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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
A year ago, we discussed using ORCID in citations, as an identifier for authors. Are we now in a position to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
{{cite web |url=http://birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=1490 |title=A salutary lesson in the perils of inflation |last=Mabbett |first=Andy |website=BirdGuides |date=14 November 2008}}
|id=
(NOT recommended because it violates the definition of |id=
), we get this:
Further to Jc3s5h's sensible observation, the functions of ORCID include:
Once those things are possible, it's easier to compare and evaluate statements in different citations (for example, if Jane Doe's 2014 work contradicts Jane Smith's 2013 work, that may be a clash of opinions, or just one author may have changed name and then found new information), find other articles that cite the same work, find works by an author cited in other articles (perhaps under other names), and so on. It also allows editors to easily find other works by a cited author, which may be useful as extra sources, and even perhaps suggest new articles.
Regarding formatting, I envisage a time when the author name will (if it does not link to a Wikipedia article about the author) link to a Wikidata entry or "Special:ORCID" page (like Special:ISBN) listing all the articles where we cite works by that author - but let's not run before we walk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
[Aside: I'd encourage every Wikipedia editor who exposes their real identity to register for an ORCID, and to list their "Special:Contributions" page on their ORCID profile as a work; with the ORCID in the {{ Authority control}} template on their user page) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)]
|authorlink=
and |editorlink=
to provide easy access to a Wikipedia article about an author or editor and that article is the place for an ORCID link.|authorlink=
, |editorlink=
and |url=
are all convenience links and not essential to the identification of the citation; the manner in which the links are created do not overwhelm the citation.|authorlink=
, not add an identifier that does not directly identify the article. --
Gadget850
talk 12:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Abortive attempt at creating subtemplate; now deleted
|
---|
Alternative solution: While Gadget850's observation about convenience links (more generally) is true, I find Trappist's reasoning pretty solid; yet if there's one real use case for this stuff, it's Mabbett's that authors (especially later-married women) can change names, and lead to false assumptions that sources conflict when really a source author revised. If we added ORCID stuff, I would suggest it should be a small-as-possible link attached to the author name, and I've created a template for this at {{
orcid}} . Usage example:Mabbett, Andy In order to make it compatible with
I speedied |
Your example's location [^see collapsed section, above] of the ORCID after the author name rather than at the end of the citation is sensible (even more so when there are multiple authors); but there's no justification for a separate template; the author name is part of the citation template, and so should be the UID that disambiguates that name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
|orcid=
, then it should create a link based on the author name exactly like |authorlink=
. |orcid=
and |authorlink=
should then be exclusive, with one overriding the other, thus you can link to either the ORCID or the author page, but not both. Again, this is a convenience. As to Special:ORCID, it does not exist, so discussion belongs on Bugzilla as a feature request — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gadget850 (
talk •
contribs) 13:25, 14 April 2014
It seems to me that there are five decisions to make, in order:
We were in danger of becoming bogged down in 3 & 4, and possibly 5, before being clear on 1 & 2. I contend that the answer to the first two is "yes" and that we should now decide 3 (which is probably the most easy to resolve), before moving on to 4 and only after that is resolved, then 5. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi people I think we could benefit from adding another parameter a parameter called trans_url. The reason for this is that sometimes websites we might be referencing might be in another language and hence, if this is the case, then it might be nice if we can provide one with a translated form of the doco we're referencing. For instance, I've been translating (with the help of Google Translate) some PDF files of summary of product characteristics for drugs that are only marketed in non English-speaking countries like Germany. These translations I keep in my Google Drive and hence I'd like to be able to give people a link to these translations so that others can use them too so they can expand the drug articles in question. Fuse809 ( talk) 11:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
