number in |page=1-1
like the one in your example is not converted to an endash:{{cite book |title=Title |page=1-1}}
→ Title. p. 1-1.{{cite book |title=Title |pages=1-1}}
→ Title. pp. 1–1.‑
in hyphenated page numbers corrupts the
COinS metadata.‑
with a hyphen but that string is more difficult to type that a couple of hyphens.Honestly, I'm on the fence about all of this. On one hand, I appreciate that the correct dash can be hard to type, and that people are ignorant (some intentionally) of good typography, so the concept of the templates correcting a hyphen to a dash is nice. However, in this case, such a concept does actual harm since hyphenated page numbers are not a totally obscure concept. I think given those harms, the template should not attempt the autocorrection, and we should deal with educating people or just wikignoming dashes into place as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|page=
|at=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)|pages=
(the plural).Since |month=
has been deprecated, should
Help:Citation Style 1#Dates be update, similar to
Template:Cite web#Deprecated does? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 06:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't done much digging into the articles in the new date error category, but I came across one today that looked like a false positive. The date format was: |accessdate=September 23, 2011
in the article
Mel Pearson. Should non-breaking spaces be allowed where spaces are allowed in valid date formats? MOS:DATEFORMAT is not explicit on the issue.
I can see why someone would put non-breaking spaces into a date like this, but it seems overly fancy to me. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
is legitimate html, to CS1 it is just extraneous text. If CS1 is working correctly, there should be no need for editors to add markup that effects the display of the rendered citation (external links and wikilinks excepted, and then only in certain circumstances). On my list of things to do is to insert
in appropriate places in dates, in time, and perhaps elsewhere.
in properly formatted dates except within date ranges. Here's a rather long discussion about
in citations which I have not yet had the time to read. Perhaps that will be helpful.
out, but I've only spotted nbsp in two articles in 2 or 3 places; these are easily reinserted manually if needed, because the script automatically does "Show Changes" after it runs. See
WP:NBSP for the prime advice about
- it's pretty conservative, suggesting use in a limited way only where absolutely needed. To me, stray HTML which stops me from searching for plain dates while editing is just invalid wikitext. May I suggest {{
nowrap}} ({{nowrap| 2 November 1823}}) rather than fussing with
? --
Lexein (
talk) 20:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
nowrap}}
has no place in a CS1 citation template. When I suggested that one of the things on my my todo list is to insert
in appropriate places in dates, in time, and perhaps elsewhere
, I meant that
Module:Citation/CS1 would do that to the template output and not in the wikitext that an editor sees.
and the remainder of the date can break at the second space:
November 2013
30, 2013
– July 2013‑
:
‑
11‑
30<span class="nowrap">30 November</span>
2013(
edit conflict)This issue only applies to the use of {{
nowrap}}
or
within a
Citation Style 1 template. Here is a simple {{
cite book}}
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=20 December 2013}}
It renders like this:
When Module:Citation/CS1 processes the template the output (which the Mediawiki code will convert to a displayable page as HTML) looks like this:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000072-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. 20 December 2013.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.date=2013-12-20&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
If you hunt through that tangle of stuff you will find the date in the
COinS metadata: &rft.date=20+December+2013
Here is what the {{nowrap}}
template output looks like:
<span class="nowrap">20 December 2013</span>
Now, if we change our original {{cite book}}
template to use {{
nowrap}}
in |date={{nowrap|20 December 2013}}
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date={{nowrap|20 December 2013}}}}
It renders like this:
When Module:Citation/CS1 processes the template the output looks like this:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000078-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <span class="nowrap">20 December 2013</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>
If you hunt through that tangle of stuff you will find the corrupted date:
&rft.date=%3Cspan+class%3D%22nowrap%22%3E20+December+2013%3C%2Fspan%3E
And that is the problem. Presentation information should not be included in CS1 parameter values because that information ends up in the COinS metadata because when external referencing tools read the date value they get non-date text.
Use {{nowrap}}
all you want in your article's text but leave it out of your CS1-based citations Handcrafted citations, because they don't generate machine readable metadata can use {{nowrap}}
. Have I answered your questions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, your edit on 30 November indicated that ISO 8601 [sic] dates would be displayed with non-breaking hyphens. I would think that anyone under the delusion that the English Wikipedia has adopted ISO 8601 would expect a date that appears to be in that format to be in exactly that format, with every single character specifically endorsed in the standard. Can you cite the paragraphs in the ISO 8601 standard that endorses the non-breaking hyphen? If not, it would be safer to stick with nowrap. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Excuse my bad english. Hello looking for Master of the Rolls I see many problems with the link to http://oxforddnb.com. F.e.: {{cite web |url=http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/16040?&docPos=1&backToResults=list=yes|group=yes|feature=yes|aor=3|orderfield=alpha |title=Oxford DNB: Langton, John |year=2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |accessdate=18 November 2009}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |aor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |group=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |orderfield=
ignored (
help)The term between url and title are parameters from the oxforddnb.com but cite web are interpreted there as parameters from cite web. Could someone looking for this? With best regards -- Markus S. ( talk) 14:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|url=
value contains the pipe symbol "|" which Wikipedia templates use to identify parameters. To fix these citations, replace the pipe symbols in the |url=
with {{
!}}
:{{cite web |url=http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/16040?&docPos=1&backToResults=list=yes{{!}}group=yes{{!}}feature=yes{{!}}aor=3{{!}}orderfield=alpha |title=Oxford DNB: Langton, John |year=2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |accessdate=18 November 2009|subscription=yes}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16040
The additional parameters all seem to relate to having searched ODNB for this entry so aren't relevant for a direct link from WP.
NtheP (
talk) 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|url=
values has always caused problems because the Wikipedia software uses it to separate a template's parameters. The change from markup-based {{
citation/core}}
to Lua-based
Module:Citation/CS1 processing allowed us to detect malformed citation parameters. That change was made this year.Should {{
cite court}}
be added to
Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1,
Help:Citation_Style_1#Templates, etc.?
It Is Me Here
t /
c 12:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
or
Module:Citation/CS1. {{
cite court}}
uses neither.{{
cite court}}
uses the US
Bluebook style. Previous attempts to incorporate it into CS1 were rebuffed- see {{
cite court}}
talk. I am not aware of any legal citation templates that use the CS1 style. --
Gadget850
talk 15:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)This is a note, in case it hasn't come to the attention of the editors here, that there is a new bot, User:ReferenceBot, that is notifying editors when they place an article in one of a handful of reference error categories. It works in almost the same way as User:BracketBot, adding a notification to the editor's Talk page letting them know that their edit appears to have caused a reference error.
ReferenceBot currently checks the following categories for new articles once per day:
Those categories were chosen because they are currently (or recently) free of problem articles. This means that editors who revert to previous versions of articles will not be accused of introducing an error unless they revert an article to a state before the citation errors were fixed.
I am hopeful that this new bot will help keep the emptied CS1 categories from refilling quite so fast, allowing us to focus on fixing longstanding errors instead of trying to keep up with the new ones.
Here are a few diffs that show ReferenceBot's messages to editors: URL error, cite error, missing references list, unnamed parameter error. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Some newspaper citations, such as the one added in this edit, referring to The Times, have values for issue and column. Should {{ Cite news}} have equivalent parameters? If not how else should they be entered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
{{cite news|title=Local Authorities And Cremation |date=31 August 1928 |newspaper=[[The Times]] |at=p. 9 col E |issue=44986}}
|at=
for page and column, |issue=
for the issue number, change date to dmy format, no |accessdate=
because no |url=
.Thank you. The existing parameters which you use are not in the toolbar dialogue which I used, and the access date is generated automatically by that tool uses. Can these bugs be addressed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
template) can be addressed. I suspect that here is probably not the best place to accomplish that. Surely there is a talk page for your tool?When the icon templates (e.g. {{
sv icon}}) are used in the |language=
parameter, we see references like this:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)I believe that the Reflinks tool is the primary way these templates are ending up in citations. Although I contacted Dispenser about this almost two years ago, it's still making the same error. Should the citation templates be fixed to display the references properly when the icon templates are used, or should I submit a bot proposal to fix these? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, {{ Check ISO 639-1}} may be of interest; see discussion at Wikipedia:Lua requests/Archive 3#Language of native names. Perhaps a similar approach could be used to catch instances such as those discussed above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Category:CS1 errors: dates states "While most of the Citation Style 1 error messages are visible to all readers, some remain hidden." How much flexibility do we have with displaying error messages for this particular category? Is it all or nothing, or can we get more granular than that, such as displaying some error messages for dates that can't be fixed by bot? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking at a Featured List nomination and some of the refs are credited to "Newsarama Staff" as this is what is given as the author. My understanding is that in this case the author field should just be empty, but I wanted to be sure before I advise the candidate to enact this. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
Do not blank or remove unless there is a local consensus to do so (on the talk page of the article). Although there is no harm in a editor making a bold edit to a page, this is not a job for a bot or a user running a semi-automated script such as AWB (as that is potentially disruptive and not bold unless there has been an RfC with many participants to gauge the consensus on this -- eg an RfC at village pump). Usually "author=...staff..." should be left alone, particularly as it is an link field to {{ harvnb}} and similar templates. -- PBS ( talk) 12:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a symptom that grows out of the history of CS1. It originally was kinda sorta modelled on APA and MLA, but never had a style manual of its own. Now it is being regarded as a separate style, but many issues that have been decided in more established styles have never been considered for CS1. In the case of an institutional that is both the author and publisher (or stated another way, the name of the individual author(s) is/are not given), there is no guidance about which of these options should be adopted:
If one of these options is to be selected, a well-advertised RFC should be conducted. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite map}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)As PBS alluded to above, I started using my bot to make edits such as |author=Staff
to |author=<!-- Staff -->
based on the conversation here, and
this previously approved request. My bot was temporarily blocked, and two editors would like me to revert each of the edits. I'm happy to do so, but concerned that other people will be equally concerned about the mass reversion. Instead of acting hastily, I'd like to take a moment and discuss it here and then take the appropriate action. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 17:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
|author=
staff, as I also see little point in having something so seemingly useless apparently for the sake of populating an empty field. However, I would reserve final comment until PBS demonstrates just how/where it's "useful" to include it.
Ohc
¡digame! 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Three people on a projectwide issue, on a rarely watched Help talk: page, is not consensus sufficient to run a bot to remove something from hundreds of articles. The onus to demonstrate consensus sufficient to run such a bot is on the bot operator, not on the people "complaining" about the bot edits; yes, BAG should have caught this, but its failure to do so does not excuse the bot operator from this important responsibility. Bots should not be used to win disputes over reference formatting. -- Rs chen 7754 08:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|author=<!-- Staff -->
has been part of the {{
cite news}} doc for at least five years, it is pretty much codified. With its long history, I see no problem in BAG approving this.As to the use of staff in the author field linked to harvnb is a tricky thing to search, however a search "BBC staff" returns Battle of Worcester as the first example of using "BBC staff" with harvnb/sfn. -- PBS ( talk) 13:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed the approval of BattyBot 24 be revoked. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year, and thank you all for your input on this important matter. While I don't see any examples of where any of the bot's edits actually broke any citations with {{ sfn}} or similar templates, the fact that it COULD do so is very troubling. Therefore, I will be manually reverting each of the bot's edits that commented out "Staff". I will also post all of BattyBot's find and replace rules at Jc3s5h's proposal for further discussion. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 21:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|author=Newsarama staff
in regards to
a Featured list nomination. The bot changed
11 articles to |author=<!--Newsarama staff-->
. None of these edits have been reverted by other editors. Based on the conversation in Featured list discussion, I'd like to let these edits stand, unless someone who works in comics-related articles would like me to revert them. Any objections?
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have begun migrating {{
cite speech}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1. A parameter unique to {{cite speech}}
is |event=
. This parameter is assigned to the {{citation/core}}
parameter |Series=
. This seems odd to me. In many respects, {{cite speech}}
is similar to {{
cite conference/old}}
. A difference is that the {{cite conference/old}}
-unique parameter |conference=
is assigned to the {{citation/core}}
parameter |Other=
.
From {{
citation/core/doc}}
:
|Other=
Other details to be inserted in a particular place.|Series=
series of which this periodical is a part.(⊗ indicates a parameter included in the citation's COinS metadata)
It seems that the roughly analogous parameters |event=
and |conference=
should have been using the same {{citation/core}}
parameter which I think should have been |Other=
. I think this because in the context of {{cite speech}}
and {{cite conference}}
the two unique parameters serve much the same purpose.
With that in mind, I have, in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox and
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox added parameters |event=
and |eventurl=
as aliases of |conference=
and |conferenceurl=
. When compared with the current {{citation/core}}
-based {{cite speech}}
, the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox version of {{cite speech}}
renders slightly differently as can be seen in this comparison:
Wikitext | {{cite speech
|
---|---|
Live | Roosevelt, Eleanor (December 9, 1948). On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Speech). Third regular session of the United Nations General Assembly. Paris, France. |
Sandbox | Roosevelt, Eleanor (December 9, 1948). On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Speech). Third regular session of the United Nations General Assembly. Paris, France. |
When |event=
is not included in the citation, the new renders the same as the old. See the
testcases for more.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
TitleNote
(normally assigned the value provided by |department=
) to hold the text string " (Speech)
" (without quotes but with the leading space). Since |department=
is used by {{
cite news}}
, I suspect that this won't be a problem.When a quote is used for the title of an article, as in this reference from Love and Affection, the single quotes butt right up against the automatically generated quotation marks.
{{cite web|author=Birch, Helen|title='I prefer birdsong to chatter'|url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1627347,00.html|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 November 2005|accessdate=7 April 2008}}
Is it acceptable to use {{ '-}} and {{ -'}} to add a bit of space between them, as I did below, or does that mess up the COinS output? Is this documented anywhere?
{{cite web|author=Birch, Helen|title={{-'}}I prefer birdsong to chatter{{'-}}|url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1627347,00.html|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 November 2005|accessdate=7 April 2008}}
Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
&rft.atitle=%3Cspan+style%3D%22padding-left%3A0.2em%3B%22%3E%26%2339%3B%3C%2Fspan%3EI+prefer+birdsong+to+chatter%3Cspan+style%3D%22padding-right%3A0.2em%3B%22%3E%26%2339%3B%3C%2Fspan%3E
&rft.atitle=%27I+prefer+birdsong+to+chatter%27
 
to separate multiple quotation marks in articles; I expect that messes up the COinS data as well. I look forward to having the module be able to insert a little space without editors having to do it manually.
{{cite web|author=Birch, Helen|title= 'I prefer birdsong to chatter' | url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1627347,00.html|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 November 2005|accessdate=7 April 2008}}
I expect that messes up the COinS data as well.Yep:
&rft.btitle=%26thinsp%3B%27I+prefer+birdsong+to+chatter%27%26thinsp%3B
{{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
:
{{ Cite DNB}} is returning Help:CS1 errors#bad_date in examples like this - Hayton Castle - presumably because no volume is specified and the default otherwise is a date range. Anyway round this? NtheP ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
{{cite DNB|wstitle=Lowther, Richard |volume=34}}
|volume=
isn't specified.
NtheP (
talk) 23:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The general case is being discussed at Module_talk:Citation/CS1. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
{{cite DNB|wstitle=Lowther, Richard |volume=34}}
then all power to you, but if you do then please include the author and page numbers as well:
For {{
cite DNB}}
, one conversation in one place please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have created a simple
AWB script to attack the largest of the CS1 error categories. The script concatenates |day=
, |month=
, and |year=
when they are adjacent to each other in CS1 citations. The script concatenates them into a single |date=DD Mmmm YYYY
parameter at the end of the citation; this is the format that
Module:Citation/CS1 uses. The script is set to use
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters.
The script does not do error checking ( User:BattyBot/CS1 errors-dates is already doing that so I see no reason to duplicate that effort), it simply captures the content of the various parameters and lumps them together.
There has been enough testing to convince myself that the most common arrangement of the date parameters, |month=
and |year=
in that order, is working reliably. Editors don't seem to place these parameters in the reverse order – at least I haven't seen it more than once or twice in the limited testing I've done. I have yet to encounter the three parameter (|day=
, |month=
, |year=
) case in any order.
Feel free to use and improve the script, perhaps it can be robotized.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"DMY test". 2004. {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |day= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"DMY test". 2004. {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |day= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help)
|
|day=
/|date=
, |month=
, and |year=
into |date=<day/date> <month> <year>
. I don't see much point in duplicating the function adequately handled by BattyBot 25.Status of converting this simple script to a robot to troll through Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
BRFA.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Community consensus includes not only template maintainers, but also those that use templates to create article content. The deprecation of the month parameter has not been discussed outside template talk pages. Hence there is no broad consensus to deprecate this parameter. I will open up a discussion here shortly requesting wider community input. In the meantime, I request that bots hold off on automated replacement of the month parameter in {{ cite journal}} templates. Boghog ( talk) 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
|date=
(or |day=
) is already present and contains a single number, indicating that the editor intended to show a day, month, and year. When a day is intended to be shown, the month parameter cannot be used, because the day parameter has been deprecated for a long time. The change above concatenates a day, month, and year into a date parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)|date=
or |day=
with |month=
and |year=
into |date=
when all three are adjacent to each other in the CS1 template. Also, when |date=
or |day=
are not present, the script concatenates adjacent |month=
and |year=
into |date=
.|date=
or |day=
parameter present, I question why it is necessary to concatenate adjacent |month=
and |year=
parameters. The |month=
parameter has been widely used for a long time without problem. Furthermore concatenation increases the chances for inconsistency in the way dates are rendered. Finally it will create a lot of unnecessary edits. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Boghog (
talk) 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)|day=
was also used for a long time as were various flavors of |accessdate=
; we seem to have survived the withdrawal and consolidation of those parameters. How does concatenation of |month=
with |year=
increase the chances of rendered date inconsistency?|day=
and |accessdate=
in {{
cite journal}} templates because they are rarely used. Specifying the day on which a journal article was published is overkill. Hence citation template filling tools such as
WP:REFTOOLS and Diberri's
Template filler do not even support the day parameter. Journal articles, after they are published almost never change, hence specifying an access date for a journal article generally does not make sense. In contrast |month=
and |year=
are frequently used. Consolidating the month with year into a single free format date parameter allows editors to specify "January 2014" or "2014 January", hence the possibility of inconsistency. Finally no one has provided a clear and concise explanation for why this deprecation necessary. How is the month parameter causing harm?
Boghog (
talk) 02:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)|day=
, for example, has been deprecated for a long time yet, when used, is still concatenated with |month=
and |year=
to form the displayed dmy format date. You are free to continue to use any and all of these three parameters and will be able to do so for the foreseeable future.Extended content
|
---|
|
This is a note to say that a bot has been proposed that would fix CS1 date errors. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 25. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
{{ Cite press release}} has a parameter 'agency' for the press agency thru which the release is made, but this parameter is not even listed in the documentation for this template. Is there a reason to omit it, or should it be added promptly? DES (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm used to seeing the |accessdate=
requires |url=
in citations for books and magazines where the reference has no link to an external web site, which I understand. However, if a citation has a |doi=
parameter to link to an external web site, should it then be OK to include the accessdate? See
Photoredox catalysis references 23 and 24 for examples. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
|doi=
, |pmid=
, and |pmc=
all render as URLs that link directly to the source, or at least to an abstract of it. |pmc=
even links a URL to the article's title.I have begun migrating {{
cite podcast}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1. {{cite podcast}}
looks to be a minor variant of {{
cite web}}
with a default |type=Podcast
and an additional parameter |host=
, an alias of |author=
.
Because a podcast is an online resource, it seems to me that the citation is required to include |url=
. We can create a whole new error message and category or we can choose to add pages with malformed {{cite podcast}}
templates to
Category:Pages using web citations with no URL which in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have done.
{{cite podcast/new |title=Title |host=Host |date=27 Sep 1995}}
{{
cite podcast}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)The error message help text will need to be tweaked if this part of the migration is retained.
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
? How is a defunct podcast so different from a defunct text-based website that it (the defunct podcast) requires a separate mechanism to indicate its dead or defunct status?|archiveurl=
, so the problem is essentially solved if there's an archive. (My bad: the display of dead urls so that they're not clickable is actually a separate issue, and is not relevant to this discussion, so, sorry.) --
Lexein (
talk) 14:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)There are two main reasons why articles end up in Category:CS1 errors: dates: a date that doesn't conform with MOS:DATEFORMAT or extra text in a date field. The latter should be fixed because it causes problems with COinS. However, when someone clicks the Help link next to the Check date values error, it takes them to Help:CS1 errors#bad date, which only mentions the first issue. Should this be updated with a layman description of COinS and instructions to remove the extra text from the date field?
Also, I've seen many templates nested within CS1 templates, such as:
|work=[[Billboard (magazine){{!}}Billboard]]
|author={{aut|Clendinnen, Inga}}
(see
Xelha)If these cause COinS issues, should they be removed, and should the template documentation be updated to state why they should not be used inside citation templates?
Should this information also be added to Help:Citation Style 1? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
aut}}
should not be used in CS1 citations and there is a note in the template documentation that so states.|authorformat=scap
but we have never discussed use. --
Gadget850
talk 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)--
Gadget850
talk 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
If Template:Cite AV media notes "is used to create citations for liner notes from albums, DVDs, CDs and similar audio-visual media.", why have Template:Cite music release notes ("is used to create citations for the cover notes, booklet, liner notes, etc. of a music release (album or single).") and Template:Cite DVD-notes ("is used to create citations for DVD liner notes and booklets.")? It seems the "type" (or "format") parameter in Cite AV media notes can be used to specify "Release notes", "Liner notes", "CD insert notes", "DVD booklet", etc. Perhaps add these to the description section:
— Ojorojo ( talk) 19:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In the website parameter.should one add the actual website, such as www.norfolkmills.co.uk when the full URL is http://www.norfolkmills.co.uk/Windmills/mileham-postmill.html , or when there is no clear official name for the site, just make up a name such as "Norfolk windmills," which is informative, but would provide little help if the link went dead. Edison ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
|website=Norfolk Mills
. See
Norfolk Mills.|website=Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales
(fortifications should be capitalized). No need to say that it's a website just as there is no need to say that On the Origin of Species is a book or that The Lancet is a journal.{{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite encyclopedia}}
:
<title>
as something akin to a book title, or a journal title, or the name of an encyclopedia. The website <title>
, Norfolk Mills or Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales in Editor Edison's examples, is then properly italicized. The name of the page addressed by |url=
is more-or-less synonymous with the book's chapter name or the journal's or encyclopedia's article name.Should we use both website and publisher tags? Wouldn't these be the same thing 99% of the time? Hcobb ( talk) 21:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
|website=
is [the italicised] alias for "|work=
". The confusion that is caused is real. There's certainly no point in using both, particularly when they are one and the same organisation behind it. Otherwise, we would have the same result but rendered with conflicting formatting – "Norfolk Mills, Norfolk Mills" in the example given above. We see that problem
here, where all websites are italicised contrary to what's stated at
MOS:ITALIC, which states that these should be on a case by case basis. The problem for websites is that most tend not to be italicised. Some are dynamic and many are static and the first point of contact for any given organisation. It's a frontspiece and not considered a mouthpiece, like a company journal. Yet by aliasing |website=
to |work=
, we implicitly declare that all websites generate original content and ought thus be italicised. Just take the example above, or the Microsoft website: these would be respectively rendered in the citation as "Norfolk Mills" and "Microsoft", whereas under usual conditions, these would never be italicised. If, however, we populate the |website=
field with "norfolkmills.co.uk", it is immediately clear the information came from the website itself. But either way both instances would be incorrectly italicised. It doesn't make it right to italicise "norfolkmills.co.uk" irregardless, but it would not be "wrong" in any event to have 'Norfolk Mills' and 'Microsoft' as "publisher". It would have made much more sense aliasing it to |publisher=
. --
Ohc
¡digame! 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have enhanced the month / season range validation to require that the order in which the months or seasons appear in a citation is left to right, earliest to latest in time.
Month range order:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Season range order:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Single season validation code changed so test single seasons:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Because WP:DATESNO specifies unspaced enadashes as the proper separator for date ranges like Month–Month year, I have changed Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that a hyphen or solidus separator will be caught as an error. Both BattyBot 25 and Monkbot 1 make this repair to dates they encounter.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Testing in my sandbox seems to indicate that if a genuine n-dash is used, all is well, but if the – HTML entity is used, it is flagged as an error. I don't think this is appropriate, both due to the difficulty of typing a genuine n-dash, and the difficulty of distinguishing an n-dash from other dash-like marks in the edit window.
An additional point I was testing, but was stopped by the HTML entity problem, was testing whether a date such as "December 2230 – January 2231" for a journal which publishes issue 1 in the middle of the calendar year. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Dates" section says "Dates formats per WP:DATESNO." That is a short cut to section 2.4, "Dates and years" section of the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. One of the subsections is 2.4.1.4, " Consistency", which says:
* Publication dates in article references should all have the same format. Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD.
This text is present to allow for the fact that printed style guides might call for a different date format than what is suggested for the article body by MOS and MOSNUM.
So the intend of the statement in this help page was to apply the MOSNUM rules for article bodies, tables, and other places where space is limited, to CS1 citations. But by referencing a large section that includes the exemption for printed style guides, those limitations were not really adopted after all. I suggest the help page either be revised to point to more specific subsections, or the desired text be copied to this help page. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
to point to more specific subsectionsrather than editorialize, I would not have objected. As it is, I must object.
The way the DATESNO shorcut is placed, it includes all of the following subsections:
3.4 Dates and years 3.4.1 Formats 3.4.1.1 Acceptable date formats 3.4.1.2 Unacceptable date formats 3.4.1.3 Consistency 3.4.1.4 Strong national ties to a topic 3.4.1.5 Retaining existing format 3.4.2 Era style 3.4.3 Julian and Gregorian calendars 3.4.4 Ranges 3.4.5 Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates 3.4.6 Linking and autoformatting of dates
It may not be obvious by reading the guideline, but reviewing the talk page history will reveal that "Although nearly any consistent style may be used..." to include the possibility that the style adopted for citations in a particular article may specify a date format different from the acceptable date formats listed near the beginning of DATESNO. A specific example is that APA style calls for publication dates to be written like "2014, January 14". Since CS1 is adopting its own date style, which is intended to be what the same as what is allowed in article text, tables, and areas where space is limited, the "escape clause" for printed style guides does not apply.
Maybe a way to describe what is allowed is:
Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Any suggestions as to a good way to record someone's thesis advisor?
{{
cite thesis}} doesn't have anywhere, and it really doesn't fit with {{{editor}}}
and the like.
Maybe suitable fields could be added?
—
Phil |
Talk 18:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
|others=
. Would an advisor write any part of the thesis? --
Gadget850
talk 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have just made an edit to the help page that, whilst not completely doing away with any ambiguity, reduces it. The problem arises with the instruction to omit "The" unless where it would cause ambiguity. My preferred solution is for the data in such fields to mirror the WP namespace which the subject occupies. We would thus use " The Boston Globe" or " The Miami Herald" throughout any given article, to avoid awkward piping, or instances where citations would alternately show the two above as well as " Boston Globe" or " Miami Herald". -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Toward the end of this week I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox ( diff) and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox ( diff). This update changes several things:
|month=
, |coauthor=
, and |coauthors=
|date=
and |year=
, and does not corrupt the
COinS metadata.— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
After the success of BattyBot 25, which has made over 71,000 edits and removed at least 40,000 articles from Category:CS1 errors: dates, I am inspired to propose another CS1 error category to be fixed by a bot. I think Category:Pages with ISBN errors is ready for a pass by a competent find-and-replace bot.
Here's a list of error types I have seen in that category. They are numbered manually for ease of discussion. All links are to actual instances of erroneous |isbn=
parameters in actual articles.
Comments? Questions? Objections? Dope slaps? I suppose since there are only 9,000 articles in the category, someone might be willing to run through it with an AWB script based on the above errors instead of going to the trouble of creating a bot and getting it approved. I do not have access to the technology required to run AWB. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)ISBN\s*([\d\-X]+)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*unknown)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+)(\s*\([\w\s]+\))(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4<!--$5-->$6
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)[\d\-X]+,\s*(97[89][\d\-]+)(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+,\s*)(97[89][\d\-]+)(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3<!--$4-->$5$6
|isbn=ISBN13, ISBN10
?|isbn=ISBN13, ISBN10
. The rule for it is in the settings file.([\}\|])
to indicate that I'm looking for one and only one of those two characters.{{
csdoc}}
for obvious errors.{{
cite web#COinS}}
.
Parser.php
. The CS1 templates don't use magic links; they only work above because they are plain text. --
Gadget850
talk 22:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Clarifying: If I use "|isbn=9780773532861." in a citation, I get a link that includes a trailing period. When I click on it, I am taken to Special:BookSources, but the trailing period has been stripped away in the search box, even though it was in the URL. It looks like that link may be handled by Parser.php or equivalent code (thanks for the link). Looking at the Parser.php code may be helpful. It looks to me, as non-Perl hacker, that the code is extracting just the leading numbers, spaces, and dashes, in these lines of code:
01266 ISBN\s+(\b # m[5]: ISBN, capture number 01267 (?: 97[89] [\ \-]? )? # optional 13-digit ISBN prefix 01268 (?: [0-9] [\ \-]? ){9} # 9 digits with opt. delimiters 01269 [0-9Xx] # check digit 01270 \b)
...and then removing the spaces and dashes and converting "x" to "X" when it fills the Search box:
01310 # ISBN 01311 $isbn = $m[5]; 01312 $num = strtr( $isbn, array( 01313 '-' => '', 01314 ' ' => '', 01315 'x' => 'X', 01316 ));
Here's a citation that has a malformed ISBN but results in a successful search at Special:BookSources:
Author. Title.
ISBN
978-0-226-53431-2 (hbk.). {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
Note that the URL includes the extraneous text, but somehow the ISBN in the search box is stripped of that text (possibly by Parser.php?). Clicking the Worldcat search link for that book works fine. An |isbn=
parameter with two ISBNs does not work, however:
Author. Title.
ISBN
0-8304-1580-7, 9780830415809. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
Drawing tentative conclusions from all of this rambling: the code that leads from a cite template to Special:BookSources does a good job of ignoring extraneous text (and also non-hyphen dashes, it appears). It may or may not help us fix these malformed ISBNs. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
SpecialBooksources.php
does some cleanup as well. --
Gadget850
talk 10:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
can we make this return a "missing title" error? currently {{cite journal|pmc=2693255}} returns a script error. Frietjes ( talk) 16:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255}} |
.
PMC
2693255
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693255. |
{{cite journal|pmid=2693255}} |
.
PMID
2693255. |
{{cite journal|jstor=2693255}} |
.
JSTOR
2693255. |
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255|url=http://www.example.com}} |
.
PMC
2693255
http://www.example.com. |
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255|title=Title}} |
"Title".
PMC
2693255. |
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255|url=http://www.example.com|title=Title}} |
"Title".
