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 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Continuing a conversation started at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Archiveurl, archivedate, deadurl fields have gone missing in the Cite web pop-up as it initially appeared to be change in the Visual Editor. @ Risker, Salix alba, Jdforrester (WMF), and Xover:
The fields archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl are no longer appearing in the Cite web popup in the Visual Editor. As someone who uses the Visual Editor and pre-emptively archives URLs as I write citations, the loss of these fields is a major annoyance as it takes quite a number of clicks to add those fields back in using the Visual Editor. I have been told that the problem has been created by changes to the Template Data here for the the Cite Web Template. Could we please restore these parameters?
We have a tsunanmi of problems with dead link URLs and pre-emptive archiving is the easiest defence against it. And, while I am experimenting with IAB, I find that it often will not archive links that I can successfully archive myself with Internet Archive. Also IAB does rescuing (a service I don't need for what am doing) and there can be errors in this too, which I don't want to incur.
I write a lot of articles and I use a lot of citations. I use the VE because it more productive for content editing (less so for template work) so I will usually be in VE when I create citations. So significantly adding to the creation of a citation by requiring these three fields to individually added is a signficant time delay. Please change the Template Data back to include these fields by default. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 04:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
required
or suggested
in a template's TemplataData block; but then always inserts the parameters in the generated wikimarkup regardless of whether those parameters were used or not. To fix this, VE either needs to stop inserting suggested
parameters in generated markup when they are empty, or it needs a new class of parameters that are "easy to access" but not included by default, or probably both. Or, of course, it could remember each user's favorite params and provide easy access to those, but I don't think VE's current architecture makes that feasible.Note that right now it's editors who both use VE for new citations, use mainly web citations with {{
cite web}}
, and like to preemptively archive them (so |dead-url=
, |archive-url=
, and |archive-date=
would get inserted, usually empty, into every single citation). But the problem is the same for any subset of editors with a preference for various fields. For instance, I most often use {{
cite book}}
and {{
cite journal}}
, and very often want |doi=
, |hdl=
, |via=
, |ref=
, |editor-last=
, |editor-first=
, |editor-link=
, |author-link=
, |chapter=
, etc. Given the status quo, in order for me to get easy access to these, they would have to be set as suggested
and would get inserted into the generated markup of every single citation both created with and edited with VE (VE adds them even when modifying an existing citation, not just when creating a new one). --
Xover (
talk) 06:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
suggested
in {{
cite web}}
I certainly won't object, and would be happy to make the necessary changes to the TemplateData.Which, incidentally, means I would very much like the regulars on this page to chime in with their view (even the ones philosophically opposed to VE and TemplateData as currently implemented: broader discussion will contribute to a clearer and stronger consensus and avoid needless disagreements over similar issues in the future). --
Xover (
talk) 08:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC) [edited to correct clumsy phrasing. --
Xover (
talk) 10:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)]"suggested": true
in the template data causes ve to insert the associated parameter into the wiki source even when the editor does not provide a value for that parameter so that what source editors see after a ve edit is:
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Example |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url=}}
|archive-url=
, |archive-date=
, and |dead-url=
should be marked "suggested": true
in the template data. My !vote is no, they should not. Editor
Kerry Raymond may diligently and laudably archive web sources but I expect that most others do not.|archiveurl=
and associated parameters for a couple reasons. 1. We have automated systems to deal with
WP:link rot, namely
IABot (accessible from the history tab "Fix dead links"), a sophisticated system currently in production with support from WMF and Interet Archive. 2. The scale is off the charts, 10s of millions of links on enwiki alone. In the first 15 years of Wikipedia only about 600k archives were added manually and by other bots. In the past 24 months of IABot running, this has increased to over 3 million with 2500-5000 new adds every day. User input is appreciated, but it makes little difference in the end. I would guess manual additions are 1/10th or less of what IABot is doing. And those manual adds are error prone. My bot WaybackMedic has removed or fixed 100s of thousands of bad archive links added by users and old bots. Manual input is appreciated, but we don't need to burden users with doing something that is automated. --
Green
C 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, since there appears to be no further editors chiming in, nor any ongoing discussion, I'm going to attempt to summarise. If you were pinged below, please verify and indicate whether I have accurately and fairly reflected your arguments. I've tried to be as neutral (and brief) as possible, but I can't preclude the possibility that I've messed it up (if so, I apologise and will correct as best I'm able). Note also that Risker has not edited since their initial post here and may thus currently be unable to participate (i.e. busy IRL), so please do not rely on my summary of their position until they have had a chance to verify it.
|dead-url=
, |archive-url=
, and |archive-date=
as suggested
in the TemplateData. They point to the inconvenience for editors of having to manually add the parameters under discussion to the Visual Editor's template editing dialog when using the Visual Editor to edit citations. They also point out the significant problem of dead links in citations and the consequent value of preemptive archiving, and that this makes
WP:V an applicable policy. They do not consider empty parameters inserted in articles' wikicode to be a problem.suggested
because it causes VE to insert spurious and useless parameters into articles' wikicode, also for editors who do not routinely practice preemptive archiving. They (I) believe this is an issue that should be addressed in VE rather than in TemplateData. They (yes, I) also argue that leaving the parameters optional only negatively affects a relatively small number of editors, while setting them to be suggested would negatively affect both a relatively larger number of editors as well as all articles edited with VE in this manner.suggested
, and argues that the current disagreement reflects the general problems with TemplateData as a system. They point to useless parameters being inserted into articles and the resultant clutter in articles' wikicode. They further argue that the underlying problem must be addressed in VE, and that leaving the parameters optional affects a relatively small number of editors.suggested
, considering the addition of empty parameters to be "no big deal". They also point out that including them by default has an educational effect by encouraging editors to include archives, and that manual addition by a human editor is more efficient and provides a better match between cited URL and archive than an equivalent bot addition. They also add that |dead-url=
does not need to be marked suggested
as it is relatively less frequently used.suggested
, pointing to clutter in wikimarkup. They further argue that manual addition of archives is both error prone and of relatively little utility given the scope of the link rot problem. They argue that the solution based on
IABot and
WaybackMedic (etc.) is both more efficient, with a lower error rate, and with less needless burden placed on human editors.By my assessment this leaves us with no clear policy guidance for either option, and no numerical !vote advantage in either direction. I also see no ongoing discussions that might lead to a consensus, nor any sign that anyone is open to being persuaded by others' arguments. That is, I believe, the very definition of "no consensus".