How should I deal with pipes ("|") in URLs, which cause an error, as can be seen in Stuart Latham. The template documentation doesn't seem to mention this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
and others at url: replace pipes in urls with %7c
Reflinks (and humans too, probably) are using the various icon templates in the |language=
parameters of CS1 templates, which do not display properly. Here's an example from
Saab Automobile bankruptcy:
{{cite web|author=Anna-Karin Nils Gustavsson |url=http://ttela.se/ekonomi/saab/1.1587482-saab-ar-varderat-till-3-6-miljarder |title=Saab är värderat till 3,6 miljarder – Saab |language={{sv icon}} |publisher=www.ttela.se |date= |accessdate=2012-04-11}}
generates:{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)I did not receive any response when I posted on Dispenser's talk page for Reflinks. Is there any interest in updating the CS1 templates to display "(in Swedish)" when the icon templates are misused, or should I submit a bot request to have BattyBot fix these? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
language icon}}
templates, simply removing the braces and 'icon' will get the job done. For three letter language codes a different solution will be required.Can we have a col or column parameter for use with newspaper reports and so on? (And please don't tell me to use at -- that requires me to give up page#.) Especially in older newspapers, it can be really, really hard to find an article on the huge, type-dense pages of the time. Not a priority, but a nice touch. EEng ( talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=p. 1, col. 4
works, but it may be nice to add a specific parameter to do that automatically.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=
, which is to specify where the material being cited is located. This parameter is currently mutually exclusive with the |page=
, and |pages=
parameters. I feel that a better solution to adding additional parameters for this purpose is to make |at=
usable in addition to either |page=
or |pages=
. I know that I initially attempted to use it in this manner, and every once in a while I forget and try it again. To me, using both |page=1
and |at=col. 4
to specify "p. 1, col. 4" feels natural. I think being able to use both |at=
and one of |page=
or |pages=
would better fit the expectations of editors using the templates and would alleviate the need/desire to have additional parameters for more specific situations. Making this change would, of course, be backward compatible with any current usage which is not currently producing a visible error. The logic would be something like: use a "," separator between display of |page=
or |pages=
and |at=
if either of the page parameters exist, if they do not then no "," separator.|at=
value? —
Makyen (
talk) 08:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|page=50
|section=B1
|inset=Western Upper Peninsula
. Conversely, if you specify |at=
in cite map, you get the free form parameter:
|at=p. 50, section B1, Western Upper Peninsula inset; p. 52, Detroit inset
. Other combinations add or subtract:
|col=
parameter and building in the logic that allows it to be combined with |page=
, but |at=
should stay free-form that overrides other parameters.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=
, I added examples from citations:
|department=
. --
Gadget850
talk 11:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|department=
, I originally sandboxed it as |column=
until the confusion was pointed out. I'm not adverse to column, and I think previous objections were for performance with the old core where we were being very conservative. But we should also consider other in-source locations. --
Gadget850
talk 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=
and need to sort out how it is going to work, and how the other use will be handled by something else:
|at=Section 28
|page=28.12
|page=28.12
|at=column 2
{{
Cite web}}
where |at=
is relevant to citing sections of a site, and where there are no page numbers, but we might want to independently cite something on the page at the URL, such as a sidebar. This is especially important now that HTML5 is breaking things up into HTML "<article>...</article>
" segments that operating more like independent pages than <div>...</div>
segments do.|at=
in non-paginated works. Maybe |at2=
for simplicity. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)We really need to start a list of bots and tools used with citations. Yesterday I flubbed a URL in a citation and got a very quick notice from ReferenceBot that I had caused a cite error. -- Gadget850 talk 11:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that citations that include |doi=
render the identifier type in lowercase followed by a colon (doi:) but that other identifier types are rendered in uppercase without a trailing colon as can be seen in this citation:
Is there a reason for this difference?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Also ARXIV and Bibcode. All other identifiers use
as a separator between the identifier label and its value.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Had a very quick search of this page and this issue does not seem to have been discussed.