PMC
2693255. |
|url=
is specified. Displaying the PMC and a missing title error seems like the expected behavior. I added a clarifying example above, with a URL. I also added one with a title and a PMC, and one with title, URL, and PMC. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The full Cite Journal template is misleading. It asks for year, month, date, in that order. I and many others interpreted this as asking for the year month and day of publication. That is not the case, as date is apparently supposed to be the full date and is the only field shown in the cite if present.. See, for example, Necrotizing enterocolitis where I just added a cite, which I then fixed. Other references there still show a similar mistake, and I presume this is true in many many articles. One possible fix would be to assume a two-digit date is not valid and show the year instead.-- agr ( talk) 00:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
|month=
is clearly listed as deprecated in the documentation at
Template:Cite journal#Date. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Right now, some pages are, incorrectly, using the template's pages= field to indicate the total pages in the work, rather than for a specific page range citation.
Is there a different template these pages should be using, or could total_pages= be a field here?
99.247.1.157 (
talk) 21:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I and some others are on a drive to improve the utility of the {Cite doi} family of templates. One thing that would help would be if templates allowed greater flexibility in the formatting of output, something that I believe the Lua language now allows. Is it possible to create a parameter that allows authors' forenames to be truncated to their initials, such that if a template {Cite journal | last = Smith | first = John} would output "Smith, John", a template {Cite journal | last = Smith | first = John | author-initials = yes} would output "Smith, J." (but "Smith, John" in the metadata)? This would allow Cite Doi templates to store authors full names where possible, but allow pages to present the data in these templates in a fashion consistent with the formatting of other references already on that page.
Thanks!
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=Title |last=Smith |first= John Brown |authorformat=vanc}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |authorformat=
ignored (
help)|authorformat=vanc
parameter name in {{
cite pmid}} and {{
cite journal}} is a bad idea since the parameter produces some what different output in the two cases. As discussed
here and
here, what is confusing is that {{
cite journal}} |authorformat=vanc
parameter is only a partial implementation of the Vancouver author format. The full Vancouver author implementation should also remove commas between the last name and first initials and replace the semi colon that separates authors with a comma (To get closer to the "Vancouver-like" style, one needs to add author-separator and author-name-separator parameters: | authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
). Finally as
David Eppstein has pointed out, authorformat=vanc doesn't abbreviate properly hyphenated names. Lua program does support regular expression search and replace, hence it should be able to correctly abbreviate hyphenated names.I started Help:Citation Style 1/Examples. The intent is to show how to cite various sources. -- Gadget850 talk 00:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
|In=
parameterHi. Apparently, {{
Cite journal}} accepts an |in=
parameter but I can't find any documentation for it. Any idea? Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 08:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
|in=
be deprecated and eventually removed given that it is rarely used, that it is relatively easy to misinterpret its meaning, and that it lacks documentation?|number=
parameter; it would be good to get feedback on whether that is a useful alias for 'issue' or should similarly be deprecated. Incidentally, it's worth pinging
User talk:Citation bot when a parameter is deprecated; it's relatively easy to modify the bot to replace the deprecated parameter.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
|number=
in {{
cite techreport}}
is simultaneously an alias of |id=
and of |issue=
.I rise to object. Editor Smith609 is using the above discussion (three posts, two editors – prior to Editor Gadget850's edit which occurred as I wrote this) as a sufficient statement of consensus to deprecate |number=
as an alias for |issue=
(
this edit and edit summary,
this edit). So that we are all clear, I am generally in favor of deprecating parameters that simply duplicate the functionality of other parameters. However, as an editor has mentioned in the |in=
discussion above (and of which this conversation is a subthread), such intent to deprecate should be properly announced, advertised, and discussed before action is taken. Until such time as these things have been accomplished, |number=
should remain as it is, an active and allowed parameter.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
|number=
has not been deprecated in any discussion, as far as I know. We have already had enough arguments about parameters being declared deprecated without a full, advertised discussion. Let's not repeat familiar mistakes.
Smith609, please undo your edits until there is consensus. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have come across many templates that include an incorrect PMID (example: 30036011). As far as I can tell, PMIDs are issued sequentially; therefore it would be easy to flag any template with an eight-digit PMID as erroneous, in the same way that the parameter doi_brokendate identifies citations with a misformatted doi. Would someone with knowledge of LUA be able to implement this? (Ping me on my userpage if you need more input from me, as I don't often check my watchlist.) Thanks! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that PMIDs are issued in blocks unless, just coincidentally, I happened to hit on the magic time when PMID 24399999 has been issued but PMID 24400000 has not. Regardless, in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, simple PMID validation:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help) – valid in a sense (because the |PMID=30,123,456
is treated as multiple PMIDs by pubmed) but for CS1 purposes invalid{{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help)If this change proceeds, pages that contain PMID errors will be categorized into Category:CS1 errors: PMID; the error message for the time being is not hidden. Help text needs to be written.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|doi=
validation mark any DOI ending in a full stop as invalid (common error)? Thanks
Rjwilmsi 09:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked so that any spaces in the doi identifier are detected as errors:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)Can a new parameter (or series of parameters), possibly called "chapter-author" (with alias "note-author"), please be created?
I often cite chapters or footnotes by author X in books by authors Y edited by X or Z, and there is no simple way to do this with the citation templates.
Using a real example:
I wish to cite Jacob Freimann's introduction to Nathan ben Judah's early 14th-century book Mahkim in Freimann's 1909 edition of that work, thus:
{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) In Nathan ben Judah (1909). Freimann, Jacob (ed.). Mahkim.As of now, I must type
* {{cite book |last=Freimann |first=Jacob |chapter=Editor's introduction |title= |pages=xi–xv}} In {{cite book |author=Nathan ben Judah |year=1909 |editor-last=Freimann |editor-first=Jacob |title=Mahkim}}
using two citation templates to get the desired result.
Spent examples
|
---|
Were I to type * {{cite book |last=Freimann |first=Jacob |chapter=Editor's introduction |pages=xi–xv |year=1909 |editor-last=Freimann |editor-first=Jacob |title=Mahkim}} or * {{cite book |last=Freimann |first=Jacob |chapter=Editor's introduction |pages=xi–xv |year=1909 |editor=Nathan ben Judah |title=Mahkim}} It would result in
or
which are both ridiculous and misleading. |
I would like to be able to type
* {{cite book |chapter-author-last=Freimann |chapter-author-first=Jacob |year=1909 |chapter=Editor's introduction |pages=xi–xv |author=Nathan ben Judah |editor-last=Freimann |editor-first=Jacob |title=Mahkim}}
to get the same result as the two-template solution.
Similar problems present themselves when citing footnotes by the editor to a new edition of a classic work, for example, to cite Alban Krailsheimer's notes to Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, I typed
* {{cite book |last=Hugo |first=Victor |title=Notre-Dame de Paris |editor-last=Krailsheimer |editor-first=Alban |page=555, note to p. 288 |isbn=9780191593673}}
to get
which does not make it clear that Krailsheimer is the author of the notes, but there is no simple way of citing it the way it should be, as in the example before.
Is this possible?
Thanks in advance, הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 00:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Markup | {{cite encyclopedia |editor-last=Hugo |editor-first=Victor |title=Footnotes |encyclopedia=Notre-Dame de Paris |last=Krailsheimer |first=Alban |others=Alban, Krailsheimer (ed.) |page=555, note to p. 288 |isbn=9780191593673}} |
---|---|
Renders as | Krailsheimer, Alban. "Footnotes". In Hugo, Victor (ed.). Notre-Dame de Paris. Alban, Krailsheimer (ed.). p. 555, note to p. 288. ISBN 9780191593673. |
-- Gadget850 talk 12:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|others=
parameter. This is definitely preferable to my "homemade" two-template solution—though this is apparently not the parameter's intended function and looks artificial (in wikicode, that is), and it would be nice if such citations could be coded intuitively.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|encyclopedia=
that adds the text "in". With the Lua templates, most parameters work in each of the templates, but we only document the ones applicable to the intent of the particular template. --
Gadget850
talk 17:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|title=
and |encyclopedia=
with, respectively, the somewhat more intuitive |chapter=
and |title=
, I would also have "in".
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC){{
cite encyclopedia}}
is appropriate. The book is Notre-Dame de Paris, the book is not an encyclopedia, and the book's author is
Victor Hugo. The particular edition being cited was translated and editorial material written by Alban Krailsheimer. Readers who wish to check the source may be confused by such a citation that lists Krailsheimer as the author and both Krailsheimer and Hugo as the editors. Instead, perhaps craft the citation as you would any other citation with particular attention to in-source location:Markup | {{cite book |last=Hugo |first=Victor |authorlink=Victor Hugo |title=Notre-Dame de Paris |editor-last=Krailsheimer |editor-first=Alban |at="Explanatory Notes". p. 555, note to p. 288 |isbn=0-19-283701-X |date=1999 |origyear=1993 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SN3Rhip342cC&pg=PA555}} |
---|---|
Renders as | Hugo, Victor (1999) [1993]. Krailsheimer, Alban (ed.). Notre-Dame de Paris. "Explanatory Notes". p. 555, note to p. 288. ISBN 0-19-283701-X. |
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
is inappropriate, but, as I wrote above, the same functionality exists in {{
cite book}}
. I also agree that using |editor=
and |others=
alongside each other is misleading to the wikicode reader (and potential editor, who might "fix" things and break references)....David Metzger's article "The Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh and Its Author", pages 7–10 in Y. Y. Weiss' 1992 edition of Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona's Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh.How would you word that CS1-style? (As it happens, Metzger believes—as do all scholars since the early 20th century—that Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona was not the author of Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, whatever Wikipedia's 1906 article writes, but I called it "Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona's Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh" following bibliographic tradition, as the Library of Congress' catalog does.)
Gadget850, thank you again for your patient advice (though I haven't finished testing your patience yet). Incidentally, my compliments for your {{ markupv}} template; I find it both practical and aesthetically pleasant.
Meta-question: is this the correct venue for proposed modification of citation templates? I still want to revise my original proposal (having noticed a serious logical flaw, and I have other citation issues that I think need fixing; where should I post? (There seems to be, despite the 100+ page watchers, only one regular respondent here—you—so I must be in the wrong place for consensus-building. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 02:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
|editor=
|editor=
is, in my opinion, the root of the problem—the term editor itself is ambiguous, and the parameter that bears its name also does double duty.
The editor of a journal, book with chapters by multiple authors, or encyclopedia is the primary author of that work as a whole and should appear after In...
, while the editor of a book of ordinary structure, with one (or several) author(s) responsible for most of the book, is of secondary importance and should always be marked as ed.
and not be prefixed by In...
.
While |editor=
executes it "book-mode" well when the |title=
parameter is used alone
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |last=Doe |first=John |year=2014 |title=Foo |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=Jane}} |
Doe, John (2014). Doe, Jane (ed.). Foo. |
|chapter=
or |article=
is used with |title=
, |editor=
shifts to "journal-mode"Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |last=Doe |first=John |year=2014 |chapter=Bar |title=Foo |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=Jane}} |
Doe, John (2014). "Bar". In Doe, Jane (ed.). Foo. |
Further, in the examples I gave in my original post above (Freimann, Krailsheimer, Metzger), |editor=
is doubly problematic: its journal-mode is needed to generate In...
, but prefixed to an author who is not the editor in the book-sense, and, once used, is not available to providing a book-mode editor.
I think the trouble could be avoided if one of the following solutions could be implemented (of course, I know nothing about their technical feasibility, so this may be ridiculous)
|editor=
to be used when the main author, that is, the author who is listed as the work's primary author, is not the editor—|main[n]-last=
and |main[n]-first=
, say? The actual editor could be included in |other=
, per the second half of
Gadget850's solution.
|main[n]-last=
and |main[n]-first=
, that would behave like |editor=
does now, but which would induce (?) |editor=
, when used, to retain its "book-mode" function.Gratefully yours, הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 05:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does the COinS section of the Template:Cite Web page say that explanatory or alternate text is not allowed? I sometimes add '(updated)' when a page only shows the date it was last updated (and not the date of original production), as this is more accurate but was reversed. See query I raised (with example) at talk page. What problem is being caused by having the 'updated' text added. Eldumpo ( talk) 20:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
citations creates
COinS metadata from several parameters, |date=
being one. The date metadata for this very simple citation:{{cite web |title=Title |url=//example/com |date=1 February 2014}}
&rft.date=1+February+2014
&rft.date=
tells external referencing software that the value (1+February+2014
) is a date. If |date=
in a CS1 citation contains information other than a date, that information is included in the COinS metadata and is likely meaningless to the external referencing software. The purpose for the resrictions stated in the COinS sections of the various template documentation is to help keep the metadata clean and uncorrupted for the users of these external referencing tools.|date={{dts|1776|July|4}}
&rft.date=%3Cspan+style%3D%22display%3Anone%3B+speak%3Anone%22+class%3D%22sortkey%22%3E01776-07-04%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan+style%3D%22white-space%3Anowrap%3B%22%3EJuly+4%2C+1776%3C%2Fspan%3E
{{
cite web}}
. Web pages are notorious for lacking dates and for having dates that are clearly out of date. This is why we have |accessdate=
to record the date that an editor consulted an ephemeral source that at a particular point in time supported the article. There is no need to note that the date on a web page is an updated-on date or a copyright date or some other kind of date. It is just a date that may or may not be correct. Use |accessdate=
; should the web page go 404, this is the date that editors will be using when attempting to recover the source from an online archive.|date=2 February 2014 (updated)
is: &rft.date=2+February+2013+%28updated%29
. Pretty straight forward, pretty sure that a reasonably adept external tool should be able to recover the date from that. But, the proscription against extraneous stuff in CS1 citation parameters applies to all parameters from which COinS metadata are assembled. Most of those parameters contain free form text – they don't adhere to the strict format requirements of things like dates by the very nature of their content (titles, author names, publishers, and the like). Allowing extraneous text in some parameters but not in others is a recipe for garbage metadata because editors will forget which parameters can hold ancillary text and which cannot.The key point for the source in question (RSSSF) is that they were not listing the original date, but only the updated date, so it does not seem unreasonable to try and follow that. They clearly see it is significant to note when it was updated so why not pass that on to readers? Given that the COinS results are noted as being acceptable in this instance why can't the template section describing COinS state that exceptions are allowed only when clearly set out, and then under the date section state there that certain text is allowed? The suggestion by Jc35 could be a compromise; allow a separate field for when there is an updated entry at a source - it is useful for readers to know at a glance the date/details of when the information was posted. Eldumpo ( talk) 23:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm citing multiple topographic maps available online in support of a series of geographical articles. If I want to add an open-ended phrase or sentence to the cite that doesn't necessarily fit a predefined category, how can I do this? LADave ( talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|quote=
(for text taken from the source and copied for convenience into the reference), |id=
(for identification numbers that don't already have their own separate parameter), or |postscript=
(for any text you want to appear at the end of the citation). For that matter, it's also possible to write text after the actual citation template. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
is terminating punctuation,}}
and the closing </ref>
. --
Gadget850
talk 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
will be highlighted when the reader clicks on a reference name, but stuff after the closing brackets of the template won't be. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)|ps=
(short for postscript) is part of {{
harv}}
is not the same as |postscript=
which is part of a CS1 citation. Let us not confuse the two.References
{{cite web}}
at
Display options"
.
); for no terminating punctuation, specify |postscript=none
– leaving |postscript=
empty has the same effect but is ambiguous. Ignored if quote is defined.|postscript=
to hold nontrivial text, while possible to do, is not contemplated nor specifically supported by the parameter's definition nor by the underlying
Module:Citation/CS1 (it does not provide proper inter-parameter termination or spacing in the rendered citation). The highlighting differences you describe are not within the scope of CS1. That topic is better taken up elsewhere.The highlighting is done through CSS. The cite template wraps the citation in <span class="citation">...</span>
. The CSS span.citation:target
causes the content of the <span>
to be highlighted when it is a target from a link— any text outside the span would not be highlighted. This works whether or not the citation template is inside a <ref>
or not.
The CSS ol.references
causes the content of <ref>...</ref>
tags to be highlighted when targeted in the output of reflist markup ({{
reflist}} or <references />
— this is independent of the citation span highlighting.
If you have a cite template inside a <ref>
tag you technically highlight it twice, but is is the same color so it shows the same.
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{harv|author|2014}} * {{cite book|author=author |title=title |year=2014 |ref=harv}} Comment after citation. |
( author 2014) |
<ref>{{cite book|author=author2 |title=title |year=2014}} Comment after citation.</ref> {{reflist|close=1}} |
|
The highlighting is a convenience that helps readers to find the matching citation. Since the accompanying text is not part of the citation, then I don't see an issue if it highlights it or not. -- Gadget850 talk 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The quote_field probably needs more precise guidelines. Right now it says that "relevant text quoted"; however, this leaves some grey zone what relevant means. In case of Hydraulic fracturing, Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing some references use very extensive quotes. The most drastic is probably the following:
"Shale has a radioactive signature – from uranium isotopes such as radium-226 and radium-228 — that geologists and drillers often measure to chart the vast underground formations. The higher the radiation levels, the greater the likelihood those deposits will yield significant amounts of gas. But that does not necessarily mean the radioactivity poses a public health hazard; after all, some homes in Pennsylvania and New York have been built directly on Marcellus shale. Tests conducted earlier this year in Pennsylvania waterways that had received treated water—both produced water (the fracking fluid that returns to the surface) and brine (naturally occurring water that contains radioactive elements, as well as other toxins and heavy metals from the shale)—found no evidence of elevated radiation levels...Conrad Dan Volz, former scientific director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh, is a vocal critic of the speed with which the Marcellus is being developed—but even he says that radioactivity is probably one of the least pressing issues. ‘If I were to bet on this, I'd bet that it's not going to be a problem,’ he says."
For a references that kind of quotation seems to be too extensive and creates also copyrights issues. Any suggestion how to deal with this issue? As I said, probably some clarification in the template guidelines is needed. Beagel ( talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I discovered, by committing a desperation move, while adding an archive URL to an external link on Corita Kent that
{{web |...}}
with the same same parameters as
{{cite web |...}}
would work.
It would be nice if the real description of that template was easy to find while searching. Because this page is easy to find while searching, it might be nice to add a link from here.
ArthurDent006.5 ( talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
db-
family of templates; it was not created out of a perceived need for an alternate citation template, so no one is likely to miss it.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 17:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed before, but is there a reason that there isn't a field for translators? Style guides like Turabian and APA recommend specifying translators in full citations. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
|others=
is specifically meant for translators and the like.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I have reported an issue between {{cite}}
templates and {{language icon}}
templates at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Categorization and inconsistencies between "cite" and "language icon" templates.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
How do one enter a co-publisher info in {{
Cite book}}? It's needed in
Mann–Whitney U#Further reading, first item. Data pieces have been named publisher2
and location2
, but that seems wrong...
Compare
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1604954
CiaPan (
talk) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In about a week's time I intend to update these files from their respective sandboxes:
The update makes these changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|event=
and |eventurl
as aliases of |conference
and |conferenceurl=
in support of {{
cite speech}}
;|host=
as alias of |authors
in support of {{
cite podcast}}
;to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|event=
and |eventurl
as aliases of |conference
and |conferenceurl=
in support of {{cite speech}}
;|host=
as alias of |authors
in support of {{cite podcast}}
;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The handling of italics (or bold), at the start/end of a webpage title, no longer works as it did in the early Lua versions for {cite_web}:
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)In mid-March 2013, the Lua {cite_web} would show title "Italics More Text" for italics at the start of a webpage title, and italics mid-title will still work. Meanwhile, I have noted to use i-tag format: '<i>...</i>' at start/end of title, so this new bug has a work-around until a bugfix can be tested. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:36/17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
tag. So, I couldn't tell whether single quote–space–single quote sequence meant to represent itself or a single quote–single quote sequence, as a way of suppressing wikimarkup. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)When the URL parameter points to a large PDF, is there a way to indicate the file size, so the person reading can make an informed decision about whether to click the link and how long they may have to wait for it to download? Nurg ( talk) 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)|format=PDF, 1.6MB
or similar should be sufficient. The format should still be explicitly stated because not all URLs end in .pdf
nor can/will all browsers display the icon if the URL does end in the appropriate file extension. Additionally, that icon lacks any sort of alternate text (as far as I know) to alert users of screen readers or other adaptive technology of the icon's intended meaning. In short, a little redundancy is a good thing.
Imzadi 1979
→ 19:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)In section Work and publisher there are several issues. Numbered items below are taken directly from Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher.
|newspaper=
San Francisco Chronicle
and |journals=
Astrophysical Journal
but |newspaper=
The Nation
) unless ambiguity would result.
|newspaper=
New York Times
, because that newspaper's name does begin with The.|work=Amazon.com
and |publisher=Amazon
|newspaper=
The New York Times
and |publisher=
The New York Times Company
|publisher=
parameter when it duplicates the work. It does not provide any useful information to "inform" the user in citations that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company, or that the
Journal of the American Chemical Society is published by the
American Chemical Society. Such |publisher=
parameters should always be omitted.|location=
parameter should be used when the location is part of the common name but not the actual name of a newspaper. For example, the newspaper commonly known as the New York Daily News is actually
Daily News (New York) and can be entered with |newspaper=Daily News
|location=New York
, which yields Daily News (New York).— Anomalocaris ( talk) 10:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Gadget850 talk 11:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
In cleaning up the CS1 messages "check date=" I encounter this situation. Old code says |date=2007–2009
(ndash used, not by entity). I could not find in
MOS:DATEFORMAT that that is incorrect, still the CS1 message appears. I also met |date=2007–
for publication. My question is: is that date (period) non-MOS, wrong, or to be tricked around? (This question was raised some months ago when this date issue was in development; I don't recall a solution more a sort of postponement/see individual cases). -
DePiep (
talk) 11:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
|date=2007–
example).Can this be subst'ed ? I'm trying to put some citations onto wikimedia.org.uk (where the templates aren't installed or maintained) and expected to be able to subst: them into me en:WP sandbox (see User:Andy Dingley/sandbox), then copy the results over. Instead it just leaves the wikitext
{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=journal
}}
Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
code}}
template:
{{code|1={{cite book
|title=Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML
|author=Basham, Sierra & Bates
|publisher=O'Reilly
|date=2004
|isbn=0-596-10197-X
}}}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000149-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFBasham,_Sierra_&_Bates2004" class="citation book cs1">Basham, Sierra & Bates (2004). ''Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML''. O'Reilly. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/0-596-10197-X|<bdi>0-596-10197-X</bdi>]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Head+First+HTML+with+CSS+%26+XHTML&rft.pub=O%27Reilly&rft.date=2004&rft.isbn=0-596-10197-X&rft.au=Basham%2C+Sierra+%26+Bates&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
<span class="citation book">...</span>
is your citaion:
Basham, Sierra & Bates (2004). ''Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML''. O'Reilly. [[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/0-596-10197-X|0-596-10197-X]].
The Lua-based wp:CS1 cite templates could be updated to allow wp:subst'ing, to store the formatted citation in place of template calls, using:
The parameter name "zz" is a dummy name to avoid problems with a blank-named parameter containing "safesubst:" but could be some other rare name such as "∞" or such. I have created a version, as
Template:Cite_journal/subst, to allow further testing before updating the major live templates to reformat the 2.3 million affected pages. Note the stored results of the test below:
Test {cite_journal/subst}:
Recall how a CS1 cite template also stores the cryptic COinS metadata internally at the end of each cite, as a titled span-tag: <span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004...> (etc.), which would no longer match a hand-updated citation unless also hand-updating the span-tag. I apologize for not putting safesubst in the original Lua-based cite templates, earlier, when I completed writing Module:Citation/CS1 last year. All the sideshow problems with the wp:VE debacle, and the lost edits caused by forced https protocol, and numerous Wikipedia database failures (etc.) have delayed real improvements. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between all three of the documentation for |display-authors=
on
Help:Citation Style 1#Display options,
Template:Cite web/doc, and the actual function.
Help:Citation Style 1#Display options: States that the number of authors displayed when published is limited to 9 by default.
Template:Cite web/doc: States that all authors are always displayed except in the case where there are exactly 9 authors and then only 8 are displayed. The documentation is actually on: Template:Citation Style documentation/doc which is transcluded into teh documentation for multiple other CS1 templates.
The actual template: Displays all authors up to at least 28: [1]
Same citation, but with |display-authors=5
[2]
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |journal=
(
help)
My normal default would be to change the documentation to reflect what the template actually does. However, it is not clear to me if the current behavior is what is desired, or if there is a bug (i.e |display-authors=
not being set to 8 by default) which should be fixed. Is the template currently operating the way that is intended (i.e. no default limit on the number of authors displayed)? I have not tested if the number of editors is operating in a similar manner. —
Makyen (
talk) 11:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
. What you need to do is fix
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/display so that it displays appropriate text depending on where it is transcluded. For {{citation/core}}
-based templates it should display the default of 8 text; for
Module:Citation/CS1-based templates it should display the all authors default text; and for cases like
Help:Citation Style 1#Display options, it should display an appropriate combination of both.|display-authors=
in that template and in all others that use
Module:Citation/CS1 (see table in
Help:Citation Style 1). These templates display all authors unless there are exactly 9 authors or display-authors is set.{{
citation/core}}
, it shows the correct text. It does not show the correct text on the
Help:Citation Style 1 page, because that page is intended to show documentation for both types of template, but only the citation/core text is shown. I expect that this dual-documentation problem exists throughout the Help page, and the page would need a complete rewrite to be accurate in explaining how both types of template work.Is this still the status quo regarding citing location in e-Books, such as Kindle stuff? I've just downloaded a book that is in Kindle format but the article uses {{ sfnp}} I can supply some "proper" page numbers because small chunks of the printed version are available online ... but the vast majority is not. With hindsight, I should have paid the extra few quid & bought the physical version: live and learn! - Sitush ( talk) 13:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Berlin-Sch%C3%B6neberg_station&oldid=598265855 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Berlin_Feuerbachstra%C3%9Fe_station&oldid=598255926
The REFs made by "cite journal" in the reflist are referred to only once in the text itself, but in the finished article, there are two pointers a, and b each for each entry in the References list. How come? How to fix it? -- L.Willms ( talk) 21:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
<
ref>
is a parser tag that resembles HTML but works very differently. See
Template talk:Reflist#Capitalized <ref> causes extra backlink. --
Gadget850
talk 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Why is there a proscription against wikilinks in author parameters? CS1 templates that use
Module:Citation/CS1 don't seem to have a problem with wikilinked authors; the display is correct, and the
COinS metadata aren't corrupted. The same is true of the remaining CS1 templates that use {{
citation/core}}
except that none of those templates produce COinS metadata:
{{cite book |title=Title |author=[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000156-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFLincoln,_A" class="citation book cs1">[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.au=Lincoln%2C+A&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite interview |title=Title |author=[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000015A-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFLincoln,_A" class="citation interview cs1">[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]. "Title" (Interview).</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft.au=Lincoln%2C+A&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
is generating
COinS. When I look at the html source for this page, I don't see any COinS for the {{
cite interview}}
citations.|author=
, |authors=
, |authorn=
, etc, not the divided author-name parameters |last=
, |first=
, |author-last=
, |author-first=
, etc.|ref=harv
is the reason. Here are two references one to {{
cite book}}
[1] which uses
Module:Citation/CS1 and the other {{
cite interview}}
[2] which uses {{
citation/core}}
. Both of these citations are the same citations as above to which I've added |ref=harv
and |year=1865a/b
.References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite interview}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
citation/core}}
simply because as time goes by, there are fewer and fewer templates that will be using it – {{
cite interview}}
is next up to abandon {{citation/core}}
(
which see).|author=
, |authors=
, and |author1=
are aliases of |last=
and |last1=
, it is possible to use any of the |author=
-type parameters with shortened footnotes. I suspect that we can trap citations without |lastn=
and with |ref=harv
to prevent use of |author=
-type parameters for CITEREF creation.Shouldn't we just drop "|last=" and insert a wikilink to a person page instead? Then the template can wander over yonder and fetch the proper formatting of the person's name from their own page. Hcobb ( talk) 13:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that I have finished migrating {{
cite interview}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. See
Template:Cite interview/testcases.
The sandbox versions differ slightly from the live version where Module:Citation/CS1 renders certain parameters in different positions and adds punctuation not provided by the {{citation/core}}
version.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was agreed that approximate years, in the form |year=c. 2009
, was allowed. I note, however, that this no longer works (see the source by Time Service Dept. in
Coordinated Universal Time, which no longer connects the inline cite to the bibliography.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 13:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)c.<space>year<CITEREF disambiguator>
where year
is a three or four digit number, the first digit of which must be in the range 1–9 (100–9999); and where <CITEREF disambiguator>
is an upper or lower case letter (A–Z and a–z). Approximate years may be specified with either |date=
or |year=
.c.<space>
and <CITEREF disambiguator>
are optional. Either or both may be omitted. Or that's how it ought to work. Also, the year range limitation only applies if one wants automatic linking from a parenthetical citation or short footnote to the bibliography entry. If the editors of an article aren't using the feature, years outside that range could be used.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 19:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Corrupted
COinS metadata occurs when editors place external links in any of the |page=
parameters. To fix this, I have added a small bit of code to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that extracts the page number strings from the |page=
value and uses the extracted data for COinS. If this change is retained, editors may freely add external links in any of the page parameters.
Of course there is a caveat: When the value assigned to |pages=
contains the square brackets, hyphens are not converted to endashes as they would be if the page range was not part of a url. I have a vague memory of a conversation that resulted in this restriction, but I suspect that it is imposed because the replacement code would indiscriminately replace hyphens in a url with an endash which would break the url. I'll give some thought to fixing this.
{{cite book/new |title=Page number without external link |page=45}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000167-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page number without external link''. p. 45.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+number+without+external+link&rft.pages=45&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Page number with external link |page=[http://www.example.com 24]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000016B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page number with external link''. p. [http://www.example.com 24].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+number+with+external+link&rft.pages=24&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked |pages=24, [http://www.example.com 28–32], [http://www.example.com 57, 77–80], 106}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000016F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page numbers with mixture of linked''. pp. 24, [http://www.example.com 28–32], [http://www.example.com 57, 77–80], 106.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+numbers+with+mixture+of+linked&rft.pages=24%2C+28-32%2C+57%2C+77-80%2C+106&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked and different urls |pages=[http://www.example.com 24], 28–32, [//example.org 57, 77–80]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000173-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked and different urls''. pp. [http://www.example.com 24], 28–32, [//example.org 57, 77–80].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+numbers+with+mixture+of+linked+and+unlinked+and+different+urls&rft.pages=24%2C+28-32%2C+57%2C+77-80&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=No page number value}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000177-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''No page number value''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=No+page+number+value&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked to support page numbers that are alpha and alphanumeric.