In light of this, and of a request by one of the participants to that effect elsewhere, I am therefore going to self-revert the removal of the suggested
properties for |dead-url=
, |archive-url=
, and |archive-date=
until such time as we make some kind of progress toward a consensus, or until a possible future VE change makes the issue moot. --
Xover (
talk) 09:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be no convenient way within the Cite book template to cite a chapter that is only numbered. chapter=4 yields "4", which doesn't look like a chapter number, instead of Chapter 4. I'm adding the {{rp}} template, which is fine but less tidy. Clean Copy talk 00:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
rp|Chapter4}}
works for you, why wouldn't this:
{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |chapter=Chapter 4 |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0670031757}}
No citation style would use them for a chapter number.Can you show examples of chapter number handling from published style guides? I don't know that this particular topic has been raised before so if there are published style guides that show numerical chapter headings in a form distinct from alpha chapter headings then we might want to adopt a similar styling.
|at=
seems appropriate:
{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0-670-03175-7 |at=Chapter 4}}
|at=
is underused in my experience of citation templates. |contribution=
, an alias of |chapter=
, works best for titled contributions, including in edited publications.|at=
is that although you can use an external link as the value, you can't then include an access date, because this is only accepted without an error when |url=
or |contribution-url=
are present. @
Trappist the monk: I think |at-url=
would be useful, which would then allow |access-date=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 13:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
is not needed for a book. From the documentation: "Not required for linked documents that do not change. ... Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, ...." –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|at=
is appropriate for a chapter title. In this example, the chapter 'title' is just a number (see
'chapter' 2) so we should render this chapter title just like we render chapter titles that are composed of words. The use of |chapter=Chapter 4
in my previous example is an editorial liberty taken for the benefit of those who are reading the rendered citation though I suppose that it could be omitted:
{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |chapter=2 |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E28G6JSPqz8C&pg=PT12 |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0670031757}}
|chapter=Chapter 4
→ &rft.atitle=Chapter+4
+ &rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DE28G6JSPqz8C%26pg%3DPT12
|at=Chapter 4
→ &rft.pages=Chapter+4
(url is not available in the metadata)|chapter=
when the work we are referencing is a separately-authored part of a book, but in this case the work is the whole book.book
, not bookitem
, so it should have rft.btitle
, but not rft.atitle
.
Kanguole 17:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
is used; it's often desirable to link directly to part of an old scanned book with no OCR, for example, using |contribution=
and |contribution-url=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
is an alias of |chapter=
as long as |contributor=
(aliases and enumerations) is not set.|contribution=
or its aliases when it is separately authored, but also when it's useful to specify |contribution-url=
or its aliases.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 18:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)|chapter=
to referencing ... separately-authored [parts] of a book.
Short of a new parameter "Chapternumber", there seems no perfect solution. For my purposes, however the "at" parameter appears well-suited. Thank you all! Clean Copy talk 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|page=
. Or it could be assigned a number depending on its order of appearance or proximity to a significant element in the source, as long as this is expressly stated (eg "chs. 3-5 [not numbered]", or "Chapter [follows map on p. 12]").
108.182.15.90 (
talk) 16:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)In {{ cite book}} (and anything else using the same underlying implementation), when an external link is added to the title of a book, the translation of the title remains unlinked. But when an external link is added to the title of a chapter, the link is also added to the translation of the chapter title. I'm not sure which of these two behaviors is preferable, but shouldn't this be made more consistent?
— David Eppstein ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
|trans-chapter=
so it did not get changed. Sandbox:
What does the |format=
parameter in {{
Cite AV media}} do? The documentation doesn't say (I could check talk page archives, but I didn't particularly feel like digging currently.)
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, I just need to read more carefully. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
While working on Category:CS1 errors: ISBN, I came across the pages below that had no errors but had had the categories (ISBN and one other) manually added to the page. I don't know why that had been done but... once I deleted the manual insertions, the pages dropped out of Category:CS1 errors: ISBN. It strikes that if it happened on those three, it could have happened elsewhere. Are such manual insertions searchable and removable by a bot?
-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
insource:
searches should be adequate. For example
this search.I've been working on reducing the count at Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored but I've reached the point where it seems that having both title= and chapter= can be useful to the reader. Can someone explain why having both is automatically bad?-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
|chapter=
incorrectly. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
|chapter=
. The actual way to have fixed it is to put the journal title in |journal=
and the article title in |title=
. I went ahead and took care of that one, but a lot of your "fixes" it seems just seem to be removing parameters/information instead of retaining the information but making sure they're in the appropriate fields.
Umimmak (
talk) 02:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
very brokenas Jonesey95 has put it, so one would almost need to check the source itself to confirm what kind of material the source even is and what the
|title=
, |journal=
, |chapter=
etc are, since from what I can tell there is often a domino effect of mistakes where multiple parameters are off. I hope my edit summary/past comment wasn't too brusque; I didn't mean to discourage you.
Umimmak (
talk) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
|title=
and |chapter=
-- if you're citing a chapter from a book both should be present. The error happens flagged when people use |chapter=
with something like {{
Cite journal}}. So to pick a random example from the error category (in
Bunda people):
{{
cite journal}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help)|journal=
to |series=
. However I'm hesitant to make the change myself since I don't know if this is accurate for this particular source, and Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale looks more like a journal than a book series. Like I said, they can be tricky to fix properly.
Umimmak (
talk) 13:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
|department=
though; regular and named parts of the journal that are somewhat chapter-like. For instance, in literature related journals, that publish book reviews, "Works received" may be a pseudo-chapter. Or perhaps "Notices".
Shakespeare Quarterly separates original articles (a scholar publishing their research, in the department "Essays") from book reviews (someone reviewing a book published by a scholar in the field, in the department "Book Reviews") in this manner. In some instances the distinction may be worth making (i.e. include in our citation).
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)|chapter=
is ignored: it's effectively an alias for |department=
. --
Xover (
talk) 13:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Le territoire de la Kamtsha-Lubue (district du Kasai)seems to be a subset of the article
Rapport sur les travaux de la mission médicale antitrypanosomique du Kwango-Kasaï 1920-1923, and neither is like
|department=
s "Obituaries", or "Book Reviews" or "Letters to the Editor" or whatever.
Umimmak (
talk) 14:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems to take us back to how I got involved in the page to begin with. At some point, "the community" decided to suppress error warnings during the edit process in favor of tracking them down through error categories. If that actually worked, we wouldn't have about 2700 pages in Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored, which is one of many categories. Please see Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_39#accessdate_(or_access-date)_and_url; I stumbled into this forum because it seemed perfectly logical to say when I had accessed an off-line resource and the editing process did not tell me I was in error. If you want CS1 errors to work, people have to know it's here. -- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we add an additional element to "cite magazine" called "supplement". Some magazines have additional supplement magazines with them and the parameter supplement would just be the name of the supplement magazine. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|magazine=Scientific American Supplement
, or whatever magazine that is. Or |journal=Astrophysical Journal Supplement
. Or use |issue=Supplement #3
or something.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
So for instance CVG Magazine ran a supplement issue with some of their magazines titled "Hand-held Go!" so I think should be able to:
Govvy ( talk) 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would this be one? Because that should be cited as
{{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)Or if you want to publisher to be listed as well
{{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Author |date=May 1992 |title=Title |magazine=Go! Hand-held Video Games |issue=7 |pages=##}}, shipped with ''Computer Videogames Magazine'' No. 126.