In my experience, autofilling the template with an isbn always populates the "Edition" field with e.g., 2nd Ed., 3rd Ed., etc. However, the "ed." somehow becomes doubled when the citation is created, meaning that the user has to delete the "ed" from the form, somewhat defeating the whole autofill thing. Thoughts? 92.41.84.153 ( talk) 22:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Following
this edit by
Trappist the monk (
talk ·
contribs), {{
Cite AV media notes}}
sets |CitationClass=AV media notes
- this means that the generated HTML is <span class="citation AV media notes">...</span>
. Only two classes (citation album_notes
) were necessary before, and only two (citation book
) are needed for e.g. {{
cite book}}
, so why are four classes necessary now? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
has |CitationClass=book
, {{
cite journal}}
has |CitationClass=journal
, {{
cite news}}
has |CitationClass=news
, {{
cite web}}
has |CitationClass=web
. Each of the other citation templates that use
Module:Citation/CS1 have their own |CitationClass
parameter that mimics these four. The module uses these parameters for the rendered html and to distinguish between the various citation templates when special handling of parameters is required.class="citation AV media notes"
is applying four separate class names. class="citation AV-media-notes"
is two class names.{{
cite book}}
etc.; if they're all pink, it's CS2, so I mark up my refs with {{
citation}}
. If I see both pink and yellow in the same article, there are two possible reasons: (i) it's got mixed citation styles and should be resolved one way or the other; (ii) I've not set up a rule for one or more of the CS1 templates. If you're curious, see
User:Redrose64/common.css and search for "show refs using citation templates in colour". Note particularly the line span.album_notes, /* cite album-notes */
span.AV media notes, /* cite AV media notes */
<notes>...</notes>
(which doesn't exist) within <media>...</media>
(which also doesn't exist) within <span class="AV">...</span>
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
class="citation cs1"
for all CS1 templates.musicrelease
. We merged that template to {{
cite AV media notes}}. If the class is truly used, then when we merge templates, we should add the class of the old template to the class of the new template. --
Gadget850
talk 14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)|CitationClass=
to determine which template is being used so that it can correctly interpret the meaning of various parameters, I might agree with making them all |CitationClass=citation-CS1
or somesuch.{{
Cite AV media notes}}
to be |CitationClass=AV-media-notes
and {{
Cite DVD notes}}
to |CitationClass=DVD-notes
.Noting previous discussions on the topic of what goes in the "work" parameter and what goes in the "publisher" parameter, is there an expert here that could add their thoughts to the discussion over there (was linked to (User talk:Blethering Scot#Works and Publishers)? - 91.85.48.114 ( talk) 17:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Disable link to a user's talk page to help prevent others from following the link to comment on a no longer existent thread. — Makyen ( talk) 21:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm commenting because of the request at
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Work_or_publisher.3F_Specify_host_name.3F. In the case of the online edition of a newspaper, I would still cite the name of the newspaper as the |work=
. Looking at it from another perspective, the name of the website is The Telegraph in the masthead at the top of the website, and that is the name of the published work. (And given the possibility for confusion, newspaper names/website versions of newspaper names should have a city of publication listed, even when electronic.)
Imzadi 1979
→ 18:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
|work=
and a |publisher=
. A |work=
is an object – which can be virtual – within which the the item was published (made available to numbers of people). For web based sources, this is often the website/domain name (without a preceding "www."). If the domain has a name under which it is called, it can be referred to as that name. In the case where the same name is given to a physical publication it can be helpful to also include the domain name to distinguish it from the physical version, or say something like "(online)". For something which is published in multiple places, you should clearly indicate where
you saw it. In some instances this requires adding the domain name instead of just "(online)". An example of this is the
BBC Online website which is published as both bbc.co.uk and bbc.com. If the content at the two domains was completely identical, then it would not be necessary to be specific. However, in this instance there are differences in what is displayed to the reader between the two domains. Because there are differences, a citation should be specific as to which was viewed by the person citing it either as the domain name alone, or in addition to, "[[
BBC Online]]".|publisher=
is a legal entity. Examples of legal entity types are people or companies. The publisher is the entity responsible for the actual publication. Usually this means they are the entity that pays for the object to be put into a form accessible by large numbers of people. Except in very limited situations (e.g. a tattoo), a publisher (legal entity) can not be a work (object). A work (object) can not be a publisher (legal entity). —
Makyen (
talk) 20:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
|publisher=
WikiMedia Foundation
, no matter what website I found a copy of it on. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)|publisher=
BBC
, not
BBC Online. BBC Online is a website (i.e. |work=
BBC Online
) with two URL schemes, and WP doesn't care which of them we're citing, as long as it works or an archiveurl to it does. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
|via=
, so for a press release from a government agency found online at PRNewsWire, we can do |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation
|via=PRNewsWire
, thus indicating the original publisher along with the republisher for an enhanced
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
Imzadi 1979
→ 00:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Thanks for the various thoughts, but unfortunately the original question got lost somewhere along the way and isn't in this thread. Having finally located where it had been moved to, it is now reproduced just below: -- 91.85.36.175 ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at your recent edit here. My understanding is that 'The Daily Telegraph' is the published work and that 'Telegraph Media Group' are the publishers (and that 'publisher' is usually omitted when citing newspapers).