{{cite book/new |title=Roman numeral and alphanumeric page numbers |pages=[http://www.example.com i, iii–vii, A-2]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000017B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Roman numeral and alphanumeric page numbers''. p. [http://www.example.com i, iii–vii, A-2].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Roman+numeral+and+alphanumeric+page+numbers&rft.pages=i%2C+iii-vii%2C+A-2&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Because I'm in the process of
migrating {{
cite AV media notes}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and because {{
cite DVD-notes}}
has certain similarities, I've started migrating {{cite DVD-notes}}
as well. (
testcases)
During this migration, as it is with {{cite AV media notes}}
, I'm wondering if we should make certain changes:
{{cite DVD-notes}}
to {{
cite DVD notes}}
to get rid of the hyphen – it is the only CS1 template that uses a hyphenated name|format=
– in most CS1 citations, |format=
has a specific definition: the file format of an online resource (pdf, xls, mpeg, etc). The {{
citation/core}}
version of the template tests the value assigned to |format=
. If |format=Liner notes
then, the value is not displayed. I guess this is because |type=
is assigned a default value of Liner notes
– no sense in having both |format=
and |type=
display the same thing. Because |format=
specifies the format of an online resource, it is interesting that the basic skeletons in the documentation don't include |url=
. Until the template was converted to {{citation/core}}
, online accessible DVD notes were not supported by this template. I propose to deprecate this peculiar functionality of |format=
; before migrating to Lua, replace |format=
with |type=
in existing citations; and add documentation to support the use of |url=
.|director=
– it isn't clear to me why this parameter is available. Sure, a director may have written the DVD's notes and should be credited as the author. But I see no reason for a special parameter here. For comparison, in {{cite AV media notes}}
, |artist=
is an alias of |others=
(as I think about it now, it isn't really clear why that is). |director=
is an alias of |author=
. I propose to deprecate |director=
in favor of the standard suite of |author=
parameters.|titleyear=
– this parameter is an alias of |origyear=
. It isn't clear to me what it is that this parameter is supposed to be doing – the name itself doesn't offer any real clues. It appears that editors are using |titleyear=
to document the original release year of the DVD subject (see the
testcases for examples). I think that this is a misuse of the parameter which should be the original publication year of the notes. I propose to deprecate |titleyear=
in favor of |origyear=
.|publisherid=
– I propose to deprecate |publisherid=
because it is simply a long-winded form of |id=
.Alternately, as was suggested in the discussion about
migrating {{cite AV media notes}}
, we might merge {{cite DVD-notes}}
into {{cite AV media notes}}
; a subject that I will address in another post.
I will be adding a note about this migration to the projects notified for the {{cite AV media notes}}
migration.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
|format=
with |type=
. None of the pages I looked at, were using |format=
to identify the online format (makes sense since I haven't found any that use |url=
...). I have an AWB script that will do much of this work.Documentation changed according to items 1–5 above with these exceptions:
|director=
– may or may not be the author of the note and so similar to |artist=
in {{
cite AV media notes}}
; deprecated in favor of |others=
like |artist=
in {{
cite AV media notes}}
; makes it easier to deprecate {{cite DVD notes}}
in favor of {{cite AV media notes}}
.New:
{{cite AV media notes}}
)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the common errors is providing URLs in the |authorlink=
parameter, which produces malformed links - how about catching this as a CS1 error?
GregorB (
talk) 19:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a list of fixes that a bot should be able to take on. I come across these frequently. I have numbered them manually for ease of discussion. These are similar to fixes suggested by Wikid77 above.
1. Change {cite web|http}
to {cite web|url=http}
in
Category:Pages with empty citations and
Category:Pages with citations using unnamed parameters. Many errors in these two categories are of this specific type, and they should be very easy to fix.
2. Change |translator=
to |others=... (translator)
in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters.
3. Fix ISBN errors in Category:Pages with ISBN errors as described in Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_4#Bot_to_fix_ISBN_errors.3F. This may require an RFC first.
4. Fix articles in Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs using some sort of Reflinks-like tool. These fixes will have to be run by hand using a script rather than a bot, since experience with Reflinks has shown that pulling data from web pages requires human oversight.
5. I keep coming back to Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL and not knowing what a good fix would look like. Commenting out accessdates in those citations is tempting, but the error is sometimes a symptom of another error (like #1 above). We may have to clear out Category:Pages using web citations with no URL first.
More? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
|translator=
-like property, but so far no consensus to do so. It would be nice to have a bot fix ISBN errors as in #3. I've seen bad bot-generated titles around, some including pipes (|) for instance. There may be a good way to automatically do #4, though, filtering the title. For #5, I recently had a discussion with an IP about accessdates. I often have commented them out, if I thought a url was left out, but there are times when they aren't needed at all. If there is a proper date for the work, the accessdate is most likely redundant. To start, a bot could run through all the pages, deleting accessdates if there is no url and a properly formatted MOS date prior to (or the same as) the accessdate. That would reduce the log some, because people who fill in accessdates for printed material often fill in the date of the work as well. (That's my observation, anyway.)
—PC
-XT
+ 04:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
with the current date irrespective of whether |date=
is populated or not. If this behaviour could be amended, suppressing the addition of |accessdate=
where |date=
is already stated, the number of new cases would likely rapidly plummet. One such widely-used tool is Reflinks. There are others.
79.67.241.244 (
talk) 11:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
, even with |date=
. The only exception I can think of right now is e.g. Google Books: the content that is pointed to is not going to change in a meaningful way, nor it is going to go offline (well, hopefully), so I suppose there is no scenario in which |accessdate=
could prove useful. Still, what you say does make a lot of sense to me: undated online content might change, so we use |accessdate=
to indicate which version of the webpage was used; dated content, however, shouldn't change, so it doesn't really matter when we accessed it. This might even be an argument to say that accessdate should be mandatory if no date is provided, although introducing this would create a hellish backlog...
GregorB (
talk) 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
automatically is probably acceptable in {{
cite book}} templates and in {{
cite journal}} templates where a |doi=
or other identifier is present, since those sources are unlikely to change.|accessdate=
is better than deleting it. For example, a {{
cite web}} template with no URL will generate a different CS1 error; someone trying to fix that error may find it useful to see the accessdate that was entered by a previous editor. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)I'm migrating {{
cite AV media notes}}
, more commonly {{cite album notes}}
, to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. (
testcases)
During this migration, I'm wondering if we should make certain changes:
|format=
– in most CS1 citations, |format=
has a specific definition: the file format of an online resource (pdf, xls, mpeg, etc). Here, in {{cite AV media notes}}
, |format=
is mapped to |type=
. This usage prevents legitimate uses like |format=pdf
for an online copy of the media notes in Adobe Acrobat format. I propose to deprecate |format=
as an alias of |type=
.|albumtype=
– if I understand correctly, the purpose of {{cite AV media notes}}
is to make reference to "liner notes from albums, DVDs, CDs and similar audio-visual media" (emphasis mine). It is not the purpose of {{cite AV media notes}}
to make reference to the album, DVD, CD, etc that the notes discuss (that is for {{
cite AV media}}
to do). When |albumtype=single
, {{cite AV media notes}}
changes the format of the citation title from italic to normal and quotes the title: Title → "Title". This, presumably, because individual song titles are quoted, not italicized. But, {{
cite AV media notes}}
cites the notes, not the song, so this functionality is inappropriate in this template. For this reason, I propose to deprecate |albumtype=
and the functionality of |albumtype=single
.|albumlink=
– similar to |albumtype=
, |albumlink=
implies that this citation refers to the album, DVD, CD, etc that the notes discuss. I think that this is misleading. Editors can wikilink the title or use |titlelink=
to create a citation where the title links to a related Wikipedia article. Because |albumlink=
is essentially an alias of |titlelink=
, I propose to deprecate |albumlink=
.|publisherid=
– I propose to deprecate |publisherid=
because it is simply a long-winded form of |id=
.Items 1 & 4 above also occur in {{
cite DVD-notes}}
which, when its time comes, should have similar changes made.
As part of these proposals, if carried, I shall change the documentation and then run an AWB script or three to implement the changes to the source templates.
Opinions? WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Discographies, and WikiProject Songs, have been invited. Who else should be invited into this discussion?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite DVD-notes}}
(355 uses), I recommend we migrate it to {{
Cite AV media notes}}
(5952 uses). --
Gadget850
talk 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC){{
cite AV media notes}}
and {{
cite DVD-notes}}
. In {{cite DVD-notes}}
:
|director=
is an alias of |author=
|title=
is Liner notesformat
|titleyear=
is an alias of |origyear=
{{cite DVD-notes}}
isn't really the purpose of this thread.I agree with all four points made by
Trappist the monk. To avoid creating a new batch of error messages, I recommend changing all of the deprecated parameters in existing instances of {{
cite AV media notes}}
to the new supported parameters, or commenting out parameters that will not have a new equivalent. Is that what is proposed in the note about using AWB? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|format=
to |type=
(#1), change |publisherid=
to |id=
(#4), and delete |albumtype=
and its value (#2). We would need to edit {{
cite AV media notes}}
before the AWB run so that {{cite AV media notes}}
accepts either |titlelink=
or |albumlink=
. Then, the AWB script can replace |albumlink=
with |titlelink=
(#3).{{
cite AV media notes/sandbox}}
now accepts either |albumlink=
or |titlelink=
. (
testcases)I clicked through a random sample of 30 or so articles that transclude this template to see which projects they are a part of. Based on that, here are some other groups to invite to this discussion: WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Video games. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There having been no further discussion, I have changed the documentation and the {{
citation/core}}
-based template according to items 1–4 above. I have made two additional adjustments:
|artist=
– simply a unique alias of |others=
so I have deprecated it in favor of |others=
|notestitle=
– a unique alias of the more common parameter |chapter=
which already has four aliases; deprecated it in favor of |chapter=
I will run my AWB script against Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_AV_media_notes shortly.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
|chapter=
"? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Anything sending complex templates to the bin is to be applauded. Thank you! - David Gerard ( talk) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed a link to this page from several articles I watchlist. Can somebody explain all of the above in plain English? Why are we doing this? What advantage does it give editors? Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox might as well be gobbledegook. We need citations to be as simple and as easy to use as possible, and stop this culture of coming down like a ton of bricks to newbies who don't understand them. The main change seems to be changing "artist" to "other". Not really an obvious change from my point of view - CDs have "artists", they don't have "others"! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
and
Module:Citation/CS1. The first is old-style Wikimarkup, and the second is the more modern
Lua scripting language. The big name CS1 templates ({{
cite web}}
, {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, etc) have already been switched from {{citation/core}}
to Module:Citation/CS1. It is now time to switch {{
cite AV media notes}}
.|artist=
to |others=
is because this particular template is about citing the printed notes that accompany a CD, a cassette, an LP, etc – not about citing the accompanying CD, cassette, or LP for which, editors should use {{
cite AV media}}
. In general, the author of the notes is not the artist who made the music or video; if the artist is the author, then there is |author=
to serve that purpose.culture of coming down like a ton of bricks to newbies who don't understand them?
The initial AWB run is complete. During that I found one other change that I implemented. Apparently, at some time, |bandname=
was a legitimate alias for |artist=
. So, I have replaced that parameter where it occurred. Because I started replacing |bandname=
sometime after I started the AWB run, I'll rerun my script to see if I missed |bandname=
in pages that were changed before I found it.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I also found some with |director=
as an alias for |artist=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
... and |mbid=
which I'm just deleting because in 2009, editors determined that that identifier wasn't appropriate. (Discussion
here and
here)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I encountered an issue with |volume=
. It appears that it is displayed bold unless the argument contains non-alphanumeric characters. In addition, if it is not bold a period is used as a separator. Examples:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
I did not see the behavior documented anywhere. At a minimum, the documentation should include the conditions under which it is not bold and doesn't use the period. I'm not sure if this is the intended operation, so I have not just changed the docs. — Makyen ( talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
|volume=
is greater than four characters long, then
Module:Citation/CS1 inserts the separator character (either the default period or the character specified by |separator=
) followed by the volume. When four characters or less, CS1 omits the separator character and displays volume in bold font.|volume=
will not be displayed bold.
Help:Citation Style 1 and
Template:Cite journal say that if you want it not to be bold, then include it in the |title=
.
Template:Cite web has no documentation at all as to the function of |volume=
. In fact, on
Template:Cite web the text "volume" only exists once and that is in the section on COinS data.|lua=yes
to every occurrence of {{
csdoc}} in
Template:Cite journal/doc, it appears the only thing on which it made a difference was |volume=
. Sorry I happened to pick up one the one thing that was off. That still leaves handling both types in
Help:Citation Style 1 and some amount of documentation in
Template:Cite web.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Series. Vol. vol. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. Series. Vol. vol. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Support making volume display consistently, regardless of content or length. I trust Trappist to make it work right. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
|volume=
value has more than four characters, it will not be in bold font.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Series. Vol. MMXIV. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. Series. Vol. MMXIV. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|volume=23
and |volume=MCMLXXXVIII
should be bold font but |volume=3rd Crusade
should be normal font. So if the value for |volume=
contains only digits or uppercase roman numerals then bold; else normal.|volume=
differently when it follows |series=
?|series=
? What about the other parameters that are rendered between |journal=
and |volume=
? And, perhaps more importantly, why are |volume=
and |issue=
separated from |journal=
? There is some sense in separating |volume=
from |journal=
when |series=
is set because that implies that |journal=
is volume n of the |series=
. Why should any other parameter be placed between |journal=
and |volume=
?{{
citation}}
and {{
cite journal}}
, if a periodical parameter is set (dictionary, encyclopaedia, encyclopedia, journal, magazine, newspaper, periodical, website, work) then, in this order and if set, these parameters are rendered between the periodical and volume parameters:
Just a quick thought for discussion, but can we eliminate the boldface completely? It's not used in APA, MLA or Chicago-style citations (the non-WP styles I've had to use the most in college), so I don't see why we would need to retain it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted all changes to this part of Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox while this discussion continues so that the update to the live module can proceed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot helpfully came along and filled out some references at Neutrino [2]. This has caused some problems with some physics papers with very many authors belonging to collaborations. Originally the first author had et al and the name of the Collaboration
after citation bot came along it added the first 30 of the 100+ actual authors
setting |display-authors=1
looks odd as there are two copies of et al.
Is there a way of getting this to display OK without having to remove all the co-authors, which I'm reluctant to do as it means deleting data. I'm thinking there may be a case for a |collaboration=
parameter or a way of suppressing the et al.--
Salix alba (
talk): 14:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
''et al.'' (OPERA Collaboration)
in an author parameter. The CS1 templates will give you a properly formatted et al. with |displayauthors=n
. Consider using |others=OPERA Collaboration
:{{cite journal
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=OPERA Collaboration
|displayauthors=1
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)|others=
but this puts the (OPERA Collaboration) in the wrong place, after the title. If you look at the various places these appear the group needs to bind tightly to the authors. For example arxiv
[3] has|author=
parameters as you should normally do; set |others=N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration)
; set |displayauthors=0
:{{cite book
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration)
|displayauthors=0
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)In about a week's time I intend to update these files from their respective sandboxes:
The update makes these changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Corrected item 5 for Module:Citation/CS1 to read: Added support for |postscript=none;
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It has taken a while to confirm the bizarre introduction of invalid parameters by Bots, but it has happened in numerous pages, such as
dif834 in article:
• "
Premenstrual syndrome (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
During that edit, the only "title=" parameter was incorrectly fubarred to be "duplicate_title" and required yet another hand-edit to correct a Bot ruining more pages with such crap. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is missing. --
79.67.241.242 (
talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Another leftover problem, postponed last year to speed markup-to-Lua transition, is the formatting of a chapter, with a book and volume, in a book-series.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Edward N. Trifonov (1990). "Making sense of the human genome". Human Genome Initiative and DNA Recombination; Proceedings of the Sixth Conversation in the Discipline Biomolecular Stereodynamics. Vol. Vol. 1. Albany, New York: Adenine Press. pp. 69–77. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); |work= ignored (
help); Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Edward N. Trifonov (1990). "Making sense of the human genome". Human Genome Initiative and DNA Recombination; Proceedings of the Sixth Conversation in the Discipline Biomolecular Stereodynamics. Vol. Vol. 1. Albany, New York: Adenine Press. pp. 69–77. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); |work= ignored (
help); Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Now that we have time to discuss this, I think the obvious format should be quoted "Chapter" followed by italic book+volume (Book, Vol. 1), then followed by italic book-series (Series of Books) after the volume id, not before volume as displayed all last year. Across Wikipedia, many book series are displayed as italicized, which I think is the common format, but I have not discussed series format much before now. To assist transition, if a series name is hard-coded italic, then that could be left as-is while plain series names are italicized by the Lua processing. - Wikid77 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have recently stumbled across a couple of editors who have been adding references for years, and who always put the author full name in |first=
and either completely omit the |last=
parameter or include it but leave it blank. This means the author name doesn't show up in the reference.
Is there a bot that can go fix these? Having said that, many of the references also need other types of clean up at the same time, e.g. here (and still not finished). -- 79.67.241.229 ( talk) 08:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
|lastn=
and |firstn=
(or their aliases).
{{
cite book}}
: |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor-first3=
missing |editor-last3=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)|lastn=
, |firstn=
, |lastn+1=
, |firstn+1=
, |lastn+2=
, etc. until |lastn=
and |firstn=
are both not found. When both are not found it could be that we've got all of the names, or that there is a hole in the list. We can't yet tell the difference so if there is a hole in the list, it will not be detected:
|lastn=
and |authorn=
are aliases. As far as I know, there is no way for the code to determine if |lastn=
or |authorn=
is missing a |firstn=
. The only case that this code catches is |firstn=
without its numerically matching |lastn=
or |authorn=
.And a bit of a tweak and:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2, Author5. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2, Author5. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last1, First1; Last2, First2. First+Last 1, First+Last 2, Author5 (should produce error but does not?).{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last1, First1; Last2, First2. First+Last 1, First+Last 2, Author5 (should produce error but does not?).{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last3, First3. First 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : |first2= missing |last2= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last3, First3. First 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : |first2= missing |last2= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3, Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3, Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last1, First1; Last3, First3; Last4, First4. First+Last 1, First+Last 3, First+Last 4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last1, First1; Last3, First3; Last4, First4. First+Last 1, First+Last 3, First+Last 4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order) with Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order) with Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
The above examples were added by Jonesey95. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
|author=
, |author1=
, |last=
|last1=
, and the other aliases). The code stops searching when it doesn't find |authorn=
and it doesn't find |authorn+1=
. So, in the example, the code found |last1=
and |last2=
, but didn't find |last3=
and didn't find |last4=
so it concluded that there are no more authors.New test for the special case: Winter YYYY–YY.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there is still an old 3-way bug for "chapter=" when using both title/journal, which I neglected to fix when first developing the Module:Citation/CS1 last year. As I interpret the issue, a "chapter=" should always be quoted and then force "title=" into italics. However, note the following in {cite_journal}:
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Webster, Mark (2011). "Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology of Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada". Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin (67). {{
cite journal}} : |chapter= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorGiven1= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorSurname1= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Webster, Mark (2011). "Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology of Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada". Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin (67). {{
cite journal}} : |chapter= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorGiven1= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorSurname1= ignored (
help)
|
In the above example, " Trilobite Biostratigraphy" is just one chapter in the larger topic (book), Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology..., which would cover all life forms of the Cambrian Period. Perhaps always quote a chapter title? I was too tired last year (still am) to test all major combinations with title+journal/work, and I neglected to fix that. It is a minor problem, but some PhD users might expect it fixed in the next Lua release. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
if is_set(Periodical) and is_set(Title) then
Chapter = wrap( 'italic-title', Chapter ); --DO NOT DO THIS!!
TransChapter = wrap( 'trans-italic-title', TransChapter );
else
Chapter = kern_quotes(Chapter);
Chapter = wrap( 'quoted-title', Chapter );
TransChapter = wrap( 'trans-quoted-title', TransChapter );
end
if is_set(Periodical) and not is_set(Chapter) then
Title = kern_quotes (Title);
Title = wrap( 'quoted-title', Title );
TransTitle = wrap( 'trans-quoted-title', TransTitle );
elseif inArray(config.CitationClass, ...)
and not is_set(Chapter)
" then the logic will naturally decide to italicize the book's Title as well as the "journal=" Periodical. Hence, that fixes the problem, without altering other issues about the quoted/italic titles. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 23:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: Replace |subscription=
and |registration=
with a new |access=
.
Rationale: There are at least five, probably more, types of access restriction, and more may develop in the future.
Syntax:
|access=sub
(or |access=subscription
) = subscription (paid registration) required|access=reg
(or |access=registration
) = free registration required|access=fee
= per-access or per-item fee required|access=abstract
= free abstract, but fee required for access to complete content|access=audience
= access restricted to defined (e.g. academic or professional institution) audienceThis will also obviate any need to have code trying to determine which existing parameter supercedes the other, and other potential future complications. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|access=
is too close to |accessdate=
. Perhaps |permission=
? I have bulleted your syntax.|access=subscription
?|accessdate=
, but |permission=
is longwinded. {{
pra|access|subscription}}
was a typo for {{
para|access|subscription}}
. All of them require some form of registration, so perhaps |register=
. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)|register=
or |wall=
, with one value paid
and opposite value free
, with any other value (e.g. y
) defaulting to "paid". —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Revised proposal: Perhaps a |register=
or |wall=
, with one value paid
and opposite value free
, with any other value (e.g. y
) defaulting to "paid". The problem with the current code that it assumes that paywalls are subscription based when this is often not true. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Right now, there are seven error message that are hidden from editors who have not chosen to make all error messages visible. These are
error message | category | number of pages in category |
---|---|---|
|accessdate= requires |url= |
Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL | 0 |
Check date values in: |param1=, |param2=, ... |
Category:CS1 errors: dates | 75 |
Cite uses deprecated parameters | Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters | 0 |
|displayauthors= suggested |
Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. | 0 |
|displayeditors= suggested |
Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. | 0 |
|format= requires |url= |
Category:Pages using citations with format and no URL | 0 |
Missing or empty |url= |
Category:Pages using web citations with no URL | 0 |
Any reason why at least some of these shouldn't be unhidden at the next Module:Citation/CS1 update?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
dx.doi.org
URL has been bot replaced by a |doi=
parameter and the template was not changed to the more appropriate "cite journal" version, or whatever, at the same time. Likewise for many of the "format requires URL" errors. I might be wrong though.Where a bot removes |url=
it should also remove other parameters that can only be present if |url=
is present. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 23:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Currently, using the cite web template requires a url or an error message is issued to those who have the messages turned on. Likewise a URL is expected whenever the accessdate parameter is present. But I came across an edit where an editor had added information from a source behind a paywall. I might face the same problem; I have access to some paywall sources through my library, but the access is explained by library personnel as clicking on a link on the library home page, then giving the password, and then searching for the source. If I give the URL from my address bar at the time I'm viewing the source, and then try that URL from a different computer, I get a page asking for a userid and password, but no one at the library seems to know the userid. So it would be rather useless to provide the URL.
It seems to me we should provide some advice about this situation. If the paywall operator is reliable and we viewed an exact copy of a paper publication, I suppose we could just give the information about the paper publication that we viewed online, and not mention that we viewed it online. But if the source is an electronic-source, subject to silent revision, we should provide an access date. What, then, do we use as a URL? The homepage of the paywall operator?
Courtesy also comes into play. If the paywall operator has in some way given support to the writing of the article, for example, by giving accounts to selected Wikipedia editors, or to another charity, it might be appropriate to acknowledge in some way that the information was accessed through the paywall. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
. I could be misunderstanding you or just plain wrong, though.I see from discussions above that "date" and "year" have been discussed. At some point, the standard "year" was dropped from the Cite Book template and replaced with "date". Ergo, when one uses the drop down template on the edit window toolbar, "date" is the only option available. This creates citation error issues with functions such as Shortened footnotes that only work correctly with years. After using the template, the user then has to manually change the word "date" to "year" for that to work. A big pain in the behind if an editor is creating an article with a hundred or so citations. And not every editor has enough experience to know it needs to be changed. If they don't manually correct it, the errors remain in referencing until such a time as another editor happens to run AWB, or just stumbles across it and manually corrects it. Or not. Can we please include "year" as a standard "fill in the blank" on the cite book template? — Maile ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
is handled by
Module:Citation/CS1. In that module, the year portion of a CITEREF anchor is extracted from either |date=
or |year=
, when both are present, the year portion of the CITEREF anchor comes from |year=
. If the value in |date=
is invalid, then the year is not added to CITEREF.The in-text cite should include only the year. The full citation may include the year only or the full date. Most citation templates will extract the year from a full date to form the anchor. If both a date and a year are included, then the date is displayed, but the anchor is formed from the year.Regardless of what that says, the cite templates do not pull the year from a full date with shortened footnotes.
My experience has been the opposite. Using something like |date=2001
or |date=3 May 2002
within cite templates has worked fine for me in conjunction with {{
sfn}} (use only the year within the sfn template). That's why we're hoping for examples, so that if there is a subtle bug, we can fix it.
I have the HarvErrors script installed, so if you point me to an article where this is not working, I'll take a look at it.
Here's an example [1] of a shortened footnote [2] that uses the year from a date. [3]
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)These three footnotes all work perfectly for me. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|year=
has not been removed from any of the CS1 templates. It is still a valid and active parameter.Maile,in the "Preferences" window that can be accessed by clicking "Preferences" at the top of the page, in the editing tab, there are two relevant check boxes, "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" and "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". Which of these do you have checked? ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs)
Thanks, everyone, for the detailed detective work. It looks like the proper venue for continuation of this discussion is Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar/2.0, since the toolbar, not the cite templates themselves, is presenting a limited set of parameters to editors.
Again, if anyone sees a citation using |date=
that does not properly link to an sfn or harv template, feel free to post a link to an article or a sandbox test case here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|year=
was
removed from the toolbar because it is supposedly redundant to |date=
. Is it not?
Mr.
Z-man 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)|year=
is surplus to requirements as I explained at the
other conversation.|ref=harv
. Perhaps the non-working cases that
user:Maile66 complained about were a result of the editor not correctly modifying the output of the toolbar.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)So that people know:
AWB currently changes parameter |date=
to |year=
in all citation templates when the value of the parameter is only a year as part of the
General Fixes. This means that thousands of articles have been changed to using |year=
instead of |date=
. If this is not what CS1 desires, the general fixes need to get changed. —
Makyen (
talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Is
this how the |website=
or |work=
parameter was envisaged to work? If not, what can be done about it? --
Ohc
¡digame! 02:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
|website=
in {{
cite web}}
and for |work=
in
Help:Citation Style 1 says nothing about urls in this parameter. I don't think that it would be too hard to add error checking for urls in these parameters as we've done for urls in |authorlink=
.It appears that external link icons will be removed in the next update. The PDF icon is set locally by a rule in MediaWiki:Common.css and there is discussion on removing it. See MediaWiki talk:Common.css#External links icons removed. I bring it up here, as many editors believe the icons are added by the templates. -- Gadget850 talk 12:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding |accesdate=
at
Help_talk:CS1_errors#Accessdate.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am currently having a small dispute with
Sitush (
talk ·
contribs) over whither the |location=
/ |place=
field in {{
cite news}}
is meant to show the physical publication location of the newspaper (Sitush) or the
dateline (my position). Sitush has cited
Template:Cite news#Publisher as a source, but the description is ambiguous. I feel that Sitush's interpretation is meant more for {{
cite book}}
. Can someone settle this?--
Auric
talk 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|dateline=
field could be added to prevent confusion.--
Auric
talk 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|publication-place=
vs. |location=
. Compare:
Getting this discussion back to the question at hand, I pulled my copies of the APA and MLA style guides plus The Chicago Manual of Style.
Our CS1 templates separate the name and location of a newspaper like the MLA style or the last example from CMOS. Both style guides ignore the dateline location because it won't help a reader find the source; datelines are specific to the article, they vary from article to article within the same newspaper, and are not going to help distinguish between two papers of the same name. Imzadi 1979 → 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that has this problem. It seems that most of the people using this template do not understand the difference between the 'publisher' parameter and the 'work' parameter. The result is that many templates are filled out incorrectly, with the 'publisher' parameter filled instead of the more appropriate 'work'. Is there any way we could clarify this, perhaps by renaming the 'work' parameter to something more obvious? It is annoying to have to fix templates that have filled out incorrectly merely because of the vagaries of the parameters. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|work=
are |newspaper=
or |magazine=
. The documentation clearly says that |publisher=
is for the company that publishes something and that |work=
is for the name of the name of the published work. I don't know why people will get that the publisher is a company in the case of a book, but get confused on newspapers. Maybe they forget that an article is published in the Daily News and not published by the Daily News. I also find the same confusions with television networks like CBS (the publisher) and individual programs like 60 Minutes (the published "work" of the network). With the alternate parameter names already in place, I think the only way forward is to educate people and just fix their errors.
Imzadi 1979
→ 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|publishingco=
parameter as an equivalent of |publisher=
and change the documentation to stop mentioning the latter. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|pubr=
for those of us with borderline carpal tunnel syndrome, but whatever. I know we can't keep adding duplicate parameters indefinitely. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)As the Bots continue to mangle major articles by inserting invalid parameters, we still need more people to help fix a few more pages, each day, to fix "DUPLICATE_" or "unused_data=" or other invalid parameter names. See category:
Remember, it is possible to navigate the category by URL question-suffix "?from=Ra" to display pages beginning at letters "Ra" or such. Try to scan through the list to fix major pages first (or semi-major, with 100+ pageviews per day); I just fixed page " Pluto" again, as major pages scarred with glaring red-error messages give the appearance that the "keepers of the 'pedia" are unable to correct major errors in major pages. Many invalid parameters date back over 1-3 years, before the wp:CS1 Lua-based cites were installed to show cite messages. Any help, even edit a few pages per day, will help reduce the backlog of 3,400 scarred pages, growing larger every day. - Wikid77 16:03, 30 March, 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Coming here after seeing discussion on Jimbo's talk page: I'm happy to help gnoming away, but it would be great if there could be a priority list of the high hit-rate articles within the 3315 in the category.