".
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The category is (effectively) empty. I accomplished it with the bot WP:WAYBACKMEDIC (66%) and manual work (33%). There are more problems the bot can fix, but they are not being tracked by CS1|2. -- Green C 00:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
An article I have just created, Henrietta Bingham, has been categorised category:CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty. How can I indicate that there is no uncertainty but that they are all Gregorian dates (the default) for the early 20th century? Thincat ( talk) 08:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
{{cite news|last1=Young|first1=Crit C.|title=Miss Henrietta Bingham is Victorious in Sensational Match at Shelby Park|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/17687735/the_courierjournal/|work=The Courier-Journal|date=August 15, 1919|location=Louisville|page=7|via=newspapers.com|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180314145945/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/17687735/the_courierjournal/|archivedate=March 14, 2018|df=mdy-all}}
in the "Early life" section. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Trappist the monk (
talk ·
contribs) what happened to this option? It no longer seems to work (e.g. {{cite magazine|year=1923|title=none|magazine=Foobar Magazine|issue=23}}
→"none". Foobar Magazine. No. 23. 1923.)?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
or {{
citation|journal=journal...}}
only so:
{{cite journal |year=1923 |title=none |journal=Foobar Journal |issue=23}}
→Foobar Journal (23). 1923.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link){{
cite magazine}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
to pick out subcomponents of journal articles, a practice that was subsequently disallowed and has caused thousands of errors that have remained uncorrected). Making the citation templates harder to use in this way is a mistake, and makes other editors likely to give up on the templates entirely (as I have done in some cases because of their inflexibility). I think the previous behavior should be restored. There is no good reason for deliberately breaking it. To pick one particular use case that I know I've used and is now broken for no good reason, I have often combined multiple reviews of a single book into a single reference (to avoid citation overkill) in a format like this:
[1]References
|magazine=
or |newspaper=
parameters. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|title=none
. It was only as a redirect to {{
cite journal}} that it did so, and that redirect has long been undone. --
Izno (
talk) 00:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)I've been wondering when it's appropriate to use {{ cite interview}} vs. CS1 templates more specific to the type of publication.
Take the following example: The Making Of Donkey Kong Country
I'm unsure if {{cite interview}} should be used in articles that predominately rely on an interview to communicate information, or only for strict question-answer type interviews.
For reference, here's what the citations would look like in both formats: (Note that the citation references the original source of the article, the Retro Gamer magazine.)
Cite interview:
{{cite interview |last=Mayles |first=Gregg |subject-link=Gregg Mayles |interviewer=Stuart Hunt |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |work=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71}}
Mayles, Gregg (21 June 2010). "The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country". Retro Gamer (Interview). Interviewed by Stuart Hunt. Imagine Publishing. pp. 68–71.
Cite magazine:
{{cite magazine |last=Hunt |first=Stuart |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |department=The Making Of... |magazine=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71}}
Hunt, Stuart (21 June 2010). "The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country". The Making Of... Retro Gamer. Imagine Publishing. pp. 68–71.
I'm always happy to listen to other perspectives, so that's why I posted my question here. I'm also willing to improve the parameters of the above citations, if one has suggested improvements. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 06:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
:
{{cite interview |last=Carter |first=Jimmy |interviewer-last=Scheer |interviewer-first=Robert |title=Playboy Interview: Jimmy Carter |work=Playboy |url=http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-jimmy-carter |date=November 1976}}
{{cite interview |last=Obama |first=Barack |interviewer-last=Inskeep |interviewer-first=Steve |title=Steve Inskeep Interviews President Obama |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEjeKrZxDFQ |date= 15 December 2016 |work=Morning Edition |publisher=NPR |via=YouTube}}
{{cite magazine |interviewer-last=Hunt |interviewer-first=Stuart |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |department=The Making Of... |magazine=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71 |first=SubjectFirst |last=SubjectLast}}
Is there no output for accessdate? Govvy ( talk) 22:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
.citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
.
Lingzhi ♦
(talk) 00:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Is there any way to specify the rank of an editor in {{ Cite magazine}}? Nintendo Power, for example, has an Editor-in-Chief, 2 Senior editors, and 6 (regular) editors. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|editor1=
, |editor2=
, ...)|ref=
field to prescribe an abbreviated reference template). Is it too messy to list them all, or would it be okay? I personally like including everyone, but I can imagine how it might obscure the other fields with the pile-on.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 21:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
which contains an html comment; it's as if the author parameter were blank, but editors can see the comment. I would not put the magazine editor in the citation.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 00:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
- I need at least one name. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 01:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
|author=
, it's fine. |editor=
is intended for handling the editor, and that's the perfect use case for |editor=
.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
See Dipak_Nandy#Publications [2]
*{{Cite book |title=The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle |contribution=Introduction |contributor1-last=Dipak |contributor1-first=Nandy |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Douglas |editor-last1=Jefferson |editor-first2=Graham |editor-last2=Martin |publisher=Open University Press |year=1982 |isbn=033510181X |pages=1–8 }} *{{Cite book |title=Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism |contribution=Introduction |work=Literature and Liberation: Selected Essays |first=Arnold |last=Kettle |authorlink=Arnold Kettle |contributor1-last=Dipak |contributor1-first=Nandy |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Graham |editor-last1=Martin |editor-first2=W.R. |editor-last2=Owens |publisher=Manchester University Press |year=1988 |isbn=0719025419 |pages=1–17 }}
{{
cite book}}
: |contributor=
requires |author=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |contributor=
ignored (
help); |work=
ignored (
help)Are raising the errors:
For the first one, there is no author in this scope. There are contributors, there are editors (credited on the jacket). There is no overall "author" as such.
For the second, the contributor is rejected because |work=
has also been used. Why? This is an assumption that the book cited is simple and can have at most a two-level structure. This academic tome has three, with separate authorship.
Suggestions? Or just move everyone to simply being "authors", or else abandon the template altogether and simply paste in the results? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
/|contributor=
pair are intended for use when the contribution is by a writer who is not the primary author of the whole.|contribution=
; |title=
gets the title of Kettle's book, and |work=
goes away:
{{Cite book |title= Literature and Liberation: Selected Essays |contribution=Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism |first=Arnold |last=Kettle |authorlink=Arnold Kettle |contributor1-last=Dipak |contributor1-first=Nandy |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Graham |editor-last1=Martin |editor-first2=W.R. |editor-last2=Owens |publisher=Manchester University Press |year=1988 |isbn=0719025419}}
{{Cite book |title=The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle |chapter=Introduction |last=Dipak |first=Nandy |author-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Douglas |editor-last1=Jefferson |editor-first2=Graham |editor-last2=Martin |publisher=Open University Press |year=1982 |isbn=033510181X}}
In some references, I cite published articles (with cite journal) which are also publicly available as pdf format preprints at arxiv.org. I seem to recall being called out by another editor to not link to the preprint in the |url=
parameter, and only use the |arxiv=
parameter. But I can't find such a rule spelled out at
Template:Cite journal or anywhere else. So what is the rule, and if there is none what do you think: is it a good idea to use both |url=
and |arxiv=
?
Rontombontom (
talk) 17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
|arxiv=
, the arxiv link is marked as free to read, so readers know if they click on that one, they'll be taken to something they can read. E.g.
On the issue of whether to use the |date=
parameter or the |year=
parameter when only the year (not the month or day) of the publication is supplied, the
template documentation says:
Use of
|date=
is recommended unless all of the following conditions are met:
- The template uses
|ref=harv
, or the template is{{ citation}}
, or|mode=cs2
- The
|date=
format is YYYY-MM-DD.- The citation requires a
CITEREF
disambiguator.
Since most articles don't meet these criteria, I have been using |date=1998
instead of |year=1998
. I always use the Source Editor, though, so I'm able to use the parameter of my choice. Both the
Visual Editor and the editing toolbar in the Source Editor still insert a |year=
parameter if the user only supplies a year. Is this something that should be fixed, or am I missing something? It appears the Visual Editor isn't following best practice. (After spending an hour investigating, I wonder if the root of problem isn't in the template data, rather than the coding of the Visual Editor.) Thanks. –
void
xor 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
harv}}
and / or {{
sfn}}
short form referencing and some of those references need to be disambiguated. The yyyy-mm-dd date format does not support year disambiguation (|date=2012a-07-04
) so to get round that, a cs1|2 citation must use both |date=2012-07-04
and |year=2012a
.|date=
and |year=
are aliases. Using |year=10 July 2014
'works' but is semantically incorrect.|date=1998
is perfectly legitimate because the year is a 'date' with year precision.@ David Eppstein: Actually, the MOS does allow ISO 8601 publication dates. See the parenthetical note "(however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided)" at MOS:DATEUNIFY.
@
Trappist the monk: Question is: Is |year=1998
correct (outside of disambiguating Harvard references, of course)? –
void
xor 22:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
|year=1998
just as it is acceptable to use |date=1998
; both may be disambituated. That was why I wrote that [for] the most part,The only time that these two parameters are not aliases is when a whole date in ymd format is desired and must be disambiguated. Semantically,|date=
and|year=
are aliases.
|date=
applies to all forms of acceptable dates so it is preferred over |year=
which should hold only the year portion of a date (semantics again).I've been working on
Category:CS1 maint: ASIN uses ISBN and I keep seeing |pages=
entries in {{
cite book}} which have a single number. I think some editors are using the parameter to show the number of pages in a book (e.g.: pages=385) rather than the pages on which information can be found (e.g.: pages=146–149). Can that error be trapped? Having asked that, I think the information would need to be sent to the "offending" editor's talk page because one of us tracking down technical glitches wouldn't necessarily have the book cited or the time (inclination?) to search out and make the correction.--
Georgia Army Vet
Contribs
Talk 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
|date=
or |page(s)=
?|page=
or |pages=
is accepted (it has always been thus). I don't know how to determine whether a single number (345) indicates a page within the source or the total number (345) of pages in the source without having the source in my hand. Some time editors write |page=345 pp
but that's pretty rare.A single number in-- it was my understanding that if it's only a single number, it needed to be in|page=
or|pages=
is accepted (it has always been thus).
|page=
, not |pages=
? Does it end up not mattering which of the two is used?|pages=
indicates they're not using it the intended way (i.e., they're noting the total number of pages, not the page number with the relevant information), but I suppose that editors' intentions can't always be predicted and that corrections based on assumptions shouldn't be implemented.
Umimmak (
talk) 01:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
|page=
with 1 number:|page=
with 2 numbers:|pages=
with 1 number:|pages=
with 2 numbers:|pages=
to p. when there's only 1 page given, but it doesn't correct |page=
to pp. when there are multiple pages given.|page=
doesn't correct is for those rare edge cases where page numbers actually include hyphens.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)|asin=
, I wasn't paying attention to how |pages=
rendered when reviewing or after saving. I edited as lot of pages in the past few days and can't remember where I saw the "fault." I thought I'd read that the use of a particular parameter was important but I can't find it at
Template:Cite book. If there's no issue, thanks and please disregard. BTW, I zeroed out
Category:CS1 errors: ISBN but new ones keep popping up; I have a watch on it.--
Georgia Army Vet
Contribs
Talk 02:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Would others agree with changing Lowercase sigmabot archive frequency to every 2 weeks? Keeping discussions for a month seems excessive, and it might actually limit discussion because there's too many things in the section list. Looking through previous discussions on the current page, I see no discussions which were continued past the 2 week mark, so that's why this is what I recommend.
I'm even in favor of archiving after 1 week, as "Working on Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters" was the only discussion which was resumed after 1 week, and it resumed under a new subheadline. A week probably gives enough lag-time so anyone actively interested can participate. Many discussions are also simple questions which are resolved within the day, so an archiving frequency of 1 week would allow for those discussions to be quickly archived, leaving space for the more involved discussions. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
to the top, and it won't archive until you remove the comment.@
Trappist the monk,
Umimmak,
Izno,
David Eppstein, and
Redrose64: Does anyone else have a problem with this talk page being archived every 2 weeks, as long as {{subst:DNAU}}
is added to all long-ongoing unresolved threads?
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 02:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
can be added, which allows unresolved issues to be very clear.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
to the top, regardless of how long you anticipate before it will be solved. For resolved questions, e.g. "How do I use this parameter", "how do I deal with this error" type questions, they should be archived more quickly. This change would even be better for more long-term issues, because they would be more prominent.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 15:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
after the discussion is stale, which most people won't because they'll forgot to do it, if they even remembered to do in the first time around, leading to a lose-lose situation that it's more work for editors, AND you get stuck with 30+ threads because most DNAU threads get forgotten and bots don't take care of them anymore.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC){{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
were enabled late March 2013. This
revision history chart may be interesting.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 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Continuing a conversation started at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Archiveurl, archivedate, deadurl fields have gone missing in the Cite web pop-up as it initially appeared to be change in the Visual Editor. @ Risker, Salix alba, Jdforrester (WMF), and Xover:
The fields archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl are no longer appearing in the Cite web popup in the Visual Editor. As someone who uses the Visual Editor and pre-emptively archives URLs as I write citations, the loss of these fields is a major annoyance as it takes quite a number of clicks to add those fields back in using the Visual Editor. I have been told that the problem has been created by changes to the Template Data here for the the Cite Web Template. Could we please restore these parameters?