And a question: why do some of the articles in Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters seem to be sorted by their DEFAULTSORT, and others not? See, under "Pa": "Richard Phipson" followed by "Phoenix Jones": both have DEFAULTSORTS, so Jones should be appearing under "J". At the end of "M" we have Málaga though it has a DEFAULTSORT of "Malaga", while Öreryd is sorted correctly by its DEFAULTSORT of "Oreryd" What's happening? (My instinct is to look at this category for articles which need other work such as adding a DEFAULTSORT or checking whether "Foo (whatnot)" is correctly linked from "Foo", to do this while sorting out the citation problem, but I'm puzzled by the inconsistent treatment of defaultsorts.) Pam D 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags and some are not.
bugzilla:38435 says that the DEFAULTSORT gets ignored when the category is generated via a reference and the DEFULTSORT statement is below the reflist. There's an example at
User:John of Reading/Sandbox. In one of my test categories, the page is sorted under "Z", matching the DEFAULTSORT, and in the other it is sorted under "J", ignoring the DEFAULTSORT. --
John of Reading (
talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)I don't know of a way to provide a list of high-hit-rate articles in a given category, but I can provide a catscan report listing Featured Articles that have CS1 errors. There are currently 2,687 such articles. There are 26 Featured Articles in the "unsupported parameter" category. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
|coauthor=
is deprecated but still supported so that's not how a page gets added to
Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters.[Aa]rchive|Articles for|Mediation Cabal|requests for arbi|Filled requests|Deletion review|Deletion review|Categories for discussion|Featured article candidates/Featured log|Files for deletion|Requests for arbitration|Suspected sock puppets|Wikipedia Signpost|Autofixing cites|Bots/Requests for approval|Centralized discussion/Citation discussion|Featured article candidates/Navenby|testcases|regression tests|sandbox
|authorlink=
parameters. However, as an experiment to see how long it would take, I left six references needing the document title to be filled in. It took 68 edits from 45 different users (and around 60 000 pageviews) before someone fixed four of the titles. The other two remain broken. --
79.67.241.252 (
talk) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|
At present, the citation templates does not seem to recognise "circa" and abbreviations thereof, and throws these up as cs1 date errors. What does the template recognise, if at all? Or what can we do about these? -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author (c. 1894). Title. Publisher. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author (c. 1894). Title. Publisher. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>_
(my underscore represents your space). The template {{
abbr}} may be used to achieve this.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 09:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
&rft.date
with the {{
abbr}} HTML. --
Gadget850
talk 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |title=Title |date={{abbr|c.|circa}} 1900}} |
|
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000255-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1900.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>
}}
#tag
or a template that includes it causes the strip marker issue. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Lua to be able to break this down and properly characterize it. --
Gadget850
talk 12:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The shortcut above, WP:DATEOTHER, is incorrect; it is associated with the level 4 heading "Ranges" heading in MOSNUM (not MOS). The correct heading is "Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates". Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |title=Title |date={{circa}} 1900}} |
|
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000025A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1900.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>
}}
Unless it is required by WP:DATESNO, which it doesn't seem to be, is this functionality necessary?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What should I do with cases like "|date=
undated"? Outright removal would probably be simplest. But correct? --
Ohc
¡digame! 04:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
|date=n.d.
is accepted by the CS1 module. Like this:|date=n.d.
needs to be added to the documentation.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
|publisher=<!--Unspecified by source.-->
nd
instead.{{cite book |title=Title |date=nd}}
|author=
. Still no error. So where are you seeing errors? Can you show an example where nd
produces a CS1 error
?At this point, we can begin to allow free-form dates, such as "undated" or "late October 2011" and change the Lua software to bypass date-format checking when the date seems to be free-form. Recall that the Lua-based cites were purposely kept limited, from last year, in an effort to speed the markup-to-Lua transition from {Citation/core} within a 6-week period, leaving rare cite forks (and complex parameters) for later, which is now. The expansion of such new features should be tested in a separate version (not the main /sandbox version). - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
After this whole past year of the Lua-based cites, I think it is time to allow uppercase names for several major parameters, including "Title=" & "Date=" & "Publisher=" & "Accessdate=" (etc.). The successful use of capital "Author=" has shown the feature to be workable, as well as perhaps leading some people to imagine capital "Title=" should work as well. The data seems to show 10% of spelling errors are capital-letter parameters, although the percentage might be higher due to the obvious quick fix for a even newcomer to use lowercase when an error message is seen. To simplify implementation, perhaps start with just 10 major parameters where the capital letter would be allowed.
Although the unknown parameters have been fixed among the 10,000 articles with "unsupported" parameters, the prior usage can be estimated from checking the user-space pages, as with a search:
•
Google Search: "Unknown parameter" "date ignored" site:en.wikipedia.org
In several prior cases, the problem has been capital "Date=" as an irksome glitch which prevented the date from appearing in a formatted cite. Anyway, because the long-term use of capital "Author=" has not caused major problems, then allowing a capital letter in 10 other major parameters should work well. -
Wikid77 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
|author=
, |Author=
, |AUTHOR=
, or even, perversely, |AuthoR=
? I'm just asking. If there's a reason, it would be helpful to understand it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite music release notes}}
templates in article space with capitalized parameters. Because that template is handled by {{
citation/core}}
, the capitalized parameters weren't displayed. I've fixed that with an AWB script and I've fixed thousands of capitalization errors in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters. That category is essentially empty now.|accessdate=
but not |ignoreisbnerror=
; |trans-title=
or |transtitle=
but not |trans_title=
; parameter names that naturally occur in English are not subject to this requirement: |encyclopedia=
.|trans-title=
without thinking, I support your proposal for parameter names to include hyphens, not underscores, not spaces, not CamelCaps and not capitalised. When inconsistency is allowed, it becomes harder to spot inconsistent things that are real errors. Of course, bots that edit references should be able to read aNyCase and allow for space or underscore where hyphen should be and then re-emit the corrected reference parameter names as all lower case with hyphens. It would be nice to see a requirement for space to the left of each pipe as a bare minimum so that word-wrap also has a fighting chance of working properly. --
79.67.241.227 (
talk) 16:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
|access-date=
could also be used as |accessdate=
. For shorter parameter names it may be easier to type without the hyphen. However, the user that does not have detailed familiarity with the template should not have to know that words in certain parameter are joined in a particular way. One way of joining words should always work.After years of allowing both lowercase and uppercase id parameter names (such "isbn=" and "ISBN="), there has been no significant overhead incurred by allowing just one alias for a dozen parameters. The major problem with {{ Citation/core}} had been allowing 'surname1' up to 'surname9' or 'given9' as 18 extra aliases which were almost never used, compared to use of capital 'Date=' or 'Publisher'. Also, each various camel-case or mixed spelling (such as 'AccessDate' or 'AutHOR') would be cumbersome to handle in the {Citation/core} while almost never used in live articles. Fortunately, the parameters where people tend to use a capital letter are still rare, including: Title, Chapter, Last, First, Date, Publisher, Accessdate, or Author. Hence, if perhaps 10 major parameters were accepted with a capital letter, then there would be fewer cite errors, while no significant overhead in processing just those extra spellings (similar to 'issn' or 'ISSN'). Although wp:autofixing cites would also handle the capital-letter format, those would still be logged into a tracking category which would expand the total list of pages with invalid parameters. Instead by treating the major capital-letter forms as valid (similar to valid 'Author' during 2013), then the size of a tracking category would be reduced. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
To solve the problem of misjudging free-form dates or "{{ circa}} 1950" as being invalid dates (when actually valid), then I suggest any date over 24 characters long (longer than "September 16-29, 1150 BC") should be logged into a non-error tracking category, and not tagged with a "Check date values" message using a CSS class. The Template:Circa inserts an abbr-tag as "<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>" which is 29 characters, longer than 24 and hence could be skipped when checking for valid date format. Otherwise, there are too many date formats which need to be allowed, such as the need to allow dates in years BC:
When a tracking category is flooded with errors for valid dates, then it makes it more difficult to spot the pages which contain actual invalid dates. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>
to c.
in COinS; if anything it should change it to circa
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)We've previously discussed using HTML classes to make our citations more easily parseable (Representatives of Zotero, for example, have said that if we publish and apply such a schema, then Zotero will parse it. ). The suggestion then was "Once this module is debugged and implemented, then we can look at adding this feature". Shall we now do so? A proposed list of class names is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
During testing of an AWB script to 'fix' accessdate CS1 errors (
more), I began wondering if we shouldn't be rethinking |accessdate=
, its application, and the rules for its use. So, some of the questions that I think need answering are:
|accessdate=
correctly defined in terms of:
|accessdate=
but don't have |url=
?
I'm sure that there are other questions but these are enough for now.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
|accessdate=
is actually displayed, except for the oblique "requires url".|accessdate=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
is only displayed when |url=
has a value.|url=
, or are other places where a URL might be found considered?|url=
|chapterurl=
|chapter-url=
|contributionurl=
|contribution-url=
|archive-url=
|layurl=
|website=
(Yep, again not supposed to happen, but it does)|deadurl=
(Yep, again not supposed to happen, but it does){{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help) [Note: This example links to a source which should not be changing, but other citations link to changeable content.]|url=
is actually in some other parameter.|url=
for the presence of |archiveurl=
when a |chapterurl=
or |contributionurl=
is present. Probably also the case for |layurl=
, but I have not tested that one. —
Makyen (
talk) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
has only applied to |url=
. A primary requirement in the original development of
Module:Citation/CS1 was to keep its functionality the same as that of {{
citation/core}}
. Now that most CS1 templates have migrated from {{citation/core}}
to Module:Citation/CS1 that requirement may be eased.|accessdate=
, to which in your list of urls should it apply if there are multiples but not |url=
? What about the automatic urls associated with the module-supported identifiers (bibcode, doi, pmid, etc)?Concerning Template:Csdoc#url, it generally makes no sense to include an accessdate in a journal citation, even if a url is present. Articles that are published in journals must by definition have been published on a specific date and with rare exceptions, the content is frozen and does not change over time. If a publication does not have an original publication date (year + volume + issue + page number), it wasn't published in a journal. With or without a url, I generally delete accessdates in cite journal templates on sight. Hence if a journal citation contains an accessdate without a url, I think the accessdate can be safely be deleted. Boghog ( talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
being deleted on any citations.|accessdate=
provides a hint as to when the citation was entered on the page. Generally, this means that the person who added the citation believed that the reference supported the text at that point. While this may, or may not, be accurate, I routinely use access dates to prioritize which references need to be checked to verify that article content is still supported by the citation. Using it in this way is, of course, imperfect. However, there really is just not enough time in existence to do all the checking which really should be performed. This is one piece of information which can be used to help determine where to spend limited time.|accessdate=
is useful in attempting to determine to what a reference actually is referring. We all know those references that have inaccurate or corrupted information. Sometimes the citation is copied from page to page with errors/vandalism – I recently fixed one that had the same error on 34 pages across 7 wikis which appeared to be the result of copying a vandalized citation. All information we have, including |accessdate=
, is potentially valuable in such situations. In that specific instance having the |accessdate=
helped me identify which citations had been copied from page to page and which were valid. This would have taken much longer without |accessdate=
.|accessdate=
can provide a hint as to the time-frame of the actual date of the reference when that is not included with the citation.|accessdate=
is also useful as one of the quick sanity checks for a citation: Is |accessdate=
before |date=
? If so, that citation needs to be checked.|accessdate=
as an indicator that someone has merely copied a reference from one page to another. This can indicate that the person may have not bothered to read the actual reference which may imply that a closer examination of if the reference actually supports the text is appropriate. If the |accessdate=
does not closely match the date when the citation was added to the page this can indicate that the citation was not actually checked by the editor who put it in the article.|accessdate=
without a URL is inherently an error, let alone that the |accessdate=
should be deleted for that reason. I can understand the converse of a URL without access date being an error. I can understand not requiring an access date for most references without a URL (i.e. ones which refer to physical objects).|ignore-isbn-error=true
). Alternately, just have the module not flag having an |accessdate=
without a URL to be an error if there is a valid ISBN, DOI, or other ID that leads directly to a permanent, unchanging reference.|accessdate=
without a URL is not something that needs further attention (e.g. a |no-url-is-ok=true
)).|accessdate=
. For us, there are more appropriate ways to solve a large quantity of these "errors". I think one reason people are concentrating on removing |accessdate=
is that the text of the "error" leads their thinking in that direction. The "error" should have different text which concentrates on the lack of a URL, not the presence of |accessdate=
. The error text should be something along the lines of: "Is there a missing URL? Add |no-url-is-ok=true
if URL is not missing." instead of what is currently displayed.|accessdate=
if you can actually verify that there is enough valid data to indicate that the source really is a physical paper copy of an article. Doing so in such instances would ignore the other uses for |accessdate=
data.|accessdate=
. —
Makyen (
talk) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)I'll attempt a partial answer to the questions in Trappist's post that began this thread. An accessdate should be specified for content that was obtained from a source that is accessible through the World Wide Web, and similar protocols (for example, Gopher) if and only if the source
The first choice for the URL is the URL that is visible in the browser address bar while reading the source. If this isn't feasible, for example, with a pdf, the second choice is a URL that will download the source, will display download instructions, or which contains a link which can be clicked to download the source. Third chhoice: if the procedure for accessing the source is more complex (for example some paywalls), the URL should be a page from which the source can be navigated to; after the close of the CS1 template (but before the <ref> element, if applicable) the navigation directions should be given. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC), clarified 13:22 UT.
|accessdate=
?I think enough objections have been raised, above and in prior discussions, to reach a consensus now about the "accessdate=" parameter. Reply below. - Wikid77 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
in all cases and eliminating the current error message. Please correct me if I am misstating your position.Whilst some editors might feel rather clever in second-guessing by applying logical and coherence checks, these checks are often not very determinant on the error. Do I want to spoil their fun? Hell no. But we need to remember access dates add an additional dimension that occupies a lot of server storage space whilst being, IMHO, rather shallow. This encyclopaedia, being a wiki, is prone to all sorts inconsistencies. Errors and vandalism happen and are often corrected by others. Maintaining these access dates is more trouble than is worth, as one can just as easily (or not) find alternatives or archived cites without them. OTOH, having these gives a false sense of security that a link can be found with a little diligence. Access dates are not palliatives for poor referencing practices. They should be removed in favour of urging editors to preemptively or systematically archive. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I've stumbled across a bit of a problem on the article
William Wigginton. One of the cites, for {{cite web}}
is refusing to display, or rather, displaying as code.--
Auric
talk 04:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Joe Fixit (Another day of autofixing). "Title
Broken
into
Four Parts". {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 6 (
help)
I have been updating topic above "
#Should autofix more cites" but I wanted to note some recent issues. Although the use of autofixing will retro-correct cites in archived pages (especially
wp:AfD's which admins want left unchanged) and fix all prior revisions of any page, the auto-corrections have reached perhaps 200 issues and will take more time to discuss. Please understand, the whole prior tactic of issuing red-error messages for cites was never my intention, but by allowing them into Lua cites for a whole year (April 2013-2014), we gained extensive evidence that those messages do not cause users to fix "9,000" articles, which had to be hand-fixed by a special backlog drive to clear 8,500 of them by mid-April 2014. Now, we see perhaps 12 new "unknown parameter" pages left each day (366/month, ~4,400/year), to be hand-fixed or else thousands of people see red messages. However, at this point, we are spotting the trends for new unknown parameters, where perhaps 10% are bad accessdate as "acesdate" or "access date" or "accessed" (etc.) and many are capital-letter form (invalid "Publisher="). Before release of autofixing, more users need to understand to search for "[fix cite]" and "[fix url]" rather than "Unknown parameter |xx= ignored". The next step would be partial rollout for use of autofixing in some types of cites, such as {{
cite encyclopedia}} or such. However, I expect more weeks of discussion and stronger autofixing, such as to handle invalid:
"| urlhttp://xxx.com/index.php?zz=123&arg=en" as if "url="
Long-term, we need to expect many more editors to write invalid cites every day, but not yet, because currently the editor base of Wikipedia is in a slight decline, perhaps due to strange user-interface changes (https, login redesign, 2-style Frankenfonts with
Liberation Sans, etc.) or users leaving who cannot post more adverts. However, many users keep joining despite all the forced
wp:VE or login problems, and autofixing will allow more new users to write invalid cites but still get workable results. That's the brief status so far. It will take time to transition. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The functionality afforded by using templates is great but there are a number of template generators and bots which continue to produce deprecated parameters or make amendments that are, or soon will be, unnecessary.
I'd like to suggest creating a Help:Citation_Style_1/Advisories page, where salient points can be listed (and can link to more detailed stuff where necessary). This would be aimed at bot operators and at coders working on producing template generators. It would simply be a clear list of changes they may need to be aware of so they can amend the functionality of their systems. Template changes would be easy to find without having to trawl through the huge amounts of template documentation looking for things that may have changed.
Some examples to kick off:
|month=
and |day=
parameters are deprecated. Monkbot is cleaning up remaining cases. The |date=
parameter can handle full or partial dates. Processes should be amended to no longer generate the deprecated parameters.|date=1999
over to |year=1999
.|trans-title=
over to |trans_title=
. The hyphenated version is currently an acceptable alias and may?/will? at some point become the "default".|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
attributes are deprecated. Processes should be amended to no longer generate the deprecated parameters. Use |last=
|first=
or |author=
.|url=
ending .pdf or .doc it is useful to add the appropriate |format=PDF
or |format=DOC
parameter.The idea is to avoid producing more stuff that needs to be fixed, and avoid doing work that is currently unnecessary or which will need to be undone when a future planned change is made to the template workings.
Discuss... -- 79.67.241.210 ( talk) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
|trans-title=
over to |trans_title=
. It would be very helpful to have a list of the valid parameters and aliases for each citation template.
GoingBatty (
talk) 03:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In the
Benzodiazepine dependence article, there's a CS1 date error that I can't seem to fix:
{{cite journal |author=Professor Lader |coauthors=Professor Morgan, Professor Shepherd, Dr Paul Williams, Dr Skegg, Professor Parish, Dr Peter Tyrer, Dr Inman, Dr John Marks (Ex-Roche), Peter Harris (Roche), Tom Hurry (Wyeth) |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |date=30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981 |title=Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005 |publisher=[[National Archives]] |location=England |url=http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=7798554&j=1 |format=PDF }}
generates:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)This seems to be valid per MOS:DATEFORMAT#Ranges but still generates an error. What am I missing? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Professor Lader (30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981).
"Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005" (PDF). England:
National Archives. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Professor Lader (30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981).
"Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005" (PDF). England:
National Archives. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
Of late there seem to have been several discussions that relate to various template parameters and the styling of rendered citations:
All or most of these issues could / should be answered by a proper style guide. Instead, what we get are a lot of short-term conversations that ultimately produce nothing. As we are now, we have documentation distributed across the various CS1 templates and help pages. The documentation is often out of date with respect to CS1's actual implementation and does not serve as a style guide because it can't. I know that there are editors out there who are familiar with published style guides (I'm not one of them) who could write a style guide for CS1. That guide would then direct further development of Module:Citation/CS1 into the tool that it really is capable of being.
Isn't it time we had such a guide? This is no short term project. Every citation type, every parameter, every bit of functionality, should be taken apart, examined and if found worthy, included in the style guide that details its use.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So, perhaps I really don't know what it is that I want. Scanning through the MLA and APA sections at Purdue OWL tells me how to manually construct various types of citations. With CS1, there is no manual construction, the templates and Module:Citation/CS1 do that for us.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly concur that we do need such a guide. I have no objection to basing the overall gist of our style on some other one, but like all of WP:MOS, it should be a synthesis of several, guided by actual mainstream usage, and with every point focused on what is best for our readers, not for editors much less particular camps of them.
Some of the style problems of various off-WP citation style guides, just off the top of my head and in 5 minutes or less:
Because it is similar to {{
cite AV media notes}}
I'm beginning to think about how to migrate {{
cite music release notes}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
I'm thinking that changes similar to those made to {{cite AV media notes}}
apply here:
|type=
– provides functionality similar to |albumtype=
as described at
Migrating cite AV media notes, item 2. Here, |type=
has been repurposed to control the format of |name=
. When |type=
is set to any value, the value in |name=
is rendered in quotations; otherwise the value is rendered in italic font. Presumably, this is because individual song titles are quoted, not italicized. Because {{cite music release notes}}
cites the notes, not the song or album, this undocumented functionality is inappropriate in this template. I propose to remove this functionality from {{cite music release notes}}
and so free |type=
for use consistent with the other CS1 templates.|Format=
– not the same as |format=
, this undocumented parameter is an alias of |type=
which is not supported in the normal way; see above. Another, also undocumented parameter, |titletype=
, is also an alias of |type=
. I propose to deprecate |Format=
because it is so similar to |format=
(which has the specific definition of online resource file format) and deprecate |titletype=
because it is undocumented. Both of these shall be deprecated in favor of |type=
and I shall change the default value from "Release notes" to "Media notes" so that it is the same as {{cite AV media notes}}
.|name=
– an alias of |series=
is used in place of |title=
which places the "title" of the notes in a nonstandard position when the citation is rendered. While supported, |title=
is remapped to be an alias of |chapter=
though this functionality is not documented. I propose to restore the normal sense of |title=
and deprecate |name=
in favor of the restored |title=
consistent with all other CS1 templates.|artist=
– simply a unique alias of |others=
, which is not currently supported, so I propose to deprecate it in favor of |others=
as was done in {{cite AV media notes}}
.|pid=
– I propose to deprecate |publisherid=
because it is simply an undocumented alias of |id=
.As I did with {{cite AV media notes}}
, I will modify the template, tweak the documentation, and then create an AWB script to make appropriate changes to the templates in article space.
I think that once these changes are made, another AWB script can rename the templates in article space from {{cite music release notes}}
to {{cite AV media notes}}
and so accomplish the migration without having any effect on
Module:Citation/CS1. A redirect would handle any new instances of {{cite music release notes}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have tweaked the {{
cite music release notes/sandbox}}
(
testcases – such as they are) and have an AWB script to run after I update {{
cite music release notes}}
. I have added code to the script to fix capitalization. In a surprising number of these cites, the parameters are capitalized, so for who knows how long, these citations have not been fully rendered. I have also added code to change |albumlink=
to |titlelink=
because I have found them in the wild. Though neither are supported in the current or sandbox versions, |titlelink=
is supported by {{
cite AV media notes}}
to which all of these {{cite music release notes}}
will eventually migrate.
I have found several instances of citations like the
second example on the template's documentation page. This example should be {{
cite journal}}
not {{cite music release notes}}
. Sigh. And, those that I did find seem to also put the journal's volume and issue number in |id=
. Perhaps I'll see if I can make yet another script that will tease apart the contents of |id=
and just fix these.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite music release notes}}
a while back and found the same issue where other templates should have been used. I think there were some also uses of oddball parameters that were never coded. --
Gadget850
talk 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC){{
cite music release notes}}
from {{
cite music release notes/sandbox}}
and start my AWB script working on adapting the article space templates.|name=
? I ask because {{
Cite music release notes}}
is often used to cite the release notes for singles, and it conflicts with our manual of style if the name of any single referenced in this way can only be formatted in italics, rather than in quotation marks.
A Thousand Doors (
talk |
contribs) 22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC){{
cite music release notes}}
is to cite print material. The title of the printed notes may be the same as the title of a single, but it is still a print document, separate and apart from the single, so the template treats it that way.{{
cite AV media}}
which is supposed to be the proper template for citing singles, albums, video, etc. There is no mechanism available to render the title of a single in quotes. I'll have a look at that and see what can be done about it.Having remembered that I want to finish this, within the next couple of days I will run an AWB script to rename existing instances of {{
cite music release notes}}
to {{
cite AV media notes}}
. Once that is complete, I'll make {{
cite music release notes}}
a redirect to {{cite AV media note}}
and do documentation cleanup.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
{{cite music release notes}}
, |name=
equated to |title=
, not |author=
. Similarly, |PID=
in these templates equated to |id=
and not to |pmid=
. |type=
should be deleted and then |Format=
becomes |type=
. If there were other {{cite music release notes}}
citations that your script fixed, you might want to revisit them. I have fixed the two that Editor Jonesey95 identified.{{
cite music release notes}}
by changing parameter names and fixing capitalization. Apparently I didn't get them all.{{
cite AV media notes}}
citations in pages that were edited by my rename script were misusing |format=
. The script fixed about 120 of them.Done, I think.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a Lua technical note. Due to the massive use of the wp:CS1 cite templates, an upgrade runs over 6-7 weeks to deploy the smallest change into any article. Meanwhile, if a change is needed immediately, it would be faster to hand-edit it into a cite. Instead, if the Lua modules were partially released in phases, then many articles (perhaps 100,000) could get the upgraded cite templates within 2-3 days (15-20x faster). As an example, if the cite templates were changed to invoke the new Lua modules only when parameter "last2=" is used, then that would cause many major articles to have the update perhaps 20x faster. See proposed markup:
{{#if: {{{last2|}}} | {{#invoke: Citation/CS1/new|citation|CitationClass=web}} | {{#invoke: Citation/CS1|citation|CitationClass=web}}<!--old version--> }}
In this proposed case, the early release of the new Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox would be copied into Module:Citation/CS1/new, and then only pages with parameter "last2=" (about 124,000 pages) would have the new features within 3 days, while the remainder of the 2.1 million pages (with CS1 cites) would be reformatted over the 6-7 week period (perhaps after re-checking the results of the 3-day early release). In cases where another page needed immediate update, then setting one cite as "last2= " would cause that page to be reformatted within the 3-day period. Currently, we have occasional complaints that a problem, fixed in the /sandbox version weeks ago, is still annoying users due to the 2-3 month delay in upgrading all 2.1 million pages for a new feature. Because major pages tend to need new features, and major pages tend to use parameter "last2=" then the rapid 20x faster results could be applied in the targeted articles, as if the MediaWiki software had been improved to work much faster. The initial change to such partitioned cite templates would require a total reformat of all 2.1 million pages for 6-7 weeks, and then afterward the 3-day partial release would be possible. Meanwhile, hand-editing of cite formats is still the best method to get instant results in a limited set of pages. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
|last2=
(or whatever) in order to figure out which one it was using. Ugh.This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Concerning Template:Cite journal/doc, to get Vancouver system formatted authors one must add:
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
to the {{ cite journal}} template (see this discussion). Alternatively one can use a single author parameter. I have updated the documentation accordingly. Boghog ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
" has been previously
requested, but as far as I know, never implemented. On a related issued, I have also
requested that pass through parameters be added to the {{
cite doi}} and {{
cite pmid}} templates so that these templates could optionally render authors in the Vancouver style.
Boghog (
talk) 17:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Or, as I have suggested before, create a new set of templates that call these parameters. You also won't have to monitor and fix follow on edits for the next few decades. -- Gadget850 talk 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In the documentation for {{
cite encyclopedia}}, specifically
Template:Cite_encyclopedia#Title, |trans_title=
is repeated, appearing once under |title=
and again under |encyclopedia=
. I believe that I have identified two problems.
1. |trans_title=
goes with |title=
or |article=
. There does not appear to be a way to provide a translation of the title of the encyclopedia itself.
2. The "Pages with citations using translated terms without the original" error appears when there is a translated title and |article=
is used instead of |title=
(|article=
is an alias of |title=
).
I believe that there should be a parameter allowing #1 above to work. It is possible that such a parameter exists but that the documentation is unclear (to me).
I also believe that the presence of a valid |article=
should prevent the error message in #2 from appearing.
Some examples:
A citation where |trans_title=
is intended to translate |encyclopedia=
:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|article=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)The same citation, using |title=
instead of |article=
:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|title=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Am I doing it wrong, which happens a lot, or have I found one or more bugs? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
|article=
is an alias of |chapter=
, not of |title=
. It will give you the same type of citation as your second example . But, that seems wrong because "Danish Biographic ..." is not a translation of Niels Kaas. So, it does look like you've found a bug. Comparing old to live:Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Niels Kaas". Dansk biografisk. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
{{
cite encyclopedia/old}}
:|Title={{{encyclopedia|{{{title|}}}}}}
|TransTitle={{{trans_chapter|}}}
|TransItalic={{{trans_title|}}}
|IncludedWorkTitle={{{title|{{{article|}}}}}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
, |article=
is an alias of |title=
. That isn't the case in
Module:Citation/CS1:
['Chapter'] = {'chapter', 'contribution', 'entry', 'article', 'section' }
|chapter=
is not supported by {{cite encyclopedia/old}}
.Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article". Title. Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article". Title. Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article". Title. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article". Title. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
I think that I conclude from this series of comparisons that
Module:Citation/CS1 isn't too badly broken, if it's broken at all. The {{
citation/core}}
version of {{
cite encyclopedia}}
is flawed so using it as a reference is problematic but I've used it here to show that the Module is fundamentally correct. If we are are to "fix" anything, it might be to alias |encyclopedia=
and |title=
for {{cite encyclopedia}}
– if an editor needed |article=
, |title=
, and |work=
then {{
cite book}}
can be used.
Aliasing |encyclopedia=
and |title=
for {{cite encyclopedia}}
will also improve the metadata because then the encyclopedia's title will be included.
From the above comparisons, I've discovered that Editor Jonesey95's example citation can be properly rendered:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|title=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|article=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)This is how it would render if we alias |encyclopedia=
and |title=
for {{cite encyclopedia}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Further head scratching:
This issue basically involves three parameters: |encyclopedia=
, |title=
, and |article=
. Set or not set gives eight possible combinations:
|article=
|title=
|title=
and |article=
|encyclopedia=
|encyclopedia=
and |article=
|encyclopedia=
and |title=
|encyclopedia=
|title=
, and |article=
Nothing wrong with combinations 2, 3, 4, and 8. For the rest, if, within reason, we re-map parameters to positions of greater specificity, then for:
|encyclopedia=
maps to |title=
|encyclopedia=
maps to |title=
|title=
maps to |article=
and |encyclopedia=
maps to |title=
When |title=
maps to |article=
, |trans_title=
maps to (and overwrites) |trans_chapter=
.
I've tweaked the sandbox code so now we get this (|url=
and |chapterurl=
added to make sure that they follow their proper title parameters):
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | Encyclopedia
//example.com. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Encyclopedia
//example.com. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 5 |
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 6 |
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : External link in (
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 7 |
This tweak fixes Editor Jonesey95's first example:
{{cite encyclopedia|ref=harv|last=Bricka|first=Carl Frederik|authorlink=Carl Frederik Bricka|encyclopedia=[[Dansk biografisk leksikon|Dansk biografisk Lexikon, tillige omfattende Norge for tidsrummet 1537–1814]]|trans_title=Danish Biographic Lexicon, including Norway for the period 1537–1814|url=http://runeberg.org/dbl/9/0067.html|edition=1st|year=1895|volume=IX|pages=65–71|article=Niels Kaas}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
|title=
, |chapter=
, and |article=
, and the existing documentation is not helping me. Should these two citations behave in the same way?Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | "Article".
Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 6 with article name in "article" but no trans_chapter |
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia
|
---|---|
Live |
"Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Article". Encyclopedia. {{
cite encyclopedia}} : Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (
help)
|
Case 7 with article name in "title" but no trans_chapter |
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
? Are people using |title=
for the article title? I expect they are either using |title=
or |article=
, but those two parameters are apparently not equivalent. We might be able to make a very nice change to the template if we could first get a bot to substitute appropriate parameter names in existing articles and templates that use {{
cite encyclopedia}}
. Maybe.|title=
to |article=
|title=
to |encyclopedia=
(mirroring {{
cite book}}
, since encyclopedias are books)|trans_title=
apply to |encyclopedia=
|trans_article=
for translated article names (it would be equivalent to |trans_chapter=
){{
citation/core}}
. This issue was one that didn't get resolved. See his comment above regarding the snippet of code from {{citation/core}}
.|article=
(an alias of |chapter=
) as the citation element with the smallest scope. This is reflected in its leftmost position in the rendered citation. Next is |title=
and then finally |encyclopedia=
. When |article=
isn't present, the next "larger" parameter, |title=
gives its value to |article=
; the now vacant |title=
gets its value from |encyclopedia=
. In this way we adjust to what we've been given and produce a more-or-less sensibly rendered citation. Is it optimal? Probably not. Were we designing {{cite encyclopedia}}
anew, we might choose to have only |encyclopedia=
and |article=
. It would make things simpler.|article=
and |encyclopedia=
. Since there is no |title=
, |encyclopedia=
gives up its value to |title=
. Because |title=
did not give its value to |article=
, |trans_title=
will not give up its value to |trans_chapter=
. Similarly, in your second example, |title=
gives its value to |article=
, |trans_title=
gives its value to |trans_chapter=
, and |encyclopedia=
gives its value |title=
. "So that, as clear as is the summer's sun," explains that. (Quoted bit from Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2){{
cite encyclopedia}}
is used. You'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about getting a robot to do anything and do it reliably. I remember that not too long ago there were assertions made that a "bot remedy [was] in hand"; assertions that seem to have been unfounded.|encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia
is self explanatory. As |article=
is an alias for |title=
, it is simplest to eschew it and simply use |title=
and |trans_title=
in reference to the cited article. Any use of |title=Encyclopaedia
is simply an error, that should be corrected if found, to |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia
. Doing so should not create any problems.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 02:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC){{
cite encyclopedia}}
documentation is pretty much the same as the current documentation because of how the CS1 documentation is structured. All of the CS1 templates share bits, pieces, and parts from {{
Citation Style documentation}}
which transcludes multiple other templates that contain the actual documentation for the various parameters.|title=
so that |trans_title=
can be used and the two rendered properly in the template's output.|
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
LeadSongDog (
talk •
contribs) 14:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reflecting upon Jonesey95's last comment, I checked the use of 'title' in all the templates. They are split between using 'title' for the main work or the included work; {{ cite news}} uses it for both conditionally. This doesn't change the issue that the way {{ cite encyclopedia}} uses 'title' is wrong. -- Gadget850 talk 14:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Template | Main title italics |
Included title quotes |
---|---|---|
{{ Cite AV media}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite AV media notes}} | title | notestitle |
{{ Cite book}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite conference}} | title | booktitle |
{{ Cite DVD-notes}} | title | |
{{ Cite encyclopedia}} | encyclopedia | title |
{{ Cite episode}} | series | title |
{{ Cite interview}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite journal}} | work | title |
{{ Cite mailing list}} | mailinglist | title |
{{ Cite map}} | title | map |
{{ Cite music release notes}} | title | chapter |
{{ Cite news}} | work | title displays in quotes if work is not defined |
{{ Cite newsgroup}} | id and title | |
{{ Cite podcast}} | website | title |
{{ Cite press release}} | title | |
{{ Cite serial}} | series | title |
{{ Cite sign}} | title | |
{{ cite speech}} | title | |
{{ cite techreport}} | work | title |
{{ Cite thesis}} | title, chapter | |
{{ Cite web}} | website | title |
This suggestion is for Template:Cite web. There is a quote= parameter for use when giving an exact quotation from the source. There is also a laysummary= arg which is used to point to a URL, and is a synonym for layurl.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there is no provision for adding additional text, which is an on-the-spot summary, or perhaps a paraphrase (if it is partial rather than full). Suggest that there be a new arg or two, which permit these things to happen, plus a generic one for explanatory/disclamatory(sp?)/similar text of purposely-unspecified nature.
Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
p.s. The particular use-case here is for a high-school athletics program, which from time to time wins awards at the state championship level, for the dozen different sports they compete in. I would like to have a reference using ((cite web)) which points to the story about the championship, and then specify the traditional details like this.
That level of detail is mind-numbing for inclusion in the main body as prose... there, I would just say "2013 Boys Golf State Champs" or something similarly brief.
I realize that I could create the necessary references without using ((cite web)), and include my additional disclaimer-text... but the article already exists, and is already using ((cite web)). I'm just trying to push the overly-detailed stuff into a footnote-sort-of-area, where it belongs. Thanks for any suggestions on the best way forward. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As User:Debresser/Sandbox shows, the title and article parameters are treated the same by {{ Cite encyclopedia}}, unless they are given both, in which case the title parameter is italicized. The documentation on Template:Cite_encyclopedia/doc#Title says that title and article are aliases. Could somebody please explain this seeming contradiction, and propose how to change the documentation or the template accordingly. Debresser ( talk) 02:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Toward the end of this week I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox ( diff), Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox ( diff) and Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to match Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox ( diff). This update is, for the most part, bug fixes and minor enhancements:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the templates now convert any hyphens in page numbers. I had to use the code for a hyphen in this edit to get them to appear as hyphens again. (Environmental impact studies tend to use hyphenated pagination for the chapter and the page number within the chapter.) I understand that people don't always use a dash for page ranges, but it seems to be very counterintuitive to resort to codes like this when a hyphen is correct, and I had to dig to find the code which isn't documented, and instead the documentation says to use at... :( Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|pages=
. A hyphenated page number in |page=1-1
like the one in your example is not converted to an endash:{{cite book |title=Title |page=1-1}}
→ Title. p. 1-1.{{cite book |title=Title |pages=1-1}}
→ Title. pp. 1–1.‑
in hyphenated page numbers corrupts the
COinS metadata.‑
with a hyphen but that string is more difficult to type that a couple of hyphens.Honestly, I'm on the fence about all of this. On one hand, I appreciate that the correct dash can be hard to type, and that people are ignorant (some intentionally) of good typography, so the concept of the templates correcting a hyphen to a dash is nice. However, in this case, such a concept does actual harm since hyphenated page numbers are not a totally obscure concept. I think given those harms, the template should not attempt the autocorrection, and we should deal with educating people or just wikignoming dashes into place as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|page=
|at=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)|pages=
(the plural).Since |month=
has been deprecated, should
Help:Citation Style 1#Dates be update, similar to
Template:Cite web#Deprecated does? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 06:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't done much digging into the articles in the new date error category, but I came across one today that looked like a false positive. The date format was: |accessdate=September 23, 2011
in the article
Mel Pearson. Should non-breaking spaces be allowed where spaces are allowed in valid date formats? MOS:DATEFORMAT is not explicit on the issue.
I can see why someone would put non-breaking spaces into a date like this, but it seems overly fancy to me. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
is legitimate html, to CS1 it is just extraneous text. If CS1 is working correctly, there should be no need for editors to add markup that effects the display of the rendered citation (external links and wikilinks excepted, and then only in certain circumstances). On my list of things to do is to insert
in appropriate places in dates, in time, and perhaps elsewhere.
in properly formatted dates except within date ranges. Here's a rather long discussion about
in citations which I have not yet had the time to read. Perhaps that will be helpful.
out, but I've only spotted nbsp in two articles in 2 or 3 places; these are easily reinserted manually if needed, because the script automatically does "Show Changes" after it runs. See
WP:NBSP for the prime advice about
- it's pretty conservative, suggesting use in a limited way only where absolutely needed. To me, stray HTML which stops me from searching for plain dates while editing is just invalid wikitext. May I suggest {{
nowrap}} ({{nowrap| 2 November 1823}}) rather than fussing with
? --
Lexein (
talk) 20:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
nowrap}}
has no place in a CS1 citation template. When I suggested that one of the things on my my todo list is to insert
in appropriate places in dates, in time, and perhaps elsewhere
, I meant that
Module:Citation/CS1 would do that to the template output and not in the wikitext that an editor sees.
and the remainder of the date can break at the second space:
November 2013
30, 2013
– July 2013‑
:
‑
11‑
30<span class="nowrap">30 November</span>
2013(
edit conflict)This issue only applies to the use of {{
nowrap}}
or
within a
Citation Style 1 template. Here is a simple {{
cite book}}
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=20 December 2013}}
It renders like this:
When Module:Citation/CS1 processes the template the output (which the Mediawiki code will convert to a displayable page as HTML) looks like this:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000072-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. 20 December 2013.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.date=2013-12-20&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
If you hunt through that tangle of stuff you will find the date in the
COinS metadata: &rft.date=20+December+2013
Here is what the {{nowrap}}
template output looks like:
<span class="nowrap">20 December 2013</span>
Now, if we change our original {{cite book}}
template to use {{
nowrap}}
in |date={{nowrap|20 December 2013}}
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date={{nowrap|20 December 2013}}}}
It renders like this:
When Module:Citation/CS1 processes the template the output looks like this:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000078-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <span class="nowrap">20 December 2013</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>
If you hunt through that tangle of stuff you will find the corrupted date:
&rft.date=%3Cspan+class%3D%22nowrap%22%3E20+December+2013%3C%2Fspan%3E
And that is the problem. Presentation information should not be included in CS1 parameter values because that information ends up in the COinS metadata because when external referencing tools read the date value they get non-date text.
Use {{nowrap}}
all you want in your article's text but leave it out of your CS1-based citations Handcrafted citations, because they don't generate machine readable metadata can use {{nowrap}}
. Have I answered your questions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Trappist the monk, your edit on 30 November indicated that ISO 8601 [sic] dates would be displayed with non-breaking hyphens. I would think that anyone under the delusion that the English Wikipedia has adopted ISO 8601 would expect a date that appears to be in that format to be in exactly that format, with every single character specifically endorsed in the standard. Can you cite the paragraphs in the ISO 8601 standard that endorses the non-breaking hyphen? If not, it would be safer to stick with nowrap. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Excuse my bad english. Hello looking for Master of the Rolls I see many problems with the link to http://oxforddnb.com. F.e.: {{cite web |url=http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/16040?&docPos=1&backToResults=list=yes|group=yes|feature=yes|aor=3|orderfield=alpha |title=Oxford DNB: Langton, John |year=2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |accessdate=18 November 2009}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |aor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |group=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |orderfield=
ignored (
help)The term between url and title are parameters from the oxforddnb.com but cite web are interpreted there as parameters from cite web. Could someone looking for this? With best regards -- Markus S. ( talk) 14:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|url=
value contains the pipe symbol "|" which Wikipedia templates use to identify parameters. To fix these citations, replace the pipe symbols in the |url=
with {{
!}}
:{{cite web |url=http://oxforddnb.com/view/article/16040?&docPos=1&backToResults=list=yes{{!}}group=yes{{!}}feature=yes{{!}}aor=3{{!}}orderfield=alpha |title=Oxford DNB: Langton, John |year=2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |accessdate=18 November 2009|subscription=yes}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16040
The additional parameters all seem to relate to having searched ODNB for this entry so aren't relevant for a direct link from WP.
NtheP (
talk) 14:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|url=
values has always caused problems because the Wikipedia software uses it to separate a template's parameters. The change from markup-based {{
citation/core}}
to Lua-based
Module:Citation/CS1 processing allowed us to detect malformed citation parameters. That change was made this year.Should {{
cite court}}
be added to
Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1,
Help:Citation_Style_1#Templates, etc.?
It Is Me Here
t /
c 12:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
or
Module:Citation/CS1. {{
cite court}}
uses neither.{{
cite court}}
uses the US
Bluebook style. Previous attempts to incorporate it into CS1 were rebuffed- see {{
cite court}}
talk. I am not aware of any legal citation templates that use the CS1 style. --
Gadget850
talk 15:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)This is a note, in case it hasn't come to the attention of the editors here, that there is a new bot, User:ReferenceBot, that is notifying editors when they place an article in one of a handful of reference error categories. It works in almost the same way as User:BracketBot, adding a notification to the editor's Talk page letting them know that their edit appears to have caused a reference error.
ReferenceBot currently checks the following categories for new articles once per day:
Those categories were chosen because they are currently (or recently) free of problem articles. This means that editors who revert to previous versions of articles will not be accused of introducing an error unless they revert an article to a state before the citation errors were fixed.
I am hopeful that this new bot will help keep the emptied CS1 categories from refilling quite so fast, allowing us to focus on fixing longstanding errors instead of trying to keep up with the new ones.
Here are a few diffs that show ReferenceBot's messages to editors: URL error, cite error, missing references list, unnamed parameter error. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Some newspaper citations, such as the one added in this edit, referring to The Times, have values for issue and column. Should {{ Cite news}} have equivalent parameters? If not how else should they be entered? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
{{cite news|title=Local Authorities And Cremation |date=31 August 1928 |newspaper=[[The Times]] |at=p. 9 col E |issue=44986}}
|at=
for page and column, |issue=
for the issue number, change date to dmy format, no |accessdate=
because no |url=
.Thank you. The existing parameters which you use are not in the toolbar dialogue which I used, and the access date is generated automatically by that tool uses. Can these bugs be addressed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
template) can be addressed. I suspect that here is probably not the best place to accomplish that. Surely there is a talk page for your tool?When the icon templates (e.g. {{
sv icon}}) are used in the |language=
parameter, we see references like this:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)I believe that the Reflinks tool is the primary way these templates are ending up in citations. Although I contacted Dispenser about this almost two years ago, it's still making the same error. Should the citation templates be fixed to display the references properly when the icon templates are used, or should I submit a bot proposal to fix these? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, {{ Check ISO 639-1}} may be of interest; see discussion at Wikipedia:Lua requests/Archive 3#Language of native names. Perhaps a similar approach could be used to catch instances such as those discussed above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Category:CS1 errors: dates states "While most of the Citation Style 1 error messages are visible to all readers, some remain hidden." How much flexibility do we have with displaying error messages for this particular category? Is it all or nothing, or can we get more granular than that, such as displaying some error messages for dates that can't be fixed by bot? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking at a Featured List nomination and some of the refs are credited to "Newsarama Staff" as this is what is given as the author. My understanding is that in this case the author field should just be empty, but I wanted to be sure before I advise the candidate to enact this. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 20:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
Do not blank or remove unless there is a local consensus to do so (on the talk page of the article). Although there is no harm in a editor making a bold edit to a page, this is not a job for a bot or a user running a semi-automated script such as AWB (as that is potentially disruptive and not bold unless there has been an RfC with many participants to gauge the consensus on this -- eg an RfC at village pump). Usually "author=...staff..." should be left alone, particularly as it is an link field to {{ harvnb}} and similar templates. -- PBS ( talk) 12:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a symptom that grows out of the history of CS1. It originally was kinda sorta modelled on APA and MLA, but never had a style manual of its own. Now it is being regarded as a separate style, but many issues that have been decided in more established styles have never been considered for CS1. In the case of an institutional that is both the author and publisher (or stated another way, the name of the individual author(s) is/are not given), there is no guidance about which of these options should be adopted:
If one of these options is to be selected, a well-advertised RFC should be conducted. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite map}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)As PBS alluded to above, I started using my bot to make edits such as |author=Staff
to |author=<!-- Staff -->
based on the conversation here, and
this previously approved request. My bot was temporarily blocked, and two editors would like me to revert each of the edits. I'm happy to do so, but concerned that other people will be equally concerned about the mass reversion. Instead of acting hastily, I'd like to take a moment and discuss it here and then take the appropriate action. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 17:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
|author=
staff, as I also see little point in having something so seemingly useless apparently for the sake of populating an empty field. However, I would reserve final comment until PBS demonstrates just how/where it's "useful" to include it.
Ohc
¡digame! 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Three people on a projectwide issue, on a rarely watched Help talk: page, is not consensus sufficient to run a bot to remove something from hundreds of articles. The onus to demonstrate consensus sufficient to run such a bot is on the bot operator, not on the people "complaining" about the bot edits; yes, BAG should have caught this, but its failure to do so does not excuse the bot operator from this important responsibility. Bots should not be used to win disputes over reference formatting. -- Rs chen 7754 08:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|author=<!-- Staff -->
has been part of the {{
cite news}} doc for at least five years, it is pretty much codified. With its long history, I see no problem in BAG approving this.As to the use of staff in the author field linked to harvnb is a tricky thing to search, however a search "BBC staff" returns Battle of Worcester as the first example of using "BBC staff" with harvnb/sfn. -- PBS ( talk) 13:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed the approval of BattyBot 24 be revoked. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year, and thank you all for your input on this important matter. While I don't see any examples of where any of the bot's edits actually broke any citations with {{ sfn}} or similar templates, the fact that it COULD do so is very troubling. Therefore, I will be manually reverting each of the bot's edits that commented out "Staff". I will also post all of BattyBot's find and replace rules at Jc3s5h's proposal for further discussion. Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 21:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|author=Newsarama staff
in regards to
a Featured list nomination. The bot changed
11 articles to |author=<!--Newsarama staff-->
. None of these edits have been reverted by other editors. Based on the conversation in Featured list discussion, I'd like to let these edits stand, unless someone who works in comics-related articles would like me to revert them. Any objections?
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have begun migrating {{
cite speech}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1. A parameter unique to {{cite speech}}
is |event=
. This parameter is assigned to the {{citation/core}}
parameter |Series=
. This seems odd to me. In many respects, {{cite speech}}
is similar to {{
cite conference/old}}
. A difference is that the {{cite conference/old}}
-unique parameter |conference=
is assigned to the {{citation/core}}
parameter |Other=
.
From {{
citation/core/doc}}
:
|Other=
Other details to be inserted in a particular place.|Series=
series of which this periodical is a part.(⊗ indicates a parameter included in the citation's COinS metadata)
It seems that the roughly analogous parameters |event=
and |conference=
should have been using the same {{citation/core}}
parameter which I think should have been |Other=
. I think this because in the context of {{cite speech}}
and {{cite conference}}
the two unique parameters serve much the same purpose.
With that in mind, I have, in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox and
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox added parameters |event=
and |eventurl=
as aliases of |conference=
and |conferenceurl=
. When compared with the current {{citation/core}}
-based {{cite speech}}
, the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox version of {{cite speech}}
renders slightly differently as can be seen in this comparison:
Wikitext | {{cite speech
|
---|---|
Live | Roosevelt, Eleanor (December 9, 1948). On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Speech). Third regular session of the United Nations General Assembly. Paris, France. |
Sandbox | Roosevelt, Eleanor (December 9, 1948). On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Speech). Third regular session of the United Nations General Assembly. Paris, France. |
When |event=
is not included in the citation, the new renders the same as the old. See the
testcases for more.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
TitleNote
(normally assigned the value provided by |department=
) to hold the text string " (Speech)
" (without quotes but with the leading space). Since |department=
is used by {{
cite news}}
, I suspect that this won't be a problem.When a quote is used for the title of an article, as in this reference from Love and Affection, the single quotes butt right up against the automatically generated quotation marks.
{{cite web|author=Birch, Helen|title='I prefer birdsong to chatter'|url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1627347,00.html|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 November 2005|accessdate=7 April 2008}}
Is it acceptable to use {{ '-}} and {{ -'}} to add a bit of space between them, as I did below, or does that mess up the COinS output? Is this documented anywhere?
{{cite web|author=Birch, Helen|title={{-'}}I prefer birdsong to chatter{{'-}}|url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1627347,00.html|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 November 2005|accessdate=7 April 2008}}
Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
&rft.atitle=%3Cspan+style%3D%22padding-left%3A0.2em%3B%22%3E%26%2339%3B%3C%2Fspan%3EI+prefer+birdsong+to+chatter%3Cspan+style%3D%22padding-right%3A0.2em%3B%22%3E%26%2339%3B%3C%2Fspan%3E
&rft.atitle=%27I+prefer+birdsong+to+chatter%27
 
to separate multiple quotation marks in articles; I expect that messes up the COinS data as well. I look forward to having the module be able to insert a little space without editors having to do it manually.
{{cite web|author=Birch, Helen|title= 'I prefer birdsong to chatter' | url=http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1627347,00.html|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 November 2005|accessdate=7 April 2008}}
I expect that messes up the COinS data as well.Yep:
&rft.btitle=%26thinsp%3B%27I+prefer+birdsong+to+chatter%27%26thinsp%3B
{{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite web}}
:
{{ Cite DNB}} is returning Help:CS1 errors#bad_date in examples like this - Hayton Castle - presumably because no volume is specified and the default otherwise is a date range. Anyway round this? NtheP ( talk) 21:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
{{cite DNB|wstitle=Lowther, Richard |volume=34}}
|volume=
isn't specified.
NtheP (
talk) 23:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The general case is being discussed at Module_talk:Citation/CS1. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 02:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
{{cite DNB|wstitle=Lowther, Richard |volume=34}}
then all power to you, but if you do then please include the author and page numbers as well:
For {{
cite DNB}}
, one conversation in one place please.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have created a simple
AWB script to attack the largest of the CS1 error categories. The script concatenates |day=
, |month=
, and |year=
when they are adjacent to each other in CS1 citations. The script concatenates them into a single |date=DD Mmmm YYYY
parameter at the end of the citation; this is the format that
Module:Citation/CS1 uses. The script is set to use
Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters.
The script does not do error checking ( User:BattyBot/CS1 errors-dates is already doing that so I see no reason to duplicate that effort), it simply captures the content of the various parameters and lumps them together.
There has been enough testing to convince myself that the most common arrangement of the date parameters, |month=
and |year=
in that order, is working reliably. Editors don't seem to place these parameters in the reverse order – at least I haven't seen it more than once or twice in the limited testing I've done. I have yet to encounter the three parameter (|day=
, |month=
, |year=
) case in any order.
Feel free to use and improve the script, perhaps it can be robotized.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"DMY test". 2004. {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |day= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"DMY test". 2004. {{
cite web}} : Unknown parameter |day= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help)
|
|day=
/|date=
, |month=
, and |year=
into |date=<day/date> <month> <year>
. I don't see much point in duplicating the function adequately handled by BattyBot 25.Status of converting this simple script to a robot to troll through Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
BRFA.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Community consensus includes not only template maintainers, but also those that use templates to create article content. The deprecation of the month parameter has not been discussed outside template talk pages. Hence there is no broad consensus to deprecate this parameter. I will open up a discussion here shortly requesting wider community input. In the meantime, I request that bots hold off on automated replacement of the month parameter in {{ cite journal}} templates. Boghog ( talk) 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
|date=
(or |day=
) is already present and contains a single number, indicating that the editor intended to show a day, month, and year. When a day is intended to be shown, the month parameter cannot be used, because the day parameter has been deprecated for a long time. The change above concatenates a day, month, and year into a date parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)|date=
or |day=
with |month=
and |year=
into |date=
when all three are adjacent to each other in the CS1 template. Also, when |date=
or |day=
are not present, the script concatenates adjacent |month=
and |year=
into |date=
.|date=
or |day=
parameter present, I question why it is necessary to concatenate adjacent |month=
and |year=
parameters. The |month=
parameter has been widely used for a long time without problem. Furthermore concatenation increases the chances for inconsistency in the way dates are rendered. Finally it will create a lot of unnecessary edits. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Boghog (
talk) 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)|day=
was also used for a long time as were various flavors of |accessdate=
; we seem to have survived the withdrawal and consolidation of those parameters. How does concatenation of |month=
with |year=
increase the chances of rendered date inconsistency?|day=
and |accessdate=
in {{
cite journal}} templates because they are rarely used. Specifying the day on which a journal article was published is overkill. Hence citation template filling tools such as
WP:REFTOOLS and Diberri's
Template filler do not even support the day parameter. Journal articles, after they are published almost never change, hence specifying an access date for a journal article generally does not make sense. In contrast |month=
and |year=
are frequently used. Consolidating the month with year into a single free format date parameter allows editors to specify "January 2014" or "2014 January", hence the possibility of inconsistency. Finally no one has provided a clear and concise explanation for why this deprecation necessary. How is the month parameter causing harm?
Boghog (
talk) 02:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)|day=
, for example, has been deprecated for a long time yet, when used, is still concatenated with |month=
and |year=
to form the displayed dmy format date. You are free to continue to use any and all of these three parameters and will be able to do so for the foreseeable future.Extended content
|
---|
|
This is a note to say that a bot has been proposed that would fix CS1 date errors. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 25. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
{{ Cite press release}} has a parameter 'agency' for the press agency thru which the release is made, but this parameter is not even listed in the documentation for this template. Is there a reason to omit it, or should it be added promptly? DES (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm used to seeing the |accessdate=
requires |url=
in citations for books and magazines where the reference has no link to an external web site, which I understand. However, if a citation has a |doi=
parameter to link to an external web site, should it then be OK to include the accessdate? See
Photoredox catalysis references 23 and 24 for examples. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
|doi=
, |pmid=
, and |pmc=
all render as URLs that link directly to the source, or at least to an abstract of it. |pmc=
even links a URL to the article's title.I have begun migrating {{
cite podcast}}
from {{
citation/core}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1. {{cite podcast}}
looks to be a minor variant of {{
cite web}}
with a default |type=Podcast
and an additional parameter |host=
, an alias of |author=
.
Because a podcast is an online resource, it seems to me that the citation is required to include |url=
. We can create a whole new error message and category or we can choose to add pages with malformed {{cite podcast}}
templates to
Category:Pages using web citations with no URL which in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have done.
{{cite podcast/new |title=Title |host=Host |date=27 Sep 1995}}
{{
cite podcast}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)The error message help text will need to be tweaked if this part of the migration is retained.
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
? How is a defunct podcast so different from a defunct text-based website that it (the defunct podcast) requires a separate mechanism to indicate its dead or defunct status?|archiveurl=
, so the problem is essentially solved if there's an archive. (My bad: the display of dead urls so that they're not clickable is actually a separate issue, and is not relevant to this discussion, so, sorry.) --
Lexein (
talk) 14:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)There are two main reasons why articles end up in Category:CS1 errors: dates: a date that doesn't conform with MOS:DATEFORMAT or extra text in a date field. The latter should be fixed because it causes problems with COinS. However, when someone clicks the Help link next to the Check date values error, it takes them to Help:CS1 errors#bad date, which only mentions the first issue. Should this be updated with a layman description of COinS and instructions to remove the extra text from the date field?
Also, I've seen many templates nested within CS1 templates, such as:
|work=[[Billboard (magazine){{!}}Billboard]]
|author={{aut|Clendinnen, Inga}}
(see
Xelha)If these cause COinS issues, should they be removed, and should the template documentation be updated to state why they should not be used inside citation templates?
Should this information also be added to Help:Citation Style 1? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
aut}}
should not be used in CS1 citations and there is a note in the template documentation that so states.|authorformat=scap
but we have never discussed use. --
Gadget850
talk 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)--
Gadget850
talk 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
If Template:Cite AV media notes "is used to create citations for liner notes from albums, DVDs, CDs and similar audio-visual media.", why have Template:Cite music release notes ("is used to create citations for the cover notes, booklet, liner notes, etc. of a music release (album or single).") and Template:Cite DVD-notes ("is used to create citations for DVD liner notes and booklets.")? It seems the "type" (or "format") parameter in Cite AV media notes can be used to specify "Release notes", "Liner notes", "CD insert notes", "DVD booklet", etc. Perhaps add these to the description section:
— Ojorojo ( talk) 19:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In the website parameter.should one add the actual website, such as www.norfolkmills.co.uk when the full URL is http://www.norfolkmills.co.uk/Windmills/mileham-postmill.html , or when there is no clear official name for the site, just make up a name such as "Norfolk windmills," which is informative, but would provide little help if the link went dead. Edison ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
|website=Norfolk Mills
. See
Norfolk Mills.|website=Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales
(fortifications should be capitalized). No need to say that it's a website just as there is no need to say that On the Origin of Species is a book or that The Lancet is a journal.{{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite encyclopedia}}
:
<title>
as something akin to a book title, or a journal title, or the name of an encyclopedia. The website <title>
, Norfolk Mills or Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales in Editor Edison's examples, is then properly italicized. The name of the page addressed by |url=
is more-or-less synonymous with the book's chapter name or the journal's or encyclopedia's article name.Should we use both website and publisher tags? Wouldn't these be the same thing 99% of the time? Hcobb ( talk) 21:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
|website=
is [the italicised] alias for "|work=
". The confusion that is caused is real. There's certainly no point in using both, particularly when they are one and the same organisation behind it. Otherwise, we would have the same result but rendered with conflicting formatting – "Norfolk Mills, Norfolk Mills" in the example given above. We see that problem
here, where all websites are italicised contrary to what's stated at
MOS:ITALIC, which states that these should be on a case by case basis. The problem for websites is that most tend not to be italicised. Some are dynamic and many are static and the first point of contact for any given organisation. It's a frontspiece and not considered a mouthpiece, like a company journal. Yet by aliasing |website=
to |work=
, we implicitly declare that all websites generate original content and ought thus be italicised. Just take the example above, or the Microsoft website: these would be respectively rendered in the citation as "Norfolk Mills" and "Microsoft", whereas under usual conditions, these would never be italicised. If, however, we populate the |website=
field with "norfolkmills.co.uk", it is immediately clear the information came from the website itself. But either way both instances would be incorrectly italicised. It doesn't make it right to italicise "norfolkmills.co.uk" irregardless, but it would not be "wrong" in any event to have 'Norfolk Mills' and 'Microsoft' as "publisher". It would have made much more sense aliasing it to |publisher=
. --
Ohc
¡digame! 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have enhanced the month / season range validation to require that the order in which the months or seasons appear in a citation is left to right, earliest to latest in time.
Month range order:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Season range order:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Single season validation code changed so test single seasons:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Because WP:DATESNO specifies unspaced enadashes as the proper separator for date ranges like Month–Month year, I have changed Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that a hyphen or solidus separator will be caught as an error. Both BattyBot 25 and Monkbot 1 make this repair to dates they encounter.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Testing in my sandbox seems to indicate that if a genuine n-dash is used, all is well, but if the – HTML entity is used, it is flagged as an error. I don't think this is appropriate, both due to the difficulty of typing a genuine n-dash, and the difficulty of distinguishing an n-dash from other dash-like marks in the edit window.
An additional point I was testing, but was stopped by the HTML entity problem, was testing whether a date such as "December 2230 – January 2231" for a journal which publishes issue 1 in the middle of the calendar year. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The "Dates" section says "Dates formats per WP:DATESNO." That is a short cut to section 2.4, "Dates and years" section of the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. One of the subsections is 2.4.1.4, " Consistency", which says:
* Publication dates in article references should all have the same format. Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD.
This text is present to allow for the fact that printed style guides might call for a different date format than what is suggested for the article body by MOS and MOSNUM.
So the intend of the statement in this help page was to apply the MOSNUM rules for article bodies, tables, and other places where space is limited, to CS1 citations. But by referencing a large section that includes the exemption for printed style guides, those limitations were not really adopted after all. I suggest the help page either be revised to point to more specific subsections, or the desired text be copied to this help page. Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
to point to more specific subsectionsrather than editorialize, I would not have objected. As it is, I must object.
The way the DATESNO shorcut is placed, it includes all of the following subsections:
3.4 Dates and years 3.4.1 Formats 3.4.1.1 Acceptable date formats 3.4.1.2 Unacceptable date formats 3.4.1.3 Consistency 3.4.1.4 Strong national ties to a topic 3.4.1.5 Retaining existing format 3.4.2 Era style 3.4.3 Julian and Gregorian calendars 3.4.4 Ranges 3.4.5 Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates 3.4.6 Linking and autoformatting of dates
It may not be obvious by reading the guideline, but reviewing the talk page history will reveal that "Although nearly any consistent style may be used..." to include the possibility that the style adopted for citations in a particular article may specify a date format different from the acceptable date formats listed near the beginning of DATESNO. A specific example is that APA style calls for publication dates to be written like "2014, January 14". Since CS1 is adopting its own date style, which is intended to be what the same as what is allowed in article text, tables, and areas where space is limited, the "escape clause" for printed style guides does not apply.
Maybe a way to describe what is allowed is:
Jc3s5h ( talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Any suggestions as to a good way to record someone's thesis advisor?
{{
cite thesis}} doesn't have anywhere, and it really doesn't fit with {{{editor}}}
and the like.
Maybe suitable fields could be added?