We have a tsunanmi of problems with dead link URLs and pre-emptive archiving is the easiest defence against it. And, while I am experimenting with IAB, I find that it often will not archive links that I can successfully archive myself with Internet Archive. Also IAB does rescuing (a service I don't need for what am doing) and there can be errors in this too, which I don't want to incur.
I write a lot of articles and I use a lot of citations. I use the VE because it more productive for content editing (less so for template work) so I will usually be in VE when I create citations. So significantly adding to the creation of a citation by requiring these three fields to individually added is a signficant time delay. Please change the Template Data back to include these fields by default. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 04:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
required
or suggested
in a template's TemplataData block; but then always inserts the parameters in the generated wikimarkup regardless of whether those parameters were used or not. To fix this, VE either needs to stop inserting suggested
parameters in generated markup when they are empty, or it needs a new class of parameters that are "easy to access" but not included by default, or probably both. Or, of course, it could remember each user's favorite params and provide easy access to those, but I don't think VE's current architecture makes that feasible.Note that right now it's editors who both use VE for new citations, use mainly web citations with {{
cite web}}
, and like to preemptively archive them (so |dead-url=
, |archive-url=
, and |archive-date=
would get inserted, usually empty, into every single citation). But the problem is the same for any subset of editors with a preference for various fields. For instance, I most often use {{
cite book}}
and {{
cite journal}}
, and very often want |doi=
, |hdl=
, |via=
, |ref=
, |editor-last=
, |editor-first=
, |editor-link=
, |author-link=
, |chapter=
, etc. Given the status quo, in order for me to get easy access to these, they would have to be set as suggested
and would get inserted into the generated markup of every single citation both created with and edited with VE (VE adds them even when modifying an existing citation, not just when creating a new one). --
Xover (
talk) 06:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
suggested
in {{
cite web}}
I certainly won't object, and would be happy to make the necessary changes to the TemplateData.Which, incidentally, means I would very much like the regulars on this page to chime in with their view (even the ones philosophically opposed to VE and TemplateData as currently implemented: broader discussion will contribute to a clearer and stronger consensus and avoid needless disagreements over similar issues in the future). --
Xover (
talk) 08:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC) [edited to correct clumsy phrasing. --
Xover (
talk) 10:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)]"suggested": true
in the template data causes ve to insert the associated parameter into the wiki source even when the editor does not provide a value for that parameter so that what source editors see after a ve edit is:
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Example |archive-url= |archive-date= |dead-url=}}
|archive-url=
, |archive-date=
, and |dead-url=
should be marked "suggested": true
in the template data. My !vote is no, they should not. Editor
Kerry Raymond may diligently and laudably archive web sources but I expect that most others do not.|archiveurl=
and associated parameters for a couple reasons. 1. We have automated systems to deal with
WP:link rot, namely
IABot (accessible from the history tab "Fix dead links"), a sophisticated system currently in production with support from WMF and Interet Archive. 2. The scale is off the charts, 10s of millions of links on enwiki alone. In the first 15 years of Wikipedia only about 600k archives were added manually and by other bots. In the past 24 months of IABot running, this has increased to over 3 million with 2500-5000 new adds every day. User input is appreciated, but it makes little difference in the end. I would guess manual additions are 1/10th or less of what IABot is doing. And those manual adds are error prone. My bot WaybackMedic has removed or fixed 100s of thousands of bad archive links added by users and old bots. Manual input is appreciated, but we don't need to burden users with doing something that is automated. --
Green
C 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, since there appears to be no further editors chiming in, nor any ongoing discussion, I'm going to attempt to summarise. If you were pinged below, please verify and indicate whether I have accurately and fairly reflected your arguments. I've tried to be as neutral (and brief) as possible, but I can't preclude the possibility that I've messed it up (if so, I apologise and will correct as best I'm able). Note also that Risker has not edited since their initial post here and may thus currently be unable to participate (i.e. busy IRL), so please do not rely on my summary of their position until they have had a chance to verify it.
|dead-url=
, |archive-url=
, and |archive-date=
as suggested
in the TemplateData. They point to the inconvenience for editors of having to manually add the parameters under discussion to the Visual Editor's template editing dialog when using the Visual Editor to edit citations. They also point out the significant problem of dead links in citations and the consequent value of preemptive archiving, and that this makes
WP:V an applicable policy. They do not consider empty parameters inserted in articles' wikicode to be a problem.suggested
because it causes VE to insert spurious and useless parameters into articles' wikicode, also for editors who do not routinely practice preemptive archiving. They (I) believe this is an issue that should be addressed in VE rather than in TemplateData. They (yes, I) also argue that leaving the parameters optional only negatively affects a relatively small number of editors, while setting them to be suggested would negatively affect both a relatively larger number of editors as well as all articles edited with VE in this manner.suggested
, and argues that the current disagreement reflects the general problems with TemplateData as a system. They point to useless parameters being inserted into articles and the resultant clutter in articles' wikicode. They further argue that the underlying problem must be addressed in VE, and that leaving the parameters optional affects a relatively small number of editors.suggested
, considering the addition of empty parameters to be "no big deal". They also point out that including them by default has an educational effect by encouraging editors to include archives, and that manual addition by a human editor is more efficient and provides a better match between cited URL and archive than an equivalent bot addition. They also add that |dead-url=
does not need to be marked suggested
as it is relatively less frequently used.suggested
, pointing to clutter in wikimarkup. They further argue that manual addition of archives is both error prone and of relatively little utility given the scope of the link rot problem. They argue that the solution based on
IABot and
WaybackMedic (etc.) is both more efficient, with a lower error rate, and with less needless burden placed on human editors.By my assessment this leaves us with no clear policy guidance for either option, and no numerical !vote advantage in either direction. I also see no ongoing discussions that might lead to a consensus, nor any sign that anyone is open to being persuaded by others' arguments. That is, I believe, the very definition of "no consensus".
In light of this, and of a request by one of the participants to that effect elsewhere, I am therefore going to self-revert the removal of the suggested
properties for |dead-url=
, |archive-url=
, and |archive-date=
until such time as we make some kind of progress toward a consensus, or until a possible future VE change makes the issue moot. --
Xover (
talk) 09:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be no convenient way within the Cite book template to cite a chapter that is only numbered. chapter=4 yields "4", which doesn't look like a chapter number, instead of Chapter 4. I'm adding the {{rp}} template, which is fine but less tidy. Clean Copy talk 00:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
rp|Chapter4}}
works for you, why wouldn't this:
{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |chapter=Chapter 4 |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0670031757}}
No citation style would use them for a chapter number.Can you show examples of chapter number handling from published style guides? I don't know that this particular topic has been raised before so if there are published style guides that show numerical chapter headings in a form distinct from alpha chapter headings then we might want to adopt a similar styling.
|at=
seems appropriate:
{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0-670-03175-7 |at=Chapter 4}}
|at=
is underused in my experience of citation templates. |contribution=
, an alias of |chapter=
, works best for titled contributions, including in edited publications.|at=
is that although you can use an external link as the value, you can't then include an access date, because this is only accepted without an error when |url=
or |contribution-url=
are present. @
Trappist the monk: I think |at-url=
would be useful, which would then allow |access-date=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 13:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
is not needed for a book. From the documentation: "Not required for linked documents that do not change. ... Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, ...." –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|at=
is appropriate for a chapter title. In this example, the chapter 'title' is just a number (see
'chapter' 2) so we should render this chapter title just like we render chapter titles that are composed of words. The use of |chapter=Chapter 4
in my previous example is an editorial liberty taken for the benefit of those who are reading the rendered citation though I suppose that it could be omitted:
{{cite book |last1=Keneally |first1=Thomas |chapter=2 |title=Abraham Lincoln: A Life |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E28G6JSPqz8C&pg=PT12 |date=2002 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0670031757}}
|chapter=Chapter 4
→ &rft.atitle=Chapter+4
+ &rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DE28G6JSPqz8C%26pg%3DPT12
|at=Chapter 4
→ &rft.pages=Chapter+4
(url is not available in the metadata)|chapter=
when the work we are referencing is a separately-authored part of a book, but in this case the work is the whole book.book
, not bookitem
, so it should have rft.btitle
, but not rft.atitle
.
Kanguole 17:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
is used; it's often desirable to link directly to part of an old scanned book with no OCR, for example, using |contribution=
and |contribution-url=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
is an alias of |chapter=
as long as |contributor=
(aliases and enumerations) is not set.|contribution=
or its aliases when it is separately authored, but also when it's useful to specify |contribution-url=
or its aliases.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 18:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)|chapter=
to referencing ... separately-authored [parts] of a book.
Short of a new parameter "Chapternumber", there seems no perfect solution. For my purposes, however the "at" parameter appears well-suited. Thank you all! Clean Copy talk 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
|page=
. Or it could be assigned a number depending on its order of appearance or proximity to a significant element in the source, as long as this is expressly stated (eg "chs. 3-5 [not numbered]", or "Chapter [follows map on p. 12]").
108.182.15.90 (
talk) 16:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)In {{ cite book}} (and anything else using the same underlying implementation), when an external link is added to the title of a book, the translation of the title remains unlinked. But when an external link is added to the title of a chapter, the link is also added to the translation of the chapter title. I'm not sure which of these two behaviors is preferable, but shouldn't this be made more consistent?
— David Eppstein ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
|trans-chapter=
so it did not get changed. Sandbox:
What does the |format=
parameter in {{
Cite AV media}} do? The documentation doesn't say (I could check talk page archives, but I didn't particularly feel like digging currently.)
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, I just need to read more carefully. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
While working on Category:CS1 errors: ISBN, I came across the pages below that had no errors but had had the categories (ISBN and one other) manually added to the page. I don't know why that had been done but... once I deleted the manual insertions, the pages dropped out of Category:CS1 errors: ISBN. It strikes that if it happened on those three, it could have happened elsewhere. Are such manual insertions searchable and removable by a bot?
-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
insource:
searches should be adequate. For example
this search.I've been working on reducing the count at Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored but I've reached the point where it seems that having both title= and chapter= can be useful to the reader. Can someone explain why having both is automatically bad?-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
|chapter=
incorrectly. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
|chapter=
. The actual way to have fixed it is to put the journal title in |journal=
and the article title in |title=
. I went ahead and took care of that one, but a lot of your "fixes" it seems just seem to be removing parameters/information instead of retaining the information but making sure they're in the appropriate fields.
Umimmak (
talk) 02:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
very brokenas Jonesey95 has put it, so one would almost need to check the source itself to confirm what kind of material the source even is and what the
|title=
, |journal=
, |chapter=
etc are, since from what I can tell there is often a domino effect of mistakes where multiple parameters are off. I hope my edit summary/past comment wasn't too brusque; I didn't mean to discourage you.
Umimmak (
talk) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
|title=
and |chapter=
-- if you're citing a chapter from a book both should be present. The error happens flagged when people use |chapter=
with something like {{
Cite journal}}. So to pick a random example from the error category (in
Bunda people):
{{
cite journal}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help)|journal=
to |series=
. However I'm hesitant to make the change myself since I don't know if this is accurate for this particular source, and Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale looks more like a journal than a book series. Like I said, they can be tricky to fix properly.
Umimmak (
talk) 13:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
|department=
though; regular and named parts of the journal that are somewhat chapter-like. For instance, in literature related journals, that publish book reviews, "Works received" may be a pseudo-chapter. Or perhaps "Notices".
Shakespeare Quarterly separates original articles (a scholar publishing their research, in the department "Essays") from book reviews (someone reviewing a book published by a scholar in the field, in the department "Book Reviews") in this manner. In some instances the distinction may be worth making (i.e. include in our citation).
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)|chapter=
is ignored: it's effectively an alias for |department=
. --
Xover (
talk) 13:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Le territoire de la Kamtsha-Lubue (district du Kasai)seems to be a subset of the article
Rapport sur les travaux de la mission médicale antitrypanosomique du Kwango-Kasaï 1920-1923, and neither is like
|department=
s "Obituaries", or "Book Reviews" or "Letters to the Editor" or whatever.
Umimmak (
talk) 14:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
This seems to take us back to how I got involved in the page to begin with. At some point, "the community" decided to suppress error warnings during the edit process in favor of tracking them down through error categories. If that actually worked, we wouldn't have about 2700 pages in Category:CS1 errors: chapter ignored, which is one of many categories. Please see Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_39#accessdate_(or_access-date)_and_url; I stumbled into this forum because it seemed perfectly logical to say when I had accessed an off-line resource and the editing process did not tell me I was in error. If you want CS1 errors to work, people have to know it's here. -- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Can we add an additional element to "cite magazine" called "supplement". Some magazines have additional supplement magazines with them and the parameter supplement would just be the name of the supplement magazine. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|magazine=Scientific American Supplement
, or whatever magazine that is. Or |journal=Astrophysical Journal Supplement
. Or use |issue=Supplement #3
or something.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
So for instance CVG Magazine ran a supplement issue with some of their magazines titled "Hand-held Go!" so I think should be able to:
Govvy ( talk) 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would this be one? Because that should be cited as
{{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)Or if you want to publisher to be listed as well
{{
cite magazine}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Author |date=May 1992 |title=Title |magazine=Go! Hand-held Video Games |issue=7 |pages=##}}, shipped with ''Computer Videogames Magazine'' No. 126.