—
Phil |
Talk 18:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
|others=
. Would an advisor write any part of the thesis? --
Gadget850
talk 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have just made an edit to the help page that, whilst not completely doing away with any ambiguity, reduces it. The problem arises with the instruction to omit "The" unless where it would cause ambiguity. My preferred solution is for the data in such fields to mirror the WP namespace which the subject occupies. We would thus use " The Boston Globe" or " The Miami Herald" throughout any given article, to avoid awkward piping, or instances where citations would alternately show the two above as well as " Boston Globe" or " Miami Herald". -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Toward the end of this week I propose to update Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox ( diff) and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox ( diff). This update changes several things:
|month=
, |coauthor=
, and |coauthors=
|date=
and |year=
, and does not corrupt the
COinS metadata.— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
After the success of BattyBot 25, which has made over 71,000 edits and removed at least 40,000 articles from Category:CS1 errors: dates, I am inspired to propose another CS1 error category to be fixed by a bot. I think Category:Pages with ISBN errors is ready for a pass by a competent find-and-replace bot.
Here's a list of error types I have seen in that category. They are numbered manually for ease of discussion. All links are to actual instances of erroneous |isbn=
parameters in actual articles.
Comments? Questions? Objections? Dope slaps? I suppose since there are only 9,000 articles in the category, someone might be willing to run through it with an AWB script based on the above errors instead of going to the trouble of creating a bot and getting it approved. I do not have access to the technology required to run AWB. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)ISBN\s*([\d\-X]+)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*unknown)[\.,;\)]?(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+)(\s*\([\w\s]+\))(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4<!--$5-->$6
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)[\d\-X]+,\s*(97[89][\d\-]+)(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3$4$5
({{\s*[Cc]it(?:e|ation))([^}]+)(\s*\|\s*isbn\s*=\s*)([\d\-X]+,\s*)(97[89][\d\-]+)(\s*\|[^}]*)
$1$2$3<!--$4-->$5$6
|isbn=ISBN13, ISBN10
?|isbn=ISBN13, ISBN10
. The rule for it is in the settings file.([\}\|])
to indicate that I'm looking for one and only one of those two characters.{{
csdoc}}
for obvious errors.{{
cite web#COinS}}
.
Parser.php
. The CS1 templates don't use magic links; they only work above because they are plain text. --
Gadget850
talk 22:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Clarifying: If I use "|isbn=9780773532861." in a citation, I get a link that includes a trailing period. When I click on it, I am taken to Special:BookSources, but the trailing period has been stripped away in the search box, even though it was in the URL. It looks like that link may be handled by Parser.php or equivalent code (thanks for the link). Looking at the Parser.php code may be helpful. It looks to me, as non-Perl hacker, that the code is extracting just the leading numbers, spaces, and dashes, in these lines of code:
01266 ISBN\s+(\b # m[5]: ISBN, capture number 01267 (?: 97[89] [\ \-]? )? # optional 13-digit ISBN prefix 01268 (?: [0-9] [\ \-]? ){9} # 9 digits with opt. delimiters 01269 [0-9Xx] # check digit 01270 \b)
...and then removing the spaces and dashes and converting "x" to "X" when it fills the Search box:
01310 # ISBN 01311 $isbn = $m[5]; 01312 $num = strtr( $isbn, array( 01313 '-' => '', 01314 ' ' => '', 01315 'x' => 'X', 01316 ));
Here's a citation that has a malformed ISBN but results in a successful search at Special:BookSources:
Author. Title.
ISBN
978-0-226-53431-2 (hbk.). {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
Note that the URL includes the extraneous text, but somehow the ISBN in the search box is stripped of that text (possibly by Parser.php?). Clicking the Worldcat search link for that book works fine. An |isbn=
parameter with two ISBNs does not work, however:
Author. Title.
ISBN
0-8304-1580-7, 9780830415809. {{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
Drawing tentative conclusions from all of this rambling: the code that leads from a cite template to Special:BookSources does a good job of ignoring extraneous text (and also non-hyphen dashes, it appears). It may or may not help us fix these malformed ISBNs. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 23:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
SpecialBooksources.php
does some cleanup as well. --
Gadget850
talk 10:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
can we make this return a "missing title" error? currently {{cite journal|pmc=2693255}} returns a script error. Frietjes ( talk) 16:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255}} |
.
PMC
2693255
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693255. |
{{cite journal|pmid=2693255}} |
.
PMID
2693255. |
{{cite journal|jstor=2693255}} |
.
JSTOR
2693255. |
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255|url=http://www.example.com}} |
.
PMC
2693255
http://www.example.com. |
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255|title=Title}} |
"Title".
PMC
2693255. |
{{cite journal|pmc=2693255|url=http://www.example.com|title=Title}} |
"Title".
PMC
2693255. |
|url=
is specified. Displaying the PMC and a missing title error seems like the expected behavior. I added a clarifying example above, with a URL. I also added one with a title and a PMC, and one with title, URL, and PMC. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The full Cite Journal template is misleading. It asks for year, month, date, in that order. I and many others interpreted this as asking for the year month and day of publication. That is not the case, as date is apparently supposed to be the full date and is the only field shown in the cite if present.. See, for example, Necrotizing enterocolitis where I just added a cite, which I then fixed. Other references there still show a similar mistake, and I presume this is true in many many articles. One possible fix would be to assume a two-digit date is not valid and show the year instead.-- agr ( talk) 00:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
|month=
is clearly listed as deprecated in the documentation at
Template:Cite journal#Date. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Right now, some pages are, incorrectly, using the template's pages= field to indicate the total pages in the work, rather than for a specific page range citation.
Is there a different template these pages should be using, or could total_pages= be a field here?
99.247.1.157 (
talk) 21:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I and some others are on a drive to improve the utility of the {Cite doi} family of templates. One thing that would help would be if templates allowed greater flexibility in the formatting of output, something that I believe the Lua language now allows. Is it possible to create a parameter that allows authors' forenames to be truncated to their initials, such that if a template {Cite journal | last = Smith | first = John} would output "Smith, John", a template {Cite journal | last = Smith | first = John | author-initials = yes} would output "Smith, J." (but "Smith, John" in the metadata)? This would allow Cite Doi templates to store authors full names where possible, but allow pages to present the data in these templates in a fashion consistent with the formatting of other references already on that page.
Thanks!
Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
{{cite journal |title=Title |last=Smith |first= John Brown |authorformat=vanc}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |authorformat=
ignored (
help)|authorformat=vanc
parameter name in {{
cite pmid}} and {{
cite journal}} is a bad idea since the parameter produces some what different output in the two cases. As discussed
here and
here, what is confusing is that {{
cite journal}} |authorformat=vanc
parameter is only a partial implementation of the Vancouver author format. The full Vancouver author implementation should also remove commas between the last name and first initials and replace the semi colon that separates authors with a comma (To get closer to the "Vancouver-like" style, one needs to add author-separator and author-name-separator parameters: | authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
). Finally as
David Eppstein has pointed out, authorformat=vanc doesn't abbreviate properly hyphenated names. Lua program does support regular expression search and replace, hence it should be able to correctly abbreviate hyphenated names.I started Help:Citation Style 1/Examples. The intent is to show how to cite various sources. -- Gadget850 talk 00:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
|In=
parameterHi. Apparently, {{
Cite journal}} accepts an |in=
parameter but I can't find any documentation for it. Any idea? Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 08:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
|in=
be deprecated and eventually removed given that it is rarely used, that it is relatively easy to misinterpret its meaning, and that it lacks documentation?|number=
parameter; it would be good to get feedback on whether that is a useful alias for 'issue' or should similarly be deprecated. Incidentally, it's worth pinging
User talk:Citation bot when a parameter is deprecated; it's relatively easy to modify the bot to replace the deprecated parameter.
Martin (
Smith609 –
Talk) 08:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
|number=
in {{
cite techreport}}
is simultaneously an alias of |id=
and of |issue=
.I rise to object. Editor Smith609 is using the above discussion (three posts, two editors – prior to Editor Gadget850's edit which occurred as I wrote this) as a sufficient statement of consensus to deprecate |number=
as an alias for |issue=
(
this edit and edit summary,
this edit). So that we are all clear, I am generally in favor of deprecating parameters that simply duplicate the functionality of other parameters. However, as an editor has mentioned in the |in=
discussion above (and of which this conversation is a subthread), such intent to deprecate should be properly announced, advertised, and discussed before action is taken. Until such time as these things have been accomplished, |number=
should remain as it is, an active and allowed parameter.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
|number=
has not been deprecated in any discussion, as far as I know. We have already had enough arguments about parameters being declared deprecated without a full, advertised discussion. Let's not repeat familiar mistakes.
Smith609, please undo your edits until there is consensus. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have come across many templates that include an incorrect PMID (example: 30036011). As far as I can tell, PMIDs are issued sequentially; therefore it would be easy to flag any template with an eight-digit PMID as erroneous, in the same way that the parameter doi_brokendate identifies citations with a misformatted doi. Would someone with knowledge of LUA be able to implement this? (Ping me on my userpage if you need more input from me, as I don't often check my watchlist.) Thanks! Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 19:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that PMIDs are issued in blocks unless, just coincidentally, I happened to hit on the magic time when PMID 24399999 has been issued but PMID 24400000 has not. Regardless, in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, simple PMID validation:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help) – valid in a sense (because the |PMID=30,123,456
is treated as multiple PMIDs by pubmed) but for CS1 purposes invalid{{
cite journal}}
: Check |pmid=
value (
help)If this change proceeds, pages that contain PMID errors will be categorized into Category:CS1 errors: PMID; the error message for the time being is not hidden. Help text needs to be written.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|doi=
validation mark any DOI ending in a full stop as invalid (common error)? Thanks
Rjwilmsi 09:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked so that any spaces in the doi identifier are detected as errors:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help)Can a new parameter (or series of parameters), possibly called "chapter-author" (with alias "note-author"), please be created?
I often cite chapters or footnotes by author X in books by authors Y edited by X or Z, and there is no simple way to do this with the citation templates.
Using a real example:
I wish to cite Jacob Freimann's introduction to Nathan ben Judah's early 14th-century book Mahkim in Freimann's 1909 edition of that work, thus:
{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) In Nathan ben Judah (1909). Freimann, Jacob (ed.). Mahkim.As of now, I must type
* {{cite book |last=Freimann |first=Jacob |chapter=Editor's introduction |title= |pages=xi–xv}} In {{cite book |author=Nathan ben Judah |year=1909 |editor-last=Freimann |editor-first=Jacob |title=Mahkim}}
using two citation templates to get the desired result.
Spent examples
|
---|
Were I to type * {{cite book |last=Freimann |first=Jacob |chapter=Editor's introduction |pages=xi–xv |year=1909 |editor-last=Freimann |editor-first=Jacob |title=Mahkim}} or * {{cite book |last=Freimann |first=Jacob |chapter=Editor's introduction |pages=xi–xv |year=1909 |editor=Nathan ben Judah |title=Mahkim}} It would result in
or
which are both ridiculous and misleading. |
I would like to be able to type
* {{cite book |chapter-author-last=Freimann |chapter-author-first=Jacob |year=1909 |chapter=Editor's introduction |pages=xi–xv |author=Nathan ben Judah |editor-last=Freimann |editor-first=Jacob |title=Mahkim}}
to get the same result as the two-template solution.
Similar problems present themselves when citing footnotes by the editor to a new edition of a classic work, for example, to cite Alban Krailsheimer's notes to Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, I typed
* {{cite book |last=Hugo |first=Victor |title=Notre-Dame de Paris |editor-last=Krailsheimer |editor-first=Alban |page=555, note to p. 288 |isbn=9780191593673}}
to get
which does not make it clear that Krailsheimer is the author of the notes, but there is no simple way of citing it the way it should be, as in the example before.
Is this possible?
Thanks in advance, הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 00:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Markup | {{cite encyclopedia |editor-last=Hugo |editor-first=Victor |title=Footnotes |encyclopedia=Notre-Dame de Paris |last=Krailsheimer |first=Alban |others=Alban, Krailsheimer (ed.) |page=555, note to p. 288 |isbn=9780191593673}} |
---|---|
Renders as | Krailsheimer, Alban. "Footnotes". In Hugo, Victor (ed.). Notre-Dame de Paris. Alban, Krailsheimer (ed.). p. 555, note to p. 288. ISBN 9780191593673. |
-- Gadget850 talk 12:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|others=
parameter. This is definitely preferable to my "homemade" two-template solution—though this is apparently not the parameter's intended function and looks artificial (in wikicode, that is), and it would be nice if such citations could be coded intuitively.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|encyclopedia=
that adds the text "in". With the Lua templates, most parameters work in each of the templates, but we only document the ones applicable to the intent of the particular template. --
Gadget850
talk 17:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
|title=
and |encyclopedia=
with, respectively, the somewhat more intuitive |chapter=
and |title=
, I would also have "in".
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC){{
cite encyclopedia}}
is appropriate. The book is Notre-Dame de Paris, the book is not an encyclopedia, and the book's author is
Victor Hugo. The particular edition being cited was translated and editorial material written by Alban Krailsheimer. Readers who wish to check the source may be confused by such a citation that lists Krailsheimer as the author and both Krailsheimer and Hugo as the editors. Instead, perhaps craft the citation as you would any other citation with particular attention to in-source location:Markup | {{cite book |last=Hugo |first=Victor |authorlink=Victor Hugo |title=Notre-Dame de Paris |editor-last=Krailsheimer |editor-first=Alban |at="Explanatory Notes". p. 555, note to p. 288 |isbn=0-19-283701-X |date=1999 |origyear=1993 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SN3Rhip342cC&pg=PA555}} |
---|---|
Renders as | Hugo, Victor (1999) [1993]. Krailsheimer, Alban (ed.). Notre-Dame de Paris. "Explanatory Notes". p. 555, note to p. 288. ISBN 0-19-283701-X. |
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
is inappropriate, but, as I wrote above, the same functionality exists in {{
cite book}}
. I also agree that using |editor=
and |others=
alongside each other is misleading to the wikicode reader (and potential editor, who might "fix" things and break references)....David Metzger's article "The Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh and Its Author", pages 7–10 in Y. Y. Weiss' 1992 edition of Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona's Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh.How would you word that CS1-style? (As it happens, Metzger believes—as do all scholars since the early 20th century—that Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona was not the author of Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, whatever Wikipedia's 1906 article writes, but I called it "Aaron ha-Levi of Barcelona's Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh" following bibliographic tradition, as the Library of Congress' catalog does.)
Gadget850, thank you again for your patient advice (though I haven't finished testing your patience yet). Incidentally, my compliments for your {{ markupv}} template; I find it both practical and aesthetically pleasant.
Meta-question: is this the correct venue for proposed modification of citation templates? I still want to revise my original proposal (having noticed a serious logical flaw, and I have other citation issues that I think need fixing; where should I post? (There seems to be, despite the 100+ page watchers, only one regular respondent here—you—so I must be in the wrong place for consensus-building. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 02:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
|editor=
|editor=
is, in my opinion, the root of the problem—the term editor itself is ambiguous, and the parameter that bears its name also does double duty.
The editor of a journal, book with chapters by multiple authors, or encyclopedia is the primary author of that work as a whole and should appear after In...
, while the editor of a book of ordinary structure, with one (or several) author(s) responsible for most of the book, is of secondary importance and should always be marked as ed.
and not be prefixed by In...
.
While |editor=
executes it "book-mode" well when the |title=
parameter is used alone
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |last=Doe |first=John |year=2014 |title=Foo |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=Jane}} |
Doe, John (2014). Doe, Jane (ed.). Foo. |
|chapter=
or |article=
is used with |title=
, |editor=
shifts to "journal-mode"Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |last=Doe |first=John |year=2014 |chapter=Bar |title=Foo |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=Jane}} |
Doe, John (2014). "Bar". In Doe, Jane (ed.). Foo. |
Further, in the examples I gave in my original post above (Freimann, Krailsheimer, Metzger), |editor=
is doubly problematic: its journal-mode is needed to generate In...
, but prefixed to an author who is not the editor in the book-sense, and, once used, is not available to providing a book-mode editor.
I think the trouble could be avoided if one of the following solutions could be implemented (of course, I know nothing about their technical feasibility, so this may be ridiculous)
|editor=
to be used when the main author, that is, the author who is listed as the work's primary author, is not the editor—|main[n]-last=
and |main[n]-first=
, say? The actual editor could be included in |other=
, per the second half of
Gadget850's solution.
|main[n]-last=
and |main[n]-first=
, that would behave like |editor=
does now, but which would induce (?) |editor=
, when used, to retain its "book-mode" function.Gratefully yours, הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 05:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does the COinS section of the Template:Cite Web page say that explanatory or alternate text is not allowed? I sometimes add '(updated)' when a page only shows the date it was last updated (and not the date of original production), as this is more accurate but was reversed. See query I raised (with example) at talk page. What problem is being caused by having the 'updated' text added. Eldumpo ( talk) 20:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
citations creates
COinS metadata from several parameters, |date=
being one. The date metadata for this very simple citation:{{cite web |title=Title |url=//example/com |date=1 February 2014}}
&rft.date=1+February+2014
&rft.date=
tells external referencing software that the value (1+February+2014
) is a date. If |date=
in a CS1 citation contains information other than a date, that information is included in the COinS metadata and is likely meaningless to the external referencing software. The purpose for the resrictions stated in the COinS sections of the various template documentation is to help keep the metadata clean and uncorrupted for the users of these external referencing tools.|date={{dts|1776|July|4}}
&rft.date=%3Cspan+style%3D%22display%3Anone%3B+speak%3Anone%22+class%3D%22sortkey%22%3E01776-07-04%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan+style%3D%22white-space%3Anowrap%3B%22%3EJuly+4%2C+1776%3C%2Fspan%3E
{{
cite web}}
. Web pages are notorious for lacking dates and for having dates that are clearly out of date. This is why we have |accessdate=
to record the date that an editor consulted an ephemeral source that at a particular point in time supported the article. There is no need to note that the date on a web page is an updated-on date or a copyright date or some other kind of date. It is just a date that may or may not be correct. Use |accessdate=
; should the web page go 404, this is the date that editors will be using when attempting to recover the source from an online archive.|date=2 February 2014 (updated)
is: &rft.date=2+February+2013+%28updated%29
. Pretty straight forward, pretty sure that a reasonably adept external tool should be able to recover the date from that. But, the proscription against extraneous stuff in CS1 citation parameters applies to all parameters from which COinS metadata are assembled. Most of those parameters contain free form text – they don't adhere to the strict format requirements of things like dates by the very nature of their content (titles, author names, publishers, and the like). Allowing extraneous text in some parameters but not in others is a recipe for garbage metadata because editors will forget which parameters can hold ancillary text and which cannot.The key point for the source in question (RSSSF) is that they were not listing the original date, but only the updated date, so it does not seem unreasonable to try and follow that. They clearly see it is significant to note when it was updated so why not pass that on to readers? Given that the COinS results are noted as being acceptable in this instance why can't the template section describing COinS state that exceptions are allowed only when clearly set out, and then under the date section state there that certain text is allowed? The suggestion by Jc35 could be a compromise; allow a separate field for when there is an updated entry at a source - it is useful for readers to know at a glance the date/details of when the information was posted. Eldumpo ( talk) 23:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm citing multiple topographic maps available online in support of a series of geographical articles. If I want to add an open-ended phrase or sentence to the cite that doesn't necessarily fit a predefined category, how can I do this? LADave ( talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
|quote=
(for text taken from the source and copied for convenience into the reference), |id=
(for identification numbers that don't already have their own separate parameter), or |postscript=
(for any text you want to appear at the end of the citation). For that matter, it's also possible to write text after the actual citation template. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
is terminating punctuation,}}
and the closing </ref>
. --
Gadget850
talk 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
will be highlighted when the reader clicks on a reference name, but stuff after the closing brackets of the template won't be. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)|ps=
(short for postscript) is part of {{
harv}}
is not the same as |postscript=
which is part of a CS1 citation. Let us not confuse the two.References
{{cite web}}
at
Display options"
.
); for no terminating punctuation, specify |postscript=none
– leaving |postscript=
empty has the same effect but is ambiguous. Ignored if quote is defined.|postscript=
to hold nontrivial text, while possible to do, is not contemplated nor specifically supported by the parameter's definition nor by the underlying
Module:Citation/CS1 (it does not provide proper inter-parameter termination or spacing in the rendered citation). The highlighting differences you describe are not within the scope of CS1. That topic is better taken up elsewhere.The highlighting is done through CSS. The cite template wraps the citation in <span class="citation">...</span>
. The CSS span.citation:target
causes the content of the <span>
to be highlighted when it is a target from a link— any text outside the span would not be highlighted. This works whether or not the citation template is inside a <ref>
or not.
The CSS ol.references
causes the content of <ref>...</ref>
tags to be highlighted when targeted in the output of reflist markup ({{
reflist}} or <references />
— this is independent of the citation span highlighting.
If you have a cite template inside a <ref>
tag you technically highlight it twice, but is is the same color so it shows the same.
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{harv|author|2014}} * {{cite book|author=author |title=title |year=2014 |ref=harv}} Comment after citation. |
( author 2014) |
<ref>{{cite book|author=author2 |title=title |year=2014}} Comment after citation.</ref> {{reflist|close=1}} |
|
The highlighting is a convenience that helps readers to find the matching citation. Since the accompanying text is not part of the citation, then I don't see an issue if it highlights it or not. -- Gadget850 talk 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The quote_field probably needs more precise guidelines. Right now it says that "relevant text quoted"; however, this leaves some grey zone what relevant means. In case of Hydraulic fracturing, Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing some references use very extensive quotes. The most drastic is probably the following:
"Shale has a radioactive signature – from uranium isotopes such as radium-226 and radium-228 — that geologists and drillers often measure to chart the vast underground formations. The higher the radiation levels, the greater the likelihood those deposits will yield significant amounts of gas. But that does not necessarily mean the radioactivity poses a public health hazard; after all, some homes in Pennsylvania and New York have been built directly on Marcellus shale. Tests conducted earlier this year in Pennsylvania waterways that had received treated water—both produced water (the fracking fluid that returns to the surface) and brine (naturally occurring water that contains radioactive elements, as well as other toxins and heavy metals from the shale)—found no evidence of elevated radiation levels...Conrad Dan Volz, former scientific director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh, is a vocal critic of the speed with which the Marcellus is being developed—but even he says that radioactivity is probably one of the least pressing issues. ‘If I were to bet on this, I'd bet that it's not going to be a problem,’ he says."
For a references that kind of quotation seems to be too extensive and creates also copyrights issues. Any suggestion how to deal with this issue? As I said, probably some clarification in the template guidelines is needed. Beagel ( talk) 17:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I discovered, by committing a desperation move, while adding an archive URL to an external link on Corita Kent that
{{web |...}}
with the same same parameters as
{{cite web |...}}
would work.
It would be nice if the real description of that template was easy to find while searching. Because this page is easy to find while searching, it might be nice to add a link from here.
ArthurDent006.5 ( talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
db-
family of templates; it was not created out of a perceived need for an alternate citation template, so no one is likely to miss it.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 17:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed before, but is there a reason that there isn't a field for translators? Style guides like Turabian and APA recommend specifying translators in full citations. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 15:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
|others=
is specifically meant for translators and the like.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I have reported an issue between {{cite}}
templates and {{language icon}}
templates at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Categorization and inconsistencies between "cite" and "language icon" templates.
Place Clichy (
talk) 14:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
How do one enter a co-publisher info in {{
Cite book}}? It's needed in
Mann–Whitney U#Further reading, first item. Data pieces have been named publisher2
and location2
, but that seems wrong...
Compare
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1604954
CiaPan (
talk) 17:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In about a week's time I intend to update these files from their respective sandboxes:
The update makes these changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|event=
and |eventurl
as aliases of |conference
and |conferenceurl=
in support of {{
cite speech}}
;|host=
as alias of |authors
in support of {{
cite podcast}}
;to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|event=
and |eventurl
as aliases of |conference
and |conferenceurl=
in support of {{cite speech}}
;|host=
as alias of |authors
in support of {{cite podcast}}
;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The handling of italics (or bold), at the start/end of a webpage title, no longer works as it did in the early Lua versions for {cite_web}:
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)In mid-March 2013, the Lua {cite_web} would show title "Italics More Text" for italics at the start of a webpage title, and italics mid-title will still work. Meanwhile, I have noted to use i-tag format: '<i>...</i>' at start/end of title, so this new bug has a work-around until a bugfix can be tested. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:36/17:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
tag. So, I couldn't tell whether single quote–space–single quote sequence meant to represent itself or a single quote–single quote sequence, as a way of suppressing wikimarkup. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)When the URL parameter points to a large PDF, is there a way to indicate the file size, so the person reading can make an informed decision about whether to click the link and how long they may have to wait for it to download? Nurg ( talk) 01:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)|format=PDF, 1.6MB
or similar should be sufficient. The format should still be explicitly stated because not all URLs end in .pdf
nor can/will all browsers display the icon if the URL does end in the appropriate file extension. Additionally, that icon lacks any sort of alternate text (as far as I know) to alert users of screen readers or other adaptive technology of the icon's intended meaning. In short, a little redundancy is a good thing.
Imzadi 1979
→ 19:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)In section Work and publisher there are several issues. Numbered items below are taken directly from Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher.
|newspaper=
San Francisco Chronicle
and |journals=
Astrophysical Journal
but |newspaper=
The Nation
) unless ambiguity would result.
|newspaper=
New York Times
, because that newspaper's name does begin with The.|work=Amazon.com
and |publisher=Amazon
|newspaper=
The New York Times
and |publisher=
The New York Times Company
|publisher=
parameter when it duplicates the work. It does not provide any useful information to "inform" the user in citations that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company, or that the
Journal of the American Chemical Society is published by the
American Chemical Society. Such |publisher=
parameters should always be omitted.|location=
parameter should be used when the location is part of the common name but not the actual name of a newspaper. For example, the newspaper commonly known as the New York Daily News is actually
Daily News (New York) and can be entered with |newspaper=Daily News
|location=New York
, which yields Daily News (New York).— Anomalocaris ( talk) 10:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-- Gadget850 talk 11:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
In cleaning up the CS1 messages "check date=" I encounter this situation. Old code says |date=2007–2009
(ndash used, not by entity). I could not find in
MOS:DATEFORMAT that that is incorrect, still the CS1 message appears. I also met |date=2007–
for publication. My question is: is that date (period) non-MOS, wrong, or to be tricked around? (This question was raised some months ago when this date issue was in development; I don't recall a solution more a sort of postponement/see individual cases). -
DePiep (
talk) 11:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
|date=2007–
example).Can this be subst'ed ? I'm trying to put some citations onto wikimedia.org.uk (where the templates aren't installed or maintained) and expected to be able to subst: them into me en:WP sandbox (see User:Andy Dingley/sandbox), then copy the results over. Instead it just leaves the wikitext
{{#invoke:Citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=journal
}}
Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
code}}
template:
{{code|1={{cite book
|title=Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML
|author=Basham, Sierra & Bates
|publisher=O'Reilly
|date=2004
|isbn=0-596-10197-X
}}}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000149-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFBasham,_Sierra_&_Bates2004" class="citation book cs1">Basham, Sierra & Bates (2004). ''Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML''. O'Reilly. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/0-596-10197-X|<bdi>0-596-10197-X</bdi>]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Head+First+HTML+with+CSS+%26+XHTML&rft.pub=O%27Reilly&rft.date=2004&rft.isbn=0-596-10197-X&rft.au=Basham%2C+Sierra+%26+Bates&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
<span class="citation book">...</span>
is your citaion:
Basham, Sierra & Bates (2004). ''Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML''. O'Reilly. [[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/0-596-10197-X|0-596-10197-X]].
The Lua-based wp:CS1 cite templates could be updated to allow wp:subst'ing, to store the formatted citation in place of template calls, using:
The parameter name "zz" is a dummy name to avoid problems with a blank-named parameter containing "safesubst:" but could be some other rare name such as "∞" or such. I have created a version, as
Template:Cite_journal/subst, to allow further testing before updating the major live templates to reformat the 2.3 million affected pages. Note the stored results of the test below:
Test {cite_journal/subst}:
Recall how a CS1 cite template also stores the cryptic COinS metadata internally at the end of each cite, as a titled span-tag: <span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004...> (etc.), which would no longer match a hand-updated citation unless also hand-updating the span-tag. I apologize for not putting safesubst in the original Lua-based cite templates, earlier, when I completed writing Module:Citation/CS1 last year. All the sideshow problems with the wp:VE debacle, and the lost edits caused by forced https protocol, and numerous Wikipedia database failures (etc.) have delayed real improvements. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between all three of the documentation for |display-authors=
on
Help:Citation Style 1#Display options,
Template:Cite web/doc, and the actual function.
Help:Citation Style 1#Display options: States that the number of authors displayed when published is limited to 9 by default.
Template:Cite web/doc: States that all authors are always displayed except in the case where there are exactly 9 authors and then only 8 are displayed. The documentation is actually on: Template:Citation Style documentation/doc which is transcluded into teh documentation for multiple other CS1 templates.
The actual template: Displays all authors up to at least 28: [1]
Same citation, but with |display-authors=5
[2]
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |journal=
(
help)
My normal default would be to change the documentation to reflect what the template actually does. However, it is not clear to me if the current behavior is what is desired, or if there is a bug (i.e |display-authors=
not being set to 8 by default) which should be fixed. Is the template currently operating the way that is intended (i.e. no default limit on the number of authors displayed)? I have not tested if the number of editors is operating in a similar manner. —
Makyen (
talk) 11:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
. What you need to do is fix
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/display so that it displays appropriate text depending on where it is transcluded. For {{citation/core}}
-based templates it should display the default of 8 text; for
Module:Citation/CS1-based templates it should display the all authors default text; and for cases like
Help:Citation Style 1#Display options, it should display an appropriate combination of both.|display-authors=
in that template and in all others that use
Module:Citation/CS1 (see table in
Help:Citation Style 1). These templates display all authors unless there are exactly 9 authors or display-authors is set.{{
citation/core}}
, it shows the correct text. It does not show the correct text on the
Help:Citation Style 1 page, because that page is intended to show documentation for both types of template, but only the citation/core text is shown. I expect that this dual-documentation problem exists throughout the Help page, and the page would need a complete rewrite to be accurate in explaining how both types of template work.Is this still the status quo regarding citing location in e-Books, such as Kindle stuff? I've just downloaded a book that is in Kindle format but the article uses {{ sfnp}} I can supply some "proper" page numbers because small chunks of the printed version are available online ... but the vast majority is not. With hindsight, I should have paid the extra few quid & bought the physical version: live and learn! - Sitush ( talk) 13:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Berlin-Sch%C3%B6neberg_station&oldid=598265855 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Berlin_Feuerbachstra%C3%9Fe_station&oldid=598255926
The REFs made by "cite journal" in the reflist are referred to only once in the text itself, but in the finished article, there are two pointers a, and b each for each entry in the References list. How come? How to fix it? -- L.Willms ( talk) 21:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
<
ref>
is a parser tag that resembles HTML but works very differently. See
Template talk:Reflist#Capitalized <ref> causes extra backlink. --
Gadget850
talk 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Why is there a proscription against wikilinks in author parameters? CS1 templates that use
Module:Citation/CS1 don't seem to have a problem with wikilinked authors; the display is correct, and the
COinS metadata aren't corrupted. The same is true of the remaining CS1 templates that use {{
citation/core}}
except that none of those templates produce COinS metadata:
{{cite book |title=Title |author=[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000156-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFLincoln,_A" class="citation book cs1">[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.au=Lincoln%2C+A&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite interview |title=Title |author=[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000015A-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFLincoln,_A" class="citation interview cs1">[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln, A]]. "Title" (Interview).</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft.au=Lincoln%2C+A&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
is generating
COinS. When I look at the html source for this page, I don't see any COinS for the {{
cite interview}}
citations.|author=
, |authors=
, |authorn=
, etc, not the divided author-name parameters |last=
, |first=
, |author-last=
, |author-first=
, etc.|ref=harv
is the reason. Here are two references one to {{
cite book}}
[1] which uses
Module:Citation/CS1 and the other {{
cite interview}}
[2] which uses {{
citation/core}}
. Both of these citations are the same citations as above to which I've added |ref=harv
and |year=1865a/b
.References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite interview}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
citation/core}}
simply because as time goes by, there are fewer and fewer templates that will be using it – {{
cite interview}}
is next up to abandon {{citation/core}}
(
which see).|author=
, |authors=
, and |author1=
are aliases of |last=
and |last1=
, it is possible to use any of the |author=
-type parameters with shortened footnotes. I suspect that we can trap citations without |lastn=
and with |ref=harv
to prevent use of |author=
-type parameters for CITEREF creation.Shouldn't we just drop "|last=" and insert a wikilink to a person page instead? Then the template can wander over yonder and fetch the proper formatting of the person's name from their own page. Hcobb ( talk) 13:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that I have finished migrating {{
cite interview}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. See
Template:Cite interview/testcases.
The sandbox versions differ slightly from the live version where Module:Citation/CS1 renders certain parameters in different positions and adds punctuation not provided by the {{citation/core}}
version.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was agreed that approximate years, in the form |year=c. 2009
, was allowed. I note, however, that this no longer works (see the source by Time Service Dept. in
Coordinated Universal Time, which no longer connects the inline cite to the bibliography.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 13:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)c.<space>year<CITEREF disambiguator>
where year
is a three or four digit number, the first digit of which must be in the range 1–9 (100–9999); and where <CITEREF disambiguator>
is an upper or lower case letter (A–Z and a–z). Approximate years may be specified with either |date=
or |year=
.c.<space>
and <CITEREF disambiguator>
are optional. Either or both may be omitted. Or that's how it ought to work. Also, the year range limitation only applies if one wants automatic linking from a parenthetical citation or short footnote to the bibliography entry. If the editors of an article aren't using the feature, years outside that range could be used.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 19:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Corrupted
COinS metadata occurs when editors place external links in any of the |page=
parameters. To fix this, I have added a small bit of code to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that extracts the page number strings from the |page=
value and uses the extracted data for COinS. If this change is retained, editors may freely add external links in any of the page parameters.
Of course there is a caveat: When the value assigned to |pages=
contains the square brackets, hyphens are not converted to endashes as they would be if the page range was not part of a url. I have a vague memory of a conversation that resulted in this restriction, but I suspect that it is imposed because the replacement code would indiscriminately replace hyphens in a url with an endash which would break the url. I'll give some thought to fixing this.
{{cite book/new |title=Page number without external link |page=45}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000167-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page number without external link''. p. 45.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+number+without+external+link&rft.pages=45&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Page number with external link |page=[http://www.example.com 24]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000016B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page number with external link''. p. [http://www.example.com 24].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+number+with+external+link&rft.pages=24&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked |pages=24, [http://www.example.com 28–32], [http://www.example.com 57, 77–80], 106}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000016F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page numbers with mixture of linked''. pp. 24, [http://www.example.com 28–32], [http://www.example.com 57, 77–80], 106.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+numbers+with+mixture+of+linked&rft.pages=24%2C+28-32%2C+57%2C+77-80%2C+106&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked and different urls |pages=[http://www.example.com 24], 28–32, [//example.org 57, 77–80]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000173-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Page numbers with mixture of linked and unlinked and different urls''. pp. [http://www.example.com 24], 28–32, [//example.org 57, 77–80].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Page+numbers+with+mixture+of+linked+and+unlinked+and+different+urls&rft.pages=24%2C+28-32%2C+57%2C+77-80&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=No page number value}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000177-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''No page number value''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=No+page+number+value&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked to support page numbers that are alpha and alphanumeric.
{{cite book/new |title=Roman numeral and alphanumeric page numbers |pages=[http://www.example.com i, iii–vii, A-2]}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000017B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Roman numeral and alphanumeric page numbers''. p. [http://www.example.com i, iii–vii, A-2].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Roman+numeral+and+alphanumeric+page+numbers&rft.pages=i%2C+iii-vii%2C+A-2&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Because I'm in the process of
migrating {{
cite AV media notes}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and because {{
cite DVD-notes}}
has certain similarities, I've started migrating {{cite DVD-notes}}
as well. (
testcases)
During this migration, as it is with {{cite AV media notes}}
, I'm wondering if we should make certain changes:
{{cite DVD-notes}}
to {{
cite DVD notes}}
to get rid of the hyphen – it is the only CS1 template that uses a hyphenated name|format=
– in most CS1 citations, |format=
has a specific definition: the file format of an online resource (pdf, xls, mpeg, etc). The {{
citation/core}}
version of the template tests the value assigned to |format=
. If |format=Liner notes
then, the value is not displayed. I guess this is because |type=
is assigned a default value of Liner notes
– no sense in having both |format=
and |type=
display the same thing. Because |format=
specifies the format of an online resource, it is interesting that the basic skeletons in the documentation don't include |url=
. Until the template was converted to {{citation/core}}
, online accessible DVD notes were not supported by this template. I propose to deprecate this peculiar functionality of |format=
; before migrating to Lua, replace |format=
with |type=
in existing citations; and add documentation to support the use of |url=
.|director=
– it isn't clear to me why this parameter is available. Sure, a director may have written the DVD's notes and should be credited as the author. But I see no reason for a special parameter here. For comparison, in {{cite AV media notes}}
, |artist=
is an alias of |others=
(as I think about it now, it isn't really clear why that is). |director=
is an alias of |author=
. I propose to deprecate |director=
in favor of the standard suite of |author=
parameters.|titleyear=
– this parameter is an alias of |origyear=
. It isn't clear to me what it is that this parameter is supposed to be doing – the name itself doesn't offer any real clues. It appears that editors are using |titleyear=
to document the original release year of the DVD subject (see the
testcases for examples). I think that this is a misuse of the parameter which should be the original publication year of the notes. I propose to deprecate |titleyear=
in favor of |origyear=
.|publisherid=
– I propose to deprecate |publisherid=
because it is simply a long-winded form of |id=
.Alternately, as was suggested in the discussion about
migrating {{cite AV media notes}}
, we might merge {{cite DVD-notes}}
into {{cite AV media notes}}
; a subject that I will address in another post.
I will be adding a note about this migration to the projects notified for the {{cite AV media notes}}
migration.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
|format=
with |type=
. None of the pages I looked at, were using |format=
to identify the online format (makes sense since I haven't found any that use |url=
...). I have an AWB script that will do much of this work.Documentation changed according to items 1–5 above with these exceptions:
|director=
– may or may not be the author of the note and so similar to |artist=
in {{
cite AV media notes}}
; deprecated in favor of |others=
like |artist=
in {{
cite AV media notes}}
; makes it easier to deprecate {{cite DVD notes}}
in favor of {{cite AV media notes}}
.New:
{{cite AV media notes}}
)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the common errors is providing URLs in the |authorlink=
parameter, which produces malformed links - how about catching this as a CS1 error?
GregorB (
talk) 19:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a list of fixes that a bot should be able to take on. I come across these frequently. I have numbered them manually for ease of discussion. These are similar to fixes suggested by Wikid77 above.
1. Change {cite web|http}
to {cite web|url=http}
in
Category:Pages with empty citations and
Category:Pages with citations using unnamed parameters. Many errors in these two categories are of this specific type, and they should be very easy to fix.
2. Change |translator=
to |others=... (translator)
in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters.
3. Fix ISBN errors in Category:Pages with ISBN errors as described in Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_4#Bot_to_fix_ISBN_errors.3F. This may require an RFC first.
4. Fix articles in Category:Pages with citations having bare URLs using some sort of Reflinks-like tool. These fixes will have to be run by hand using a script rather than a bot, since experience with Reflinks has shown that pulling data from web pages requires human oversight.
5. I keep coming back to Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL and not knowing what a good fix would look like. Commenting out accessdates in those citations is tempting, but the error is sometimes a symptom of another error (like #1 above). We may have to clear out Category:Pages using web citations with no URL first.
More? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
|translator=
-like property, but so far no consensus to do so. It would be nice to have a bot fix ISBN errors as in #3. I've seen bad bot-generated titles around, some including pipes (|) for instance. There may be a good way to automatically do #4, though, filtering the title. For #5, I recently had a discussion with an IP about accessdates. I often have commented them out, if I thought a url was left out, but there are times when they aren't needed at all. If there is a proper date for the work, the accessdate is most likely redundant. To start, a bot could run through all the pages, deleting accessdates if there is no url and a properly formatted MOS date prior to (or the same as) the accessdate. That would reduce the log some, because people who fill in accessdates for printed material often fill in the date of the work as well. (That's my observation, anyway.)
—PC
-XT
+ 04:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
with the current date irrespective of whether |date=
is populated or not. If this behaviour could be amended, suppressing the addition of |accessdate=
where |date=
is already stated, the number of new cases would likely rapidly plummet. One such widely-used tool is Reflinks. There are others.
79.67.241.244 (
talk) 11:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
, even with |date=
. The only exception I can think of right now is e.g. Google Books: the content that is pointed to is not going to change in a meaningful way, nor it is going to go offline (well, hopefully), so I suppose there is no scenario in which |accessdate=
could prove useful. Still, what you say does make a lot of sense to me: undated online content might change, so we use |accessdate=
to indicate which version of the webpage was used; dated content, however, shouldn't change, so it doesn't really matter when we accessed it. This might even be an argument to say that accessdate should be mandatory if no date is provided, although introducing this would create a hellish backlog...
GregorB (
talk) 13:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
automatically is probably acceptable in {{
cite book}} templates and in {{
cite journal}} templates where a |doi=
or other identifier is present, since those sources are unlikely to change.|accessdate=
is better than deleting it. For example, a {{
cite web}} template with no URL will generate a different CS1 error; someone trying to fix that error may find it useful to see the accessdate that was entered by a previous editor. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)I'm migrating {{
cite AV media notes}}
, more commonly {{cite album notes}}
, to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. (
testcases)
During this migration, I'm wondering if we should make certain changes:
|format=
– in most CS1 citations, |format=
has a specific definition: the file format of an online resource (pdf, xls, mpeg, etc). Here, in {{cite AV media notes}}
, |format=
is mapped to |type=
. This usage prevents legitimate uses like |format=pdf
for an online copy of the media notes in Adobe Acrobat format. I propose to deprecate |format=
as an alias of |type=
.|albumtype=
– if I understand correctly, the purpose of {{cite AV media notes}}
is to make reference to "liner notes from albums, DVDs, CDs and similar audio-visual media" (emphasis mine). It is not the purpose of {{cite AV media notes}}
to make reference to the album, DVD, CD, etc that the notes discuss (that is for {{
cite AV media}}
to do). When |albumtype=single
, {{cite AV media notes}}
changes the format of the citation title from italic to normal and quotes the title: Title → "Title". This, presumably, because individual song titles are quoted, not italicized. But, {{
cite AV media notes}}
cites the notes, not the song, so this functionality is inappropriate in this template. For this reason, I propose to deprecate |albumtype=
and the functionality of |albumtype=single
.|albumlink=
– similar to |albumtype=
, |albumlink=
implies that this citation refers to the album, DVD, CD, etc that the notes discuss. I think that this is misleading. Editors can wikilink the title or use |titlelink=
to create a citation where the title links to a related Wikipedia article. Because |albumlink=
is essentially an alias of |titlelink=
, I propose to deprecate |albumlink=
.|publisherid=
– I propose to deprecate |publisherid=
because it is simply a long-winded form of |id=
.Items 1 & 4 above also occur in {{
cite DVD-notes}}
which, when its time comes, should have similar changes made.
As part of these proposals, if carried, I shall change the documentation and then run an AWB script or three to implement the changes to the source templates.
Opinions? WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Discographies, and WikiProject Songs, have been invited. Who else should be invited into this discussion?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite DVD-notes}}
(355 uses), I recommend we migrate it to {{
Cite AV media notes}}
(5952 uses). --
Gadget850
talk 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC){{
cite AV media notes}}
and {{
cite DVD-notes}}
. In {{cite DVD-notes}}
:
|director=
is an alias of |author=
|title=
is Liner notesformat
|titleyear=
is an alias of |origyear=
{{cite DVD-notes}}
isn't really the purpose of this thread.I agree with all four points made by
Trappist the monk. To avoid creating a new batch of error messages, I recommend changing all of the deprecated parameters in existing instances of {{
cite AV media notes}}
to the new supported parameters, or commenting out parameters that will not have a new equivalent. Is that what is proposed in the note about using AWB? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|format=
to |type=
(#1), change |publisherid=
to |id=
(#4), and delete |albumtype=
and its value (#2). We would need to edit {{
cite AV media notes}}
before the AWB run so that {{cite AV media notes}}
accepts either |titlelink=
or |albumlink=
. Then, the AWB script can replace |albumlink=
with |titlelink=
(#3).{{
cite AV media notes/sandbox}}
now accepts either |albumlink=
or |titlelink=
. (
testcases)I clicked through a random sample of 30 or so articles that transclude this template to see which projects they are a part of. Based on that, here are some other groups to invite to this discussion: WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Video games. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There having been no further discussion, I have changed the documentation and the {{
citation/core}}
-based template according to items 1–4 above. I have made two additional adjustments:
|artist=
– simply a unique alias of |others=
so I have deprecated it in favor of |others=
|notestitle=
– a unique alias of the more common parameter |chapter=
which already has four aliases; deprecated it in favor of |chapter=
I will run my AWB script against Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cite_AV_media_notes shortly.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
|chapter=
"? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Anything sending complex templates to the bin is to be applauded. Thank you! - David Gerard ( talk) 17:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed a link to this page from several articles I watchlist. Can somebody explain all of the above in plain English? Why are we doing this? What advantage does it give editors? Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox might as well be gobbledegook. We need citations to be as simple and as easy to use as possible, and stop this culture of coming down like a ton of bricks to newbies who don't understand them. The main change seems to be changing "artist" to "other". Not really an obvious change from my point of view - CDs have "artists", they don't have "others"! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
and
Module:Citation/CS1. The first is old-style Wikimarkup, and the second is the more modern
Lua scripting language. The big name CS1 templates ({{
cite web}}
, {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, etc) have already been switched from {{citation/core}}
to Module:Citation/CS1. It is now time to switch {{
cite AV media notes}}
.|artist=
to |others=
is because this particular template is about citing the printed notes that accompany a CD, a cassette, an LP, etc – not about citing the accompanying CD, cassette, or LP for which, editors should use {{
cite AV media}}
. In general, the author of the notes is not the artist who made the music or video; if the artist is the author, then there is |author=
to serve that purpose.culture of coming down like a ton of bricks to newbies who don't understand them?
The initial AWB run is complete. During that I found one other change that I implemented. Apparently, at some time, |bandname=
was a legitimate alias for |artist=
. So, I have replaced that parameter where it occurred. Because I started replacing |bandname=
sometime after I started the AWB run, I'll rerun my script to see if I missed |bandname=
in pages that were changed before I found it.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I also found some with |director=
as an alias for |artist=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
... and |mbid=
which I'm just deleting because in 2009, editors determined that that identifier wasn't appropriate. (Discussion
here and
here)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I encountered an issue with |volume=
. It appears that it is displayed bold unless the argument contains non-alphanumeric characters. In addition, if it is not bold a period is used as a separator. Examples:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
I did not see the behavior documented anywhere. At a minimum, the documentation should include the conditions under which it is not bold and doesn't use the period. I'm not sure if this is the intended operation, so I have not just changed the docs. — Makyen ( talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
|volume=
is greater than four characters long, then
Module:Citation/CS1 inserts the separator character (either the default period or the character specified by |separator=
) followed by the volume. When four characters or less, CS1 omits the separator character and displays volume in bold font.|volume=
will not be displayed bold.
Help:Citation Style 1 and
Template:Cite journal say that if you want it not to be bold, then include it in the |title=
.
Template:Cite web has no documentation at all as to the function of |volume=
. In fact, on
Template:Cite web the text "volume" only exists once and that is in the section on COinS data.|lua=yes
to every occurrence of {{
csdoc}} in
Template:Cite journal/doc, it appears the only thing on which it made a difference was |volume=
. Sorry I happened to pick up one the one thing that was off. That still leaves handling both types in
Help:Citation Style 1 and some amount of documentation in
Template:Cite web.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Series. Vol. vol. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. Series. Vol. vol. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Support making volume display consistently, regardless of content or length. I trust Trappist to make it work right. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
|volume=
value has more than four characters, it will not be in bold font.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Series. Vol. MMXIV. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. Series. Vol. MMXIV. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
|volume=23
and |volume=MCMLXXXVIII
should be bold font but |volume=3rd Crusade
should be normal font. So if the value for |volume=
contains only digits or uppercase roman numerals then bold; else normal.|volume=
differently when it follows |series=
?|series=
? What about the other parameters that are rendered between |journal=
and |volume=
? And, perhaps more importantly, why are |volume=
and |issue=
separated from |journal=
? There is some sense in separating |volume=
from |journal=
when |series=
is set because that implies that |journal=
is volume n of the |series=
. Why should any other parameter be placed between |journal=
and |volume=
?{{
citation}}
and {{
cite journal}}
, if a periodical parameter is set (dictionary, encyclopaedia, encyclopedia, journal, magazine, newspaper, periodical, website, work) then, in this order and if set, these parameters are rendered between the periodical and volume parameters:
Just a quick thought for discussion, but can we eliminate the boldface completely? It's not used in APA, MLA or Chicago-style citations (the non-WP styles I've had to use the most in college), so I don't see why we would need to retain it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted all changes to this part of Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox while this discussion continues so that the update to the live module can proceed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Citation bot helpfully came along and filled out some references at Neutrino [2]. This has caused some problems with some physics papers with very many authors belonging to collaborations. Originally the first author had et al and the name of the Collaboration
after citation bot came along it added the first 30 of the 100+ actual authors
setting |display-authors=1
looks odd as there are two copies of et al.
Is there a way of getting this to display OK without having to remove all the co-authors, which I'm reluctant to do as it means deleting data. I'm thinking there may be a case for a |collaboration=
parameter or a way of suppressing the et al.--
Salix alba (
talk): 14:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
''et al.'' (OPERA Collaboration)
in an author parameter. The CS1 templates will give you a properly formatted et al. with |displayauthors=n
. Consider using |others=OPERA Collaboration
:{{cite journal
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=OPERA Collaboration
|displayauthors=1
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)|others=
but this puts the (OPERA Collaboration) in the wrong place, after the title. If you look at the various places these appear the group needs to bind tightly to the authors. For example arxiv
[3] has|author=
parameters as you should normally do; set |others=N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration)
; set |displayauthors=0
:{{cite book
|author=N. Agafonova
|others=N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration)
|displayauthors=0
|year=2010
|title=Observation of a first ν<sub>τ</sub> candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam
|journal=[[Physics Letters B]]
|volume=691 |issue=3 |pages=138–145
|arxiv=1006.1623
|bibcode=2010PhLB..691..138A
|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022
|last2=Aleksandrov
|last3=Altinok
}}
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |displayauthors=
ignored (|display-authors=
suggested) (
help)In about a week's time I intend to update these files from their respective sandboxes:
The update makes these changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Corrected item 5 for Module:Citation/CS1 to read: Added support for |postscript=none;
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It has taken a while to confirm the bizarre introduction of invalid parameters by Bots, but it has happened in numerous pages, such as
dif834 in article:
• "
Premenstrual syndrome (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
During that edit, the only "title=" parameter was incorrectly fubarred to be "duplicate_title" and required yet another hand-edit to correct a Bot ruining more pages with such crap. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 15:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is missing. --
79.67.241.242 (
talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Another leftover problem, postponed last year to speed markup-to-Lua transition, is the formatting of a chapter, with a book and volume, in a book-series.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Edward N. Trifonov (1990). "Making sense of the human genome". Human Genome Initiative and DNA Recombination; Proceedings of the Sixth Conversation in the Discipline Biomolecular Stereodynamics. Vol. Vol. 1. Albany, New York: Adenine Press. pp. 69–77. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); |work= ignored (
help); Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
Edward N. Trifonov (1990). "Making sense of the human genome". Human Genome Initiative and DNA Recombination; Proceedings of the Sixth Conversation in the Discipline Biomolecular Stereodynamics. Vol. Vol. 1. Albany, New York: Adenine Press. pp. 69–77. {{
cite book}} : |volume= has extra text (
help); |work= ignored (
help); Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Now that we have time to discuss this, I think the obvious format should be quoted "Chapter" followed by italic book+volume (Book, Vol. 1), then followed by italic book-series (Series of Books) after the volume id, not before volume as displayed all last year. Across Wikipedia, many book series are displayed as italicized, which I think is the common format, but I have not discussed series format much before now. To assist transition, if a series name is hard-coded italic, then that could be left as-is while plain series names are italicized by the Lua processing. - Wikid77 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have recently stumbled across a couple of editors who have been adding references for years, and who always put the author full name in |first=
and either completely omit the |last=
parameter or include it but leave it blank. This means the author name doesn't show up in the reference.
Is there a bot that can go fix these? Having said that, many of the references also need other types of clean up at the same time, e.g. here (and still not finished). -- 79.67.241.229 ( talk) 08:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
|lastn=
and |firstn=
(or their aliases).
{{
cite book}}
: |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor-first3=
missing |editor-last3=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)|lastn=
, |firstn=
, |lastn+1=
, |firstn+1=
, |lastn+2=
, etc. until |lastn=
and |firstn=
are both not found. When both are not found it could be that we've got all of the names, or that there is a hole in the list. We can't yet tell the difference so if there is a hole in the list, it will not be detected:
|lastn=
and |authorn=
are aliases. As far as I know, there is no way for the code to determine if |lastn=
or |authorn=
is missing a |firstn=
. The only case that this code catches is |firstn=
without its numerically matching |lastn=
or |authorn=
.And a bit of a tweak and:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Author1; Last3; Author5. Author 1, 3, & 5 without author 2 & 4. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Missing |author4= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2, Author5. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2. First 1, First+Last 2, Author5. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last1, First1; Last2, First2. First+Last 1, First+Last 2, Author5 (should produce error but does not?).{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last1, First1; Last2, First2. First+Last 1, First+Last 2, Author5 (should produce error but does not?).{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last3, First3. First 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : |first2= missing |last2= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last3, First3. First 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : |first2= missing |last2= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3, Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last2, First2; Last3, First3. First+Last 2, First+Last 3, Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : Missing |author1= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last1, First1; Last3, First3; Last4, First4. First+Last 1, First+Last 3, First+Last 4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last1, First1; Last3, First3; Last4, First4. First+Last 1, First+Last 3, First+Last 4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order). {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order) with Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last3, First3. First1, First+Last 3, First4 (out of order) with Coauthors. {{
cite book}} : |first1= missing |last1= (
help); |first4= missing |last4= (
help); Missing |author2= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
The above examples were added by Jonesey95. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
|author=
, |author1=
, |last=
|last1=
, and the other aliases). The code stops searching when it doesn't find |authorn=
and it doesn't find |authorn+1=
. So, in the example, the code found |last1=
and |last2=
, but didn't find |last3=
and didn't find |last4=
so it concluded that there are no more authors.New test for the special case: Winter YYYY–YY.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there is still an old 3-way bug for "chapter=" when using both title/journal, which I neglected to fix when first developing the Module:Citation/CS1 last year. As I interpret the issue, a "chapter=" should always be quoted and then force "title=" into italics. However, note the following in {cite_journal}:
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Webster, Mark (2011). "Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology of Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada". Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin (67). {{
cite journal}} : |chapter= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorGiven1= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorSurname1= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Webster, Mark (2011). "Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology of Northern Arizona and Southern Nevada". Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin (67). {{
cite journal}} : |chapter= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorGiven1= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |EditorSurname1= ignored (
help)
|
In the above example, " Trilobite Biostratigraphy" is just one chapter in the larger topic (book), Cambrian Stratigraphy and Paleontology..., which would cover all life forms of the Cambrian Period. Perhaps always quote a chapter title? I was too tired last year (still am) to test all major combinations with title+journal/work, and I neglected to fix that. It is a minor problem, but some PhD users might expect it fixed in the next Lua release. - Wikid77 ( talk) 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
if is_set(Periodical) and is_set(Title) then
Chapter = wrap( 'italic-title', Chapter ); --DO NOT DO THIS!!
TransChapter = wrap( 'trans-italic-title', TransChapter );
else
Chapter = kern_quotes(Chapter);
Chapter = wrap( 'quoted-title', Chapter );
TransChapter = wrap( 'trans-quoted-title', TransChapter );
end
if is_set(Periodical) and not is_set(Chapter) then
Title = kern_quotes (Title);
Title = wrap( 'quoted-title', Title );
TransTitle = wrap( 'trans-quoted-title', TransTitle );
elseif inArray(config.CitationClass, ...)
and not is_set(Chapter)
" then the logic will naturally decide to italicize the book's Title as well as the "journal=" Periodical. Hence, that fixes the problem, without altering other issues about the quoted/italic titles. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 23:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: Replace |subscription=
and |registration=
with a new |access=
.
Rationale: There are at least five, probably more, types of access restriction, and more may develop in the future.
Syntax:
|access=sub
(or |access=subscription
) = subscription (paid registration) required|access=reg
(or |access=registration
) = free registration required|access=fee
= per-access or per-item fee required|access=abstract
= free abstract, but fee required for access to complete content|access=audience
= access restricted to defined (e.g. academic or professional institution) audienceThis will also obviate any need to have code trying to determine which existing parameter supercedes the other, and other potential future complications. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 14:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|access=
is too close to |accessdate=
. Perhaps |permission=
? I have bulleted your syntax.|access=subscription
?|accessdate=
, but |permission=
is longwinded. {{
pra|access|subscription}}
was a typo for {{
para|access|subscription}}
. All of them require some form of registration, so perhaps |register=
. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 16:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)|register=
or |wall=
, with one value paid
and opposite value free
, with any other value (e.g. y
) defaulting to "paid". —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ⚞(Ʌⱷ҅̆⚲͜ⱷ^)≼ 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Revised proposal: Perhaps a |register=
or |wall=
, with one value paid
and opposite value free
, with any other value (e.g. y
) defaulting to "paid". The problem with the current code that it assumes that paywalls are subscription based when this is often not true. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Right now, there are seven error message that are hidden from editors who have not chosen to make all error messages visible. These are
error message | category | number of pages in category |
---|---|---|
|accessdate= requires |url= |
Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL | 0 |
Check date values in: |param1=, |param2=, ... |
Category:CS1 errors: dates | 75 |
Cite uses deprecated parameters | Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters | 0 |
|displayauthors= suggested |
Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. | 0 |
|displayeditors= suggested |
Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. | 0 |
|format= requires |url= |
Category:Pages using citations with format and no URL | 0 |
Missing or empty |url= |
Category:Pages using web citations with no URL | 0 |
Any reason why at least some of these shouldn't be unhidden at the next Module:Citation/CS1 update?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
dx.doi.org
URL has been bot replaced by a |doi=
parameter and the template was not changed to the more appropriate "cite journal" version, or whatever, at the same time. Likewise for many of the "format requires URL" errors. I might be wrong though.Where a bot removes |url=
it should also remove other parameters that can only be present if |url=
is present. --
79.67.241.229 (
talk) 23:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Currently, using the cite web template requires a url or an error message is issued to those who have the messages turned on. Likewise a URL is expected whenever the accessdate parameter is present. But I came across an edit where an editor had added information from a source behind a paywall. I might face the same problem; I have access to some paywall sources through my library, but the access is explained by library personnel as clicking on a link on the library home page, then giving the password, and then searching for the source. If I give the URL from my address bar at the time I'm viewing the source, and then try that URL from a different computer, I get a page asking for a userid and password, but no one at the library seems to know the userid. So it would be rather useless to provide the URL.
It seems to me we should provide some advice about this situation. If the paywall operator is reliable and we viewed an exact copy of a paper publication, I suppose we could just give the information about the paper publication that we viewed online, and not mention that we viewed it online. But if the source is an electronic-source, subject to silent revision, we should provide an access date. What, then, do we use as a URL? The homepage of the paywall operator?
Courtesy also comes into play. If the paywall operator has in some way given support to the writing of the article, for example, by giving accounts to selected Wikipedia editors, or to another charity, it might be appropriate to acknowledge in some way that the information was accessed through the paywall. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
. I could be misunderstanding you or just plain wrong, though.I see from discussions above that "date" and "year" have been discussed. At some point, the standard "year" was dropped from the Cite Book template and replaced with "date". Ergo, when one uses the drop down template on the edit window toolbar, "date" is the only option available. This creates citation error issues with functions such as Shortened footnotes that only work correctly with years. After using the template, the user then has to manually change the word "date" to "year" for that to work. A big pain in the behind if an editor is creating an article with a hundred or so citations. And not every editor has enough experience to know it needs to be changed. If they don't manually correct it, the errors remain in referencing until such a time as another editor happens to run AWB, or just stumbles across it and manually corrects it. Or not. Can we please include "year" as a standard "fill in the blank" on the cite book template? — Maile ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
is handled by
Module:Citation/CS1. In that module, the year portion of a CITEREF anchor is extracted from either |date=
or |year=
, when both are present, the year portion of the CITEREF anchor comes from |year=
. If the value in |date=
is invalid, then the year is not added to CITEREF.The in-text cite should include only the year. The full citation may include the year only or the full date. Most citation templates will extract the year from a full date to form the anchor. If both a date and a year are included, then the date is displayed, but the anchor is formed from the year.Regardless of what that says, the cite templates do not pull the year from a full date with shortened footnotes.
My experience has been the opposite. Using something like |date=2001
or |date=3 May 2002
within cite templates has worked fine for me in conjunction with {{
sfn}} (use only the year within the sfn template). That's why we're hoping for examples, so that if there is a subtle bug, we can fix it.
I have the HarvErrors script installed, so if you point me to an article where this is not working, I'll take a look at it.
Here's an example [1] of a shortened footnote [2] that uses the year from a date. [3]
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)These three footnotes all work perfectly for me. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|year=
has not been removed from any of the CS1 templates. It is still a valid and active parameter.Maile,in the "Preferences" window that can be accessed by clicking "Preferences" at the top of the page, in the editing tab, there are two relevant check boxes, "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" and "Enable enhanced editing toolbar". Which of these do you have checked? ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs)
Thanks, everyone, for the detailed detective work. It looks like the proper venue for continuation of this discussion is Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar/2.0, since the toolbar, not the cite templates themselves, is presenting a limited set of parameters to editors.