".
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The category is (effectively) empty. I accomplished it with the bot WP:WAYBACKMEDIC (66%) and manual work (33%). There are more problems the bot can fix, but they are not being tracked by CS1|2. -- Green C 00:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
An article I have just created, Henrietta Bingham, has been categorised category:CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty. How can I indicate that there is no uncertainty but that they are all Gregorian dates (the default) for the early 20th century? Thincat ( talk) 08:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
{{cite news|last1=Young|first1=Crit C.|title=Miss Henrietta Bingham is Victorious in Sensational Match at Shelby Park|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/17687735/the_courierjournal/|work=The Courier-Journal|date=August 15, 1919|location=Louisville|page=7|via=newspapers.com|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180314145945/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/17687735/the_courierjournal/|archivedate=March 14, 2018|df=mdy-all}}
in the "Early life" section. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Trappist the monk (
talk ·
contribs) what happened to this option? It no longer seems to work (e.g. {{cite magazine|year=1923|title=none|magazine=Foobar Magazine|issue=23}}
→"none". Foobar Magazine. No. 23. 1923.)?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
or {{
citation|journal=journal...}}
only so:
{{cite journal |year=1923 |title=none |journal=Foobar Journal |issue=23}}
→Foobar Journal (23). 1923.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link){{
cite magazine}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
to pick out subcomponents of journal articles, a practice that was subsequently disallowed and has caused thousands of errors that have remained uncorrected). Making the citation templates harder to use in this way is a mistake, and makes other editors likely to give up on the templates entirely (as I have done in some cases because of their inflexibility). I think the previous behavior should be restored. There is no good reason for deliberately breaking it. To pick one particular use case that I know I've used and is now broken for no good reason, I have often combined multiple reviews of a single book into a single reference (to avoid citation overkill) in a format like this:
[1]References
|magazine=
or |newspaper=
parameters. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|title=none
. It was only as a redirect to {{
cite journal}} that it did so, and that redirect has long been undone. --
Izno (
talk) 00:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)I've been wondering when it's appropriate to use {{ cite interview}} vs. CS1 templates more specific to the type of publication.
Take the following example: The Making Of Donkey Kong Country
I'm unsure if {{cite interview}} should be used in articles that predominately rely on an interview to communicate information, or only for strict question-answer type interviews.
For reference, here's what the citations would look like in both formats: (Note that the citation references the original source of the article, the Retro Gamer magazine.)
Cite interview:
{{cite interview |last=Mayles |first=Gregg |subject-link=Gregg Mayles |interviewer=Stuart Hunt |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |work=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71}}
Mayles, Gregg (21 June 2010). "The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country". Retro Gamer (Interview). Interviewed by Stuart Hunt. Imagine Publishing. pp. 68–71.
Cite magazine:
{{cite magazine |last=Hunt |first=Stuart |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |department=The Making Of... |magazine=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71}}
Hunt, Stuart (21 June 2010). "The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country". The Making Of... Retro Gamer. Imagine Publishing. pp. 68–71.
I'm always happy to listen to other perspectives, so that's why I posted my question here. I'm also willing to improve the parameters of the above citations, if one has suggested improvements. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 06:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
:
{{cite interview |last=Carter |first=Jimmy |interviewer-last=Scheer |interviewer-first=Robert |title=Playboy Interview: Jimmy Carter |work=Playboy |url=http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-jimmy-carter |date=November 1976}}
{{cite interview |last=Obama |first=Barack |interviewer-last=Inskeep |interviewer-first=Steve |title=Steve Inskeep Interviews President Obama |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEjeKrZxDFQ |date= 15 December 2016 |work=Morning Edition |publisher=NPR |via=YouTube}}
{{cite magazine |interviewer-last=Hunt |interviewer-first=Stuart |date=21 June 2010 |title=The Making Of... Donkey Kong Country |department=The Making Of... |magazine=[[Retro Gamer]] |publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]] |pages=68-71 |first=SubjectFirst |last=SubjectLast}}
Is there no output for accessdate? Govvy ( talk) 22:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
.citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */
.
Lingzhi ♦
(talk) 00:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Is there any way to specify the rank of an editor in {{ Cite magazine}}? Nintendo Power, for example, has an Editor-in-Chief, 2 Senior editors, and 6 (regular) editors. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
|editor1=
, |editor2=
, ...)|ref=
field to prescribe an abbreviated reference template). Is it too messy to list them all, or would it be okay? I personally like including everyone, but I can imagine how it might obscure the other fields with the pile-on.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 21:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
which contains an html comment; it's as if the author parameter were blank, but editors can see the comment. I would not put the magazine editor in the citation.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 00:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
- I need at least one name. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 01:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
|author=
, it's fine. |editor=
is intended for handling the editor, and that's the perfect use case for |editor=
.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
See Dipak_Nandy#Publications [2]
*{{Cite book |title=The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle |contribution=Introduction |contributor1-last=Dipak |contributor1-first=Nandy |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Douglas |editor-last1=Jefferson |editor-first2=Graham |editor-last2=Martin |publisher=Open University Press |year=1982 |isbn=033510181X |pages=1–8 }} *{{Cite book |title=Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism |contribution=Introduction |work=Literature and Liberation: Selected Essays |first=Arnold |last=Kettle |authorlink=Arnold Kettle |contributor1-last=Dipak |contributor1-first=Nandy |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Graham |editor-last1=Martin |editor-first2=W.R. |editor-last2=Owens |publisher=Manchester University Press |year=1988 |isbn=0719025419 |pages=1–17 }}
{{
cite book}}
: |contributor=
requires |author=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: |contributor=
ignored (
help); |work=
ignored (
help)Are raising the errors:
For the first one, there is no author in this scope. There are contributors, there are editors (credited on the jacket). There is no overall "author" as such.
For the second, the contributor is rejected because |work=
has also been used. Why? This is an assumption that the book cited is simple and can have at most a two-level structure. This academic tome has three, with separate authorship.