Again, if anyone sees a citation using |date=
that does not properly link to an sfn or harv template, feel free to post a link to an article or a sandbox test case here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|year=
was
removed from the toolbar because it is supposedly redundant to |date=
. Is it not?
Mr.
Z-man 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)|year=
is surplus to requirements as I explained at the
other conversation.|ref=harv
. Perhaps the non-working cases that
user:Maile66 complained about were a result of the editor not correctly modifying the output of the toolbar.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 13:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)So that people know:
AWB currently changes parameter |date=
to |year=
in all citation templates when the value of the parameter is only a year as part of the
General Fixes. This means that thousands of articles have been changed to using |year=
instead of |date=
. If this is not what CS1 desires, the general fixes need to get changed. —
Makyen (
talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Is
this how the |website=
or |work=
parameter was envisaged to work? If not, what can be done about it? --
Ohc
¡digame! 02:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
|website=
in {{
cite web}}
and for |work=
in
Help:Citation Style 1 says nothing about urls in this parameter. I don't think that it would be too hard to add error checking for urls in these parameters as we've done for urls in |authorlink=
.It appears that external link icons will be removed in the next update. The PDF icon is set locally by a rule in MediaWiki:Common.css and there is discussion on removing it. See MediaWiki talk:Common.css#External links icons removed. I bring it up here, as many editors believe the icons are added by the templates. -- Gadget850 talk 12:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding |accesdate=
at
Help_talk:CS1_errors#Accessdate.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am currently having a small dispute with
Sitush (
talk ·
contribs) over whither the |location=
/ |place=
field in {{
cite news}}
is meant to show the physical publication location of the newspaper (Sitush) or the
dateline (my position). Sitush has cited
Template:Cite news#Publisher as a source, but the description is ambiguous. I feel that Sitush's interpretation is meant more for {{
cite book}}
. Can someone settle this?--
Auric
talk 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|dateline=
field could be added to prevent confusion.--
Auric
talk 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|publication-place=
vs. |location=
. Compare:
Getting this discussion back to the question at hand, I pulled my copies of the APA and MLA style guides plus The Chicago Manual of Style.
Our CS1 templates separate the name and location of a newspaper like the MLA style or the last example from CMOS. Both style guides ignore the dateline location because it won't help a reader find the source; datelines are specific to the article, they vary from article to article within the same newspaper, and are not going to help distinguish between two papers of the same name. Imzadi 1979 → 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that has this problem. It seems that most of the people using this template do not understand the difference between the 'publisher' parameter and the 'work' parameter. The result is that many templates are filled out incorrectly, with the 'publisher' parameter filled instead of the more appropriate 'work'. Is there any way we could clarify this, perhaps by renaming the 'work' parameter to something more obvious? It is annoying to have to fix templates that have filled out incorrectly merely because of the vagaries of the parameters. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|work=
are |newspaper=
or |magazine=
. The documentation clearly says that |publisher=
is for the company that publishes something and that |work=
is for the name of the name of the published work. I don't know why people will get that the publisher is a company in the case of a book, but get confused on newspapers. Maybe they forget that an article is published in the Daily News and not published by the Daily News. I also find the same confusions with television networks like CBS (the publisher) and individual programs like 60 Minutes (the published "work" of the network). With the alternate parameter names already in place, I think the only way forward is to educate people and just fix their errors.
Imzadi 1979
→ 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|publishingco=
parameter as an equivalent of |publisher=
and change the documentation to stop mentioning the latter. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|pubr=
for those of us with borderline carpal tunnel syndrome, but whatever. I know we can't keep adding duplicate parameters indefinitely. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)As the Bots continue to mangle major articles by inserting invalid parameters, we still need more people to help fix a few more pages, each day, to fix "DUPLICATE_" or "unused_data=" or other invalid parameter names. See category:
Remember, it is possible to navigate the category by URL question-suffix "?from=Ra" to display pages beginning at letters "Ra" or such. Try to scan through the list to fix major pages first (or semi-major, with 100+ pageviews per day); I just fixed page " Pluto" again, as major pages scarred with glaring red-error messages give the appearance that the "keepers of the 'pedia" are unable to correct major errors in major pages. Many invalid parameters date back over 1-3 years, before the wp:CS1 Lua-based cites were installed to show cite messages. Any help, even edit a few pages per day, will help reduce the backlog of 3,400 scarred pages, growing larger every day. - Wikid77 16:03, 30 March, 11:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Coming here after seeing discussion on Jimbo's talk page: I'm happy to help gnoming away, but it would be great if there could be a priority list of the high hit-rate articles within the 3315 in the category.
And a question: why do some of the articles in Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters seem to be sorted by their DEFAULTSORT, and others not? See, under "Pa": "Richard Phipson" followed by "Phoenix Jones": both have DEFAULTSORTS, so Jones should be appearing under "J". At the end of "M" we have Málaga though it has a DEFAULTSORT of "Malaga", while Öreryd is sorted correctly by its DEFAULTSORT of "Oreryd" What's happening? (My instinct is to look at this category for articles which need other work such as adding a DEFAULTSORT or checking whether "Foo (whatnot)" is correctly linked from "Foo", to do this while sorting out the citation problem, but I'm puzzled by the inconsistent treatment of defaultsorts.) Pam D 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags and some are not.
bugzilla:38435 says that the DEFAULTSORT gets ignored when the category is generated via a reference and the DEFULTSORT statement is below the reflist. There's an example at
User:John of Reading/Sandbox. In one of my test categories, the page is sorted under "Z", matching the DEFAULTSORT, and in the other it is sorted under "J", ignoring the DEFAULTSORT. --
John of Reading (
talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)I don't know of a way to provide a list of high-hit-rate articles in a given category, but I can provide a catscan report listing Featured Articles that have CS1 errors. There are currently 2,687 such articles. There are 26 Featured Articles in the "unsupported parameter" category. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
|coauthor=
is deprecated but still supported so that's not how a page gets added to
Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters.[Aa]rchive|Articles for|Mediation Cabal|requests for arbi|Filled requests|Deletion review|Deletion review|Categories for discussion|Featured article candidates/Featured log|Files for deletion|Requests for arbitration|Suspected sock puppets|Wikipedia Signpost|Autofixing cites|Bots/Requests for approval|Centralized discussion/Citation discussion|Featured article candidates/Navenby|testcases|regression tests|sandbox
|authorlink=
parameters. However, as an experiment to see how long it would take, I left six references needing the document title to be filled in. It took 68 edits from 45 different users (and around 60 000 pageviews) before someone fixed four of the titles. The other two remain broken. --
79.67.241.252 (
talk) 19:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
|
At present, the citation templates does not seem to recognise "circa" and abbreviations thereof, and throws these up as cs1 date errors. What does the template recognise, if at all? Or what can we do about these? -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author (c. 1894). Title. Publisher. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author (c. 1894). Title. Publisher. {{
cite book}} : |author= has generic name (
help)
|
<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>_
(my underscore represents your space). The template {{
abbr}} may be used to achieve this.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 09:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
&rft.date
with the {{
abbr}} HTML. --
Gadget850
talk 09:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |title=Title |date={{abbr|c.|circa}} 1900}} |
|
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000255-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1900.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>
}}
#tag
or a template that includes it causes the strip marker issue. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Lua to be able to break this down and properly characterize it. --
Gadget850
talk 12:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The shortcut above, WP:DATEOTHER, is incorrect; it is associated with the level 4 heading "Ranges" heading in MOSNUM (not MOS). The correct heading is "Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates". Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |title=Title |date={{circa}} 1900}} |
|
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000025A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <abbr title="circa">c.</abbr> 1900.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+4" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#bad_date|help]])</span>
}}
Unless it is required by WP:DATESNO, which it doesn't seem to be, is this functionality necessary?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
What should I do with cases like "|date=
undated"? Outright removal would probably be simplest. But correct? --
Ohc
¡digame! 04:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
|date=n.d.
is accepted by the CS1 module. Like this:|date=n.d.
needs to be added to the documentation.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
|publisher=<!--Unspecified by source.-->
nd
instead.{{cite book |title=Title |date=nd}}
|author=
. Still no error. So where are you seeing errors? Can you show an example where nd
produces a CS1 error
?At this point, we can begin to allow free-form dates, such as "undated" or "late October 2011" and change the Lua software to bypass date-format checking when the date seems to be free-form. Recall that the Lua-based cites were purposely kept limited, from last year, in an effort to speed the markup-to-Lua transition from {Citation/core} within a 6-week period, leaving rare cite forks (and complex parameters) for later, which is now. The expansion of such new features should be tested in a separate version (not the main /sandbox version). - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
After this whole past year of the Lua-based cites, I think it is time to allow uppercase names for several major parameters, including "Title=" & "Date=" & "Publisher=" & "Accessdate=" (etc.). The successful use of capital "Author=" has shown the feature to be workable, as well as perhaps leading some people to imagine capital "Title=" should work as well. The data seems to show 10% of spelling errors are capital-letter parameters, although the percentage might be higher due to the obvious quick fix for a even newcomer to use lowercase when an error message is seen. To simplify implementation, perhaps start with just 10 major parameters where the capital letter would be allowed.
Although the unknown parameters have been fixed among the 10,000 articles with "unsupported" parameters, the prior usage can be estimated from checking the user-space pages, as with a search:
•
Google Search: "Unknown parameter" "date ignored" site:en.wikipedia.org
In several prior cases, the problem has been capital "Date=" as an irksome glitch which prevented the date from appearing in a formatted cite. Anyway, because the long-term use of capital "Author=" has not caused major problems, then allowing a capital letter in 10 other major parameters should work well. -
Wikid77 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
|author=
, |Author=
, |AUTHOR=
, or even, perversely, |AuthoR=
? I'm just asking. If there's a reason, it would be helpful to understand it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite music release notes}}
templates in article space with capitalized parameters. Because that template is handled by {{
citation/core}}
, the capitalized parameters weren't displayed. I've fixed that with an AWB script and I've fixed thousands of capitalization errors in
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters. That category is essentially empty now.|accessdate=
but not |ignoreisbnerror=
; |trans-title=
or |transtitle=
but not |trans_title=
; parameter names that naturally occur in English are not subject to this requirement: |encyclopedia=
.|trans-title=
without thinking, I support your proposal for parameter names to include hyphens, not underscores, not spaces, not CamelCaps and not capitalised. When inconsistency is allowed, it becomes harder to spot inconsistent things that are real errors. Of course, bots that edit references should be able to read aNyCase and allow for space or underscore where hyphen should be and then re-emit the corrected reference parameter names as all lower case with hyphens. It would be nice to see a requirement for space to the left of each pipe as a bare minimum so that word-wrap also has a fighting chance of working properly. --
79.67.241.227 (
talk) 16:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
|access-date=
could also be used as |accessdate=
. For shorter parameter names it may be easier to type without the hyphen. However, the user that does not have detailed familiarity with the template should not have to know that words in certain parameter are joined in a particular way. One way of joining words should always work.After years of allowing both lowercase and uppercase id parameter names (such "isbn=" and "ISBN="), there has been no significant overhead incurred by allowing just one alias for a dozen parameters. The major problem with {{ Citation/core}} had been allowing 'surname1' up to 'surname9' or 'given9' as 18 extra aliases which were almost never used, compared to use of capital 'Date=' or 'Publisher'. Also, each various camel-case or mixed spelling (such as 'AccessDate' or 'AutHOR') would be cumbersome to handle in the {Citation/core} while almost never used in live articles. Fortunately, the parameters where people tend to use a capital letter are still rare, including: Title, Chapter, Last, First, Date, Publisher, Accessdate, or Author. Hence, if perhaps 10 major parameters were accepted with a capital letter, then there would be fewer cite errors, while no significant overhead in processing just those extra spellings (similar to 'issn' or 'ISSN'). Although wp:autofixing cites would also handle the capital-letter format, those would still be logged into a tracking category which would expand the total list of pages with invalid parameters. Instead by treating the major capital-letter forms as valid (similar to valid 'Author' during 2013), then the size of a tracking category would be reduced. - Wikid77 ( talk) 17:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
To solve the problem of misjudging free-form dates or "{{ circa}} 1950" as being invalid dates (when actually valid), then I suggest any date over 24 characters long (longer than "September 16-29, 1150 BC") should be logged into a non-error tracking category, and not tagged with a "Check date values" message using a CSS class. The Template:Circa inserts an abbr-tag as "<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>" which is 29 characters, longer than 24 and hence could be skipped when checking for valid date format. Otherwise, there are too many date formats which need to be allowed, such as the need to allow dates in years BC:
When a tracking category is flooded with errors for valid dates, then it makes it more difficult to spot the pages which contain actual invalid dates. - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
<abbr title="circa">c.</abbr>
to c.
in COinS; if anything it should change it to circa
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)We've previously discussed using HTML classes to make our citations more easily parseable (Representatives of Zotero, for example, have said that if we publish and apply such a schema, then Zotero will parse it. ). The suggestion then was "Once this module is debugged and implemented, then we can look at adding this feature". Shall we now do so? A proposed list of class names is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats/citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
During testing of an AWB script to 'fix' accessdate CS1 errors (
more), I began wondering if we shouldn't be rethinking |accessdate=
, its application, and the rules for its use. So, some of the questions that I think need answering are:
|accessdate=
correctly defined in terms of:
|accessdate=
but don't have |url=
?
I'm sure that there are other questions but these are enough for now.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
|accessdate=
is actually displayed, except for the oblique "requires url".|accessdate=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
is only displayed when |url=
has a value.|url=
, or are other places where a URL might be found considered?|url=
|chapterurl=
|chapter-url=
|contributionurl=
|contribution-url=
|archive-url=
|layurl=
|website=
(Yep, again not supposed to happen, but it does)|deadurl=
(Yep, again not supposed to happen, but it does){{
citation}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help) [Note: This example links to a source which should not be changing, but other citations link to changeable content.]|url=
is actually in some other parameter.|url=
for the presence of |archiveurl=
when a |chapterurl=
or |contributionurl=
is present. Probably also the case for |layurl=
, but I have not tested that one. —
Makyen (
talk) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
has only applied to |url=
. A primary requirement in the original development of
Module:Citation/CS1 was to keep its functionality the same as that of {{
citation/core}}
. Now that most CS1 templates have migrated from {{citation/core}}
to Module:Citation/CS1 that requirement may be eased.|accessdate=
, to which in your list of urls should it apply if there are multiples but not |url=
? What about the automatic urls associated with the module-supported identifiers (bibcode, doi, pmid, etc)?Concerning Template:Csdoc#url, it generally makes no sense to include an accessdate in a journal citation, even if a url is present. Articles that are published in journals must by definition have been published on a specific date and with rare exceptions, the content is frozen and does not change over time. If a publication does not have an original publication date (year + volume + issue + page number), it wasn't published in a journal. With or without a url, I generally delete accessdates in cite journal templates on sight. Hence if a journal citation contains an accessdate without a url, I think the accessdate can be safely be deleted. Boghog ( talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
being deleted on any citations.|accessdate=
provides a hint as to when the citation was entered on the page. Generally, this means that the person who added the citation believed that the reference supported the text at that point. While this may, or may not, be accurate, I routinely use access dates to prioritize which references need to be checked to verify that article content is still supported by the citation. Using it in this way is, of course, imperfect. However, there really is just not enough time in existence to do all the checking which really should be performed. This is one piece of information which can be used to help determine where to spend limited time.|accessdate=
is useful in attempting to determine to what a reference actually is referring. We all know those references that have inaccurate or corrupted information. Sometimes the citation is copied from page to page with errors/vandalism – I recently fixed one that had the same error on 34 pages across 7 wikis which appeared to be the result of copying a vandalized citation. All information we have, including |accessdate=
, is potentially valuable in such situations. In that specific instance having the |accessdate=
helped me identify which citations had been copied from page to page and which were valid. This would have taken much longer without |accessdate=
.|accessdate=
can provide a hint as to the time-frame of the actual date of the reference when that is not included with the citation.|accessdate=
is also useful as one of the quick sanity checks for a citation: Is |accessdate=
before |date=
? If so, that citation needs to be checked.|accessdate=
as an indicator that someone has merely copied a reference from one page to another. This can indicate that the person may have not bothered to read the actual reference which may imply that a closer examination of if the reference actually supports the text is appropriate. If the |accessdate=
does not closely match the date when the citation was added to the page this can indicate that the citation was not actually checked by the editor who put it in the article.|accessdate=
without a URL is inherently an error, let alone that the |accessdate=
should be deleted for that reason. I can understand the converse of a URL without access date being an error. I can understand not requiring an access date for most references without a URL (i.e. ones which refer to physical objects).|ignore-isbn-error=true
). Alternately, just have the module not flag having an |accessdate=
without a URL to be an error if there is a valid ISBN, DOI, or other ID that leads directly to a permanent, unchanging reference.|accessdate=
without a URL is not something that needs further attention (e.g. a |no-url-is-ok=true
)).|accessdate=
. For us, there are more appropriate ways to solve a large quantity of these "errors". I think one reason people are concentrating on removing |accessdate=
is that the text of the "error" leads their thinking in that direction. The "error" should have different text which concentrates on the lack of a URL, not the presence of |accessdate=
. The error text should be something along the lines of: "Is there a missing URL? Add |no-url-is-ok=true
if URL is not missing." instead of what is currently displayed.|accessdate=
if you can actually verify that there is enough valid data to indicate that the source really is a physical paper copy of an article. Doing so in such instances would ignore the other uses for |accessdate=
data.|accessdate=
. —
Makyen (
talk) 02:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)I'll attempt a partial answer to the questions in Trappist's post that began this thread. An accessdate should be specified for content that was obtained from a source that is accessible through the World Wide Web, and similar protocols (for example, Gopher) if and only if the source
The first choice for the URL is the URL that is visible in the browser address bar while reading the source. If this isn't feasible, for example, with a pdf, the second choice is a URL that will download the source, will display download instructions, or which contains a link which can be clicked to download the source. Third chhoice: if the procedure for accessing the source is more complex (for example some paywalls), the URL should be a page from which the source can be navigated to; after the close of the CS1 template (but before the <ref> element, if applicable) the navigation directions should be given. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC), clarified 13:22 UT.
|accessdate=
?I think enough objections have been raised, above and in prior discussions, to reach a consensus now about the "accessdate=" parameter. Reply below. - Wikid77 17:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
in all cases and eliminating the current error message. Please correct me if I am misstating your position.Whilst some editors might feel rather clever in second-guessing by applying logical and coherence checks, these checks are often not very determinant on the error. Do I want to spoil their fun? Hell no. But we need to remember access dates add an additional dimension that occupies a lot of server storage space whilst being, IMHO, rather shallow. This encyclopaedia, being a wiki, is prone to all sorts inconsistencies. Errors and vandalism happen and are often corrected by others. Maintaining these access dates is more trouble than is worth, as one can just as easily (or not) find alternatives or archived cites without them. OTOH, having these gives a false sense of security that a link can be found with a little diligence. Access dates are not palliatives for poor referencing practices. They should be removed in favour of urging editors to preemptively or systematically archive. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I've stumbled across a bit of a problem on the article
William Wigginton. One of the cites, for {{cite web}}
is refusing to display, or rather, displaying as code.--
Auric
talk 04:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Joe Fixit (Another day of autofixing). "Title
Broken
into
Four Parts". {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 6 (
help)
I have been updating topic above "
#Should autofix more cites" but I wanted to note some recent issues. Although the use of autofixing will retro-correct cites in archived pages (especially
wp:AfD's which admins want left unchanged) and fix all prior revisions of any page, the auto-corrections have reached perhaps 200 issues and will take more time to discuss. Please understand, the whole prior tactic of issuing red-error messages for cites was never my intention, but by allowing them into Lua cites for a whole year (April 2013-2014), we gained extensive evidence that those messages do not cause users to fix "9,000" articles, which had to be hand-fixed by a special backlog drive to clear 8,500 of them by mid-April 2014. Now, we see perhaps 12 new "unknown parameter" pages left each day (366/month, ~4,400/year), to be hand-fixed or else thousands of people see red messages. However, at this point, we are spotting the trends for new unknown parameters, where perhaps 10% are bad accessdate as "acesdate" or "access date" or "accessed" (etc.) and many are capital-letter form (invalid "Publisher="). Before release of autofixing, more users need to understand to search for "[fix cite]" and "[fix url]" rather than "Unknown parameter |xx= ignored". The next step would be partial rollout for use of autofixing in some types of cites, such as {{
cite encyclopedia}} or such. However, I expect more weeks of discussion and stronger autofixing, such as to handle invalid:
"| urlhttp://xxx.com/index.php?zz=123&arg=en" as if "url="
Long-term, we need to expect many more editors to write invalid cites every day, but not yet, because currently the editor base of Wikipedia is in a slight decline, perhaps due to strange user-interface changes (https, login redesign, 2-style Frankenfonts with
Liberation Sans, etc.) or users leaving who cannot post more adverts. However, many users keep joining despite all the forced
wp:VE or login problems, and autofixing will allow more new users to write invalid cites but still get workable results. That's the brief status so far. It will take time to transition. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 10:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The functionality afforded by using templates is great but there are a number of template generators and bots which continue to produce deprecated parameters or make amendments that are, or soon will be, unnecessary.
I'd like to suggest creating a Help:Citation_Style_1/Advisories page, where salient points can be listed (and can link to more detailed stuff where necessary). This would be aimed at bot operators and at coders working on producing template generators. It would simply be a clear list of changes they may need to be aware of so they can amend the functionality of their systems. Template changes would be easy to find without having to trawl through the huge amounts of template documentation looking for things that may have changed.
Some examples to kick off:
|month=
and |day=
parameters are deprecated. Monkbot is cleaning up remaining cases. The |date=
parameter can handle full or partial dates. Processes should be amended to no longer generate the deprecated parameters.|date=1999
over to |year=1999
.|trans-title=
over to |trans_title=
. The hyphenated version is currently an acceptable alias and may?/will? at some point become the "default".|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
attributes are deprecated. Processes should be amended to no longer generate the deprecated parameters. Use |last=
|first=
or |author=
.|url=
ending .pdf or .doc it is useful to add the appropriate |format=PDF
or |format=DOC
parameter.The idea is to avoid producing more stuff that needs to be fixed, and avoid doing work that is currently unnecessary or which will need to be undone when a future planned change is made to the template workings.
Discuss... -- 79.67.241.210 ( talk) 17:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
|trans-title=
over to |trans_title=
. It would be very helpful to have a list of the valid parameters and aliases for each citation template.
GoingBatty (
talk) 03:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In the
Benzodiazepine dependence article, there's a CS1 date error that I can't seem to fix:
{{cite journal |author=Professor Lader |coauthors=Professor Morgan, Professor Shepherd, Dr Paul Williams, Dr Skegg, Professor Parish, Dr Peter Tyrer, Dr Inman, Dr John Marks (Ex-Roche), Peter Harris (Roche), Tom Hurry (Wyeth) |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |date=30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981 |title=Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005 |publisher=[[National Archives]] |location=England |url=http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=7798554&j=1 |format=PDF }}
generates:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)This seems to be valid per MOS:DATEFORMAT#Ranges but still generates an error. What am I missing? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Professor Lader (30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981).
"Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005" (PDF). England:
National Archives. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
Sandbox | Professor Lader (30 October 1980 – 3 April 1981).
"Benzodiazepine Dependence Medical Research Council headquarters, Closed until 2014 - Opened 2005" (PDF). England:
National Archives. {{
cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (
help)
|
Of late there seem to have been several discussions that relate to various template parameters and the styling of rendered citations:
All or most of these issues could / should be answered by a proper style guide. Instead, what we get are a lot of short-term conversations that ultimately produce nothing. As we are now, we have documentation distributed across the various CS1 templates and help pages. The documentation is often out of date with respect to CS1's actual implementation and does not serve as a style guide because it can't. I know that there are editors out there who are familiar with published style guides (I'm not one of them) who could write a style guide for CS1. That guide would then direct further development of Module:Citation/CS1 into the tool that it really is capable of being.
Isn't it time we had such a guide? This is no short term project. Every citation type, every parameter, every bit of functionality, should be taken apart, examined and if found worthy, included in the style guide that details its use.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So, perhaps I really don't know what it is that I want. Scanning through the MLA and APA sections at Purdue OWL tells me how to manually construct various types of citations. With CS1, there is no manual construction, the templates and Module:Citation/CS1 do that for us.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly concur that we do need such a guide. I have no objection to basing the overall gist of our style on some other one, but like all of WP:MOS, it should be a synthesis of several, guided by actual mainstream usage, and with every point focused on what is best for our readers, not for editors much less particular camps of them.
Some of the style problems of various off-WP citation style guides, just off the top of my head and in 5 minutes or less:
Because it is similar to {{
cite AV media notes}}
I'm beginning to think about how to migrate {{
cite music release notes}}
to
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
I'm thinking that changes similar to those made to {{cite AV media notes}}
apply here:
|type=
– provides functionality similar to |albumtype=
as described at
Migrating cite AV media notes, item 2. Here, |type=
has been repurposed to control the format of |name=
. When |type=
is set to any value, the value in |name=
is rendered in quotations; otherwise the value is rendered in italic font. Presumably, this is because individual song titles are quoted, not italicized. Because {{cite music release notes}}
cites the notes, not the song or album, this undocumented functionality is inappropriate in this template. I propose to remove this functionality from {{cite music release notes}}
and so free |type=
for use consistent with the other CS1 templates.|Format=
– not the same as |format=
, this undocumented parameter is an alias of |type=
which is not supported in the normal way; see above. Another, also undocumented parameter, |titletype=
, is also an alias of |type=
. I propose to deprecate |Format=
because it is so similar to |format=
(which has the specific definition of online resource file format) and deprecate |titletype=
because it is undocumented. Both of these shall be deprecated in favor of |type=
and I shall change the default value from "Release notes" to "Media notes" so that it is the same as {{cite AV media notes}}
.|name=
– an alias of |series=
is used in place of |title=
which places the "title" of the notes in a nonstandard position when the citation is rendered. While supported, |title=
is remapped to be an alias of |chapter=
though this functionality is not documented. I propose to restore the normal sense of |title=
and deprecate |name=
in favor of the restored |title=
consistent with all other CS1 templates.|artist=
– simply a unique alias of |others=
, which is not currently supported, so I propose to deprecate it in favor of |others=
as was done in {{cite AV media notes}}
.|pid=
– I propose to deprecate |publisherid=
because it is simply an undocumented alias of |id=
.As I did with {{cite AV media notes}}
, I will modify the template, tweak the documentation, and then create an AWB script to make appropriate changes to the templates in article space.
I think that once these changes are made, another AWB script can rename the templates in article space from {{cite music release notes}}
to {{cite AV media notes}}
and so accomplish the migration without having any effect on
Module:Citation/CS1. A redirect would handle any new instances of {{cite music release notes}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I have tweaked the {{
cite music release notes/sandbox}}
(
testcases – such as they are) and have an AWB script to run after I update {{
cite music release notes}}
. I have added code to the script to fix capitalization. In a surprising number of these cites, the parameters are capitalized, so for who knows how long, these citations have not been fully rendered. I have also added code to change |albumlink=
to |titlelink=
because I have found them in the wild. Though neither are supported in the current or sandbox versions, |titlelink=
is supported by {{
cite AV media notes}}
to which all of these {{cite music release notes}}
will eventually migrate.
I have found several instances of citations like the
second example on the template's documentation page. This example should be {{
cite journal}}
not {{cite music release notes}}
. Sigh. And, those that I did find seem to also put the journal's volume and issue number in |id=
. Perhaps I'll see if I can make yet another script that will tease apart the contents of |id=
and just fix these.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite music release notes}}
a while back and found the same issue where other templates should have been used. I think there were some also uses of oddball parameters that were never coded. --
Gadget850
talk 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC){{
cite music release notes}}
from {{
cite music release notes/sandbox}}
and start my AWB script working on adapting the article space templates.|name=
? I ask because {{
Cite music release notes}}
is often used to cite the release notes for singles, and it conflicts with our manual of style if the name of any single referenced in this way can only be formatted in italics, rather than in quotation marks.
A Thousand Doors (
talk |
contribs) 22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC){{
cite music release notes}}
is to cite print material. The title of the printed notes may be the same as the title of a single, but it is still a print document, separate and apart from the single, so the template treats it that way.{{
cite AV media}}
which is supposed to be the proper template for citing singles, albums, video, etc. There is no mechanism available to render the title of a single in quotes. I'll have a look at that and see what can be done about it.Having remembered that I want to finish this, within the next couple of days I will run an AWB script to rename existing instances of {{
cite music release notes}}
to {{
cite AV media notes}}
. Once that is complete, I'll make {{
cite music release notes}}
a redirect to {{cite AV media note}}
and do documentation cleanup.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
{{cite music release notes}}
, |name=
equated to |title=
, not |author=
. Similarly, |PID=
in these templates equated to |id=
and not to |pmid=
. |type=
should be deleted and then |Format=
becomes |type=
. If there were other {{cite music release notes}}
citations that your script fixed, you might want to revisit them. I have fixed the two that Editor Jonesey95 identified.{{
cite music release notes}}
by changing parameter names and fixing capitalization. Apparently I didn't get them all.{{
cite AV media notes}}
citations in pages that were edited by my rename script were misusing |format=
. The script fixed about 120 of them.Done, I think.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a Lua technical note. Due to the massive use of the wp:CS1 cite templates, an upgrade runs over 6-7 weeks to deploy the smallest change into any article. Meanwhile, if a change is needed immediately, it would be faster to hand-edit it into a cite. Instead, if the Lua modules were partially released in phases, then many articles (perhaps 100,000) could get the upgraded cite templates within 2-3 days (15-20x faster). As an example, if the cite templates were changed to invoke the new Lua modules only when parameter "last2=" is used, then that would cause many major articles to have the update perhaps 20x faster. See proposed markup:
{{#if: {{{last2|}}} | {{#invoke: Citation/CS1/new|citation|CitationClass=web}} | {{#invoke: Citation/CS1|citation|CitationClass=web}}<!--old version--> }}
In this proposed case, the early release of the new Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox would be copied into Module:Citation/CS1/new, and then only pages with parameter "last2=" (about 124,000 pages) would have the new features within 3 days, while the remainder of the 2.1 million pages (with CS1 cites) would be reformatted over the 6-7 week period (perhaps after re-checking the results of the 3-day early release). In cases where another page needed immediate update, then setting one cite as "last2= " would cause that page to be reformatted within the 3-day period. Currently, we have occasional complaints that a problem, fixed in the /sandbox version weeks ago, is still annoying users due to the 2-3 month delay in upgrading all 2.1 million pages for a new feature. Because major pages tend to need new features, and major pages tend to use parameter "last2=" then the rapid 20x faster results could be applied in the targeted articles, as if the MediaWiki software had been improved to work much faster. The initial change to such partitioned cite templates would require a total reformat of all 2.1 million pages for 6-7 weeks, and then afterward the 3-day partial release would be possible. Meanwhile, hand-editing of cite formats is still the best method to get instant results in a limited set of pages. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
|last2=
(or whatever) in order to figure out which one it was using. Ugh.