Suggestions? Or just move everyone to simply being "authors", or else abandon the template altogether and simply paste in the results? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
|contribution=
/|contributor=
pair are intended for use when the contribution is by a writer who is not the primary author of the whole.|contribution=
; |title=
gets the title of Kettle's book, and |work=
goes away:
{{Cite book |title= Literature and Liberation: Selected Essays |contribution=Arnold Kettle and English Marxist Literary Criticism |first=Arnold |last=Kettle |authorlink=Arnold Kettle |contributor1-last=Dipak |contributor1-first=Nandy |contributor1-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Graham |editor-last1=Martin |editor-first2=W.R. |editor-last2=Owens |publisher=Manchester University Press |year=1988 |isbn=0719025419}}
{{Cite book |title=The Uses of Fiction: Essays on the Modern Novel in Honour of Arnold Kettle |chapter=Introduction |last=Dipak |first=Nandy |author-link=Dipak Nandy |editor-first1=Douglas |editor-last1=Jefferson |editor-first2=Graham |editor-last2=Martin |publisher=Open University Press |year=1982 |isbn=033510181X}}
In some references, I cite published articles (with cite journal) which are also publicly available as pdf format preprints at arxiv.org. I seem to recall being called out by another editor to not link to the preprint in the |url=
parameter, and only use the |arxiv=
parameter. But I can't find such a rule spelled out at
Template:Cite journal or anywhere else. So what is the rule, and if there is none what do you think: is it a good idea to use both |url=
and |arxiv=
?
Rontombontom (
talk) 17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
|arxiv=
, the arxiv link is marked as free to read, so readers know if they click on that one, they'll be taken to something they can read. E.g.
On the issue of whether to use the |date=
parameter or the |year=
parameter when only the year (not the month or day) of the publication is supplied, the
template documentation says:
Use of
|date=
is recommended unless all of the following conditions are met:
- The template uses
|ref=harv
, or the template is{{ citation}}
, or|mode=cs2
- The
|date=
format is YYYY-MM-DD.- The citation requires a
CITEREF
disambiguator.
Since most articles don't meet these criteria, I have been using |date=1998
instead of |year=1998
. I always use the Source Editor, though, so I'm able to use the parameter of my choice. Both the
Visual Editor and the editing toolbar in the Source Editor still insert a |year=
parameter if the user only supplies a year. Is this something that should be fixed, or am I missing something? It appears the Visual Editor isn't following best practice. (After spending an hour investigating, I wonder if the root of problem isn't in the template data, rather than the coding of the Visual Editor.) Thanks. –
void
xor 21:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
harv}}
and / or {{
sfn}}
short form referencing and some of those references need to be disambiguated. The yyyy-mm-dd date format does not support year disambiguation (|date=2012a-07-04
) so to get round that, a cs1|2 citation must use both |date=2012-07-04
and |year=2012a
.|date=
and |year=
are aliases. Using |year=10 July 2014
'works' but is semantically incorrect.|date=1998
is perfectly legitimate because the year is a 'date' with year precision.@ David Eppstein: Actually, the MOS does allow ISO 8601 publication dates. See the parenthetical note "(however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided)" at MOS:DATEUNIFY.
@
Trappist the monk: Question is: Is |year=1998
correct (outside of disambiguating Harvard references, of course)? –
void
xor 22:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
|year=1998
just as it is acceptable to use |date=1998
; both may be disambituated. That was why I wrote that [for] the most part,The only time that these two parameters are not aliases is when a whole date in ymd format is desired and must be disambiguated. Semantically,|date=
and|year=
are aliases.
|date=
applies to all forms of acceptable dates so it is preferred over |year=
which should hold only the year portion of a date (semantics again).I've been working on
Category:CS1 maint: ASIN uses ISBN and I keep seeing |pages=
entries in {{
cite book}} which have a single number. I think some editors are using the parameter to show the number of pages in a book (e.g.: pages=385) rather than the pages on which information can be found (e.g.: pages=146–149). Can that error be trapped? Having asked that, I think the information would need to be sent to the "offending" editor's talk page because one of us tracking down technical glitches wouldn't necessarily have the book cited or the time (inclination?) to search out and make the correction.--
Georgia Army Vet
Contribs
Talk 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
|date=
or |page(s)=
?|page=
or |pages=
is accepted (it has always been thus). I don't know how to determine whether a single number (345) indicates a page within the source or the total number (345) of pages in the source without having the source in my hand. Some time editors write |page=345 pp
but that's pretty rare.A single number in-- it was my understanding that if it's only a single number, it needed to be in|page=
or|pages=
is accepted (it has always been thus).
|page=
, not |pages=
? Does it end up not mattering which of the two is used?|pages=
indicates they're not using it the intended way (i.e., they're noting the total number of pages, not the page number with the relevant information), but I suppose that editors' intentions can't always be predicted and that corrections based on assumptions shouldn't be implemented.
Umimmak (
talk) 01:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
|page=
with 1 number:|page=
with 2 numbers:|pages=
with 1 number:|pages=
with 2 numbers:|pages=
to p. when there's only 1 page given, but it doesn't correct |page=
to pp. when there are multiple pages given.|page=
doesn't correct is for those rare edge cases where page numbers actually include hyphens.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 02:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)|asin=
, I wasn't paying attention to how |pages=
rendered when reviewing or after saving. I edited as lot of pages in the past few days and can't remember where I saw the "fault." I thought I'd read that the use of a particular parameter was important but I can't find it at
Template:Cite book. If there's no issue, thanks and please disregard. BTW, I zeroed out
Category:CS1 errors: ISBN but new ones keep popping up; I have a watch on it.--
Georgia Army Vet
Contribs
Talk 02:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Would others agree with changing Lowercase sigmabot archive frequency to every 2 weeks? Keeping discussions for a month seems excessive, and it might actually limit discussion because there's too many things in the section list. Looking through previous discussions on the current page, I see no discussions which were continued past the 2 week mark, so that's why this is what I recommend.
I'm even in favor of archiving after 1 week, as "Working on Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters" was the only discussion which was resumed after 1 week, and it resumed under a new subheadline. A week probably gives enough lag-time so anyone actively interested can participate. Many discussions are also simple questions which are resolved within the day, so an archiving frequency of 1 week would allow for those discussions to be quickly archived, leaving space for the more involved discussions. E to the Pi times i ( talk | contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
to the top, and it won't archive until you remove the comment.@
Trappist the monk,
Umimmak,
Izno,
David Eppstein, and
Redrose64: Does anyone else have a problem with this talk page being archived every 2 weeks, as long as {{subst:DNAU}}
is added to all long-ongoing unresolved threads?
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 02:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
can be added, which allows unresolved issues to be very clear.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
to the top, regardless of how long you anticipate before it will be solved. For resolved questions, e.g. "How do I use this parameter", "how do I deal with this error" type questions, they should be archived more quickly. This change would even be better for more long-term issues, because they would be more prominent.
E to the Pi times i (
talk |
contribs) 15:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:DNAU}}
after the discussion is stale, which most people won't because they'll forgot to do it, if they even remembered to do in the first time around, leading to a lose-lose situation that it's more work for editors, AND you get stuck with 30+ threads because most DNAU threads get forgotten and bots don't take care of them anymore.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC){{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
were enabled late March 2013. This
revision history chart may be interesting.