From the CS1 template documentation, 'work' is an alias of 'newspaper'. Additionally, the 'location' parameter is usually used where the location is not mentioned within the newspaper name and not otherwise obvious. However, for a UK-centric article this is probably not necessary.
Your thoughts? - 91.84.92.16 ( talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I am still interested in a definitive answer, though I suspect there will actually be a range of opinions. -- 91.85.36.175 ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the examples from the documentation page for {{
cite newsgroup}}
:
{{cite newsgroup | author = A. S. Tanenbaum | title = LINUX is obsolete | date = 1992-01-29 | newsgroup = comp.os.minix | id = 12595@star.cs.vu.nl | url = http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_thread/thread/c25870d7a41696d2/f447530d082cd95d?tvc=2 | accessdate = 2006-11-27 }}
I'm wondering about the various external links. In this citation, the title links to news:12595@star.cs.vu.nl
, |newsgroup=
is an alias of |publisher=
and links to news:comp.os.minix
, and the parenthetical (Web link) text is linked to http://groups.google.com/...
Is this the correct way to link these parameters? My guess it that most readers haven't bothered to configure their computers for newsgroup access. It would seem that when |url=
has a value, that value should combine with |title=
to form a link that appears first in the rendered citation. Here I've used {{
cite web}}
to mimic how I think {{cite newsgroup}}
should render:
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)Should the message id be displayed as 12595@star.cs.vu.nl
or should it be 'hidden' under some form of text in the same way that |url=
is currently hidden by the text 'Web link'?
Absent |url=
, in
Module:Citation/CS1 the message id value in |id=
would be mapped to |url=
as it does now. If both are missing, CS1 emits the citation-missing-url error message.
Comments and opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|url=
in your first example should be the |archiveurl=
. The actual URL is news:12595@star.cs.vu.nl
. Specifically, the Google page is not canonical, and includes content, such as advertising, which is not part of the original post.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 11:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
requires |archivedate=
. Neither the google link nor this
other archive are dated except for the date of the original post. So where does an editor find that information? I suppose we could elect to except {{
cite newsgroup}}
from the |archivedate=
requirement. I'm not much in favor of that idea because inconsistent rules produce confused editors. Here's the {{
cite web}}
example rewritten to use |archiveurl=
and |deadurl=no
:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
requires |archive-date=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)|archivedate=
to be the same as the posting date so long as it was after May 11, 1981.
Imzadi 1979
→ 19:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)|date=<post date>
and then setting |archivedate=<post date>
because we don't know the real archive date, seems rather pointless.|title=
with |url=
(when present) rather than make the web-accessible link the third link in the citation. When |url=
is empty or omitted it would seem best to include {{
link note}}
functionality stating that a news reader application is required.{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)comp.os.minix
is the newsgroup and 12595@star.cs.vu.nl
is the article or post id. Perhaps the identifier with label might be:
Usenet
12595@star.cs.vu.nl or
Post id
12595@star.cs.vu.nl or something along those lines?{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) --
Gadget850
talk 15:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Taking a clue from Gadget850's suggestion, I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1:
Wikitext | {{cite newsgroup
|
---|---|
Live | Tanenbaum, A. S. (January 29, 1992). "LINUX is obsolete". Newsgroup: comp.os.minix. 12595@star.cs.vu.nl. |
Sandbox | Tanenbaum, A. S. (January 29, 1992). "LINUX is obsolete". Newsgroup: comp.os.minix. 12595@star.cs.vu.nl. |
Because |id=
is not included in
COinS, when |CitationClass=newsgroup
, |id=
is converted to an internal variable USENETID
which is then added to the list of IDs that are part of COinS:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000045-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFTanenbaum1992" class="citation newsgroup cs1">Tanenbaum, A. S. (January 29, 1992). "LINUX is obsolete". [[Usenet newsgroup|Newsgroup]]: [news:comp.os.minix comp.os.minix]. 12595@star.cs.vu.nl.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=LINUX+is+obsolete&rft.pub=comp.os.minix&rft.date=1992-01-29&rft.aulast=Tanenbaum&rft.aufirst=A.+S.&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+5" class="Z3988"></span>
In amongst all of that is this: &rft_id=info%3Ausenet%2F12595%40star.cs.vu.nl
It seems that we could create a new parameter, |message-id=
or some such as a one-off from |id=
and use that instead of spoofing |id=
and having the special-case code to handle it. I'm inclined toward |message-id=
because that term is used in the usenet post headers and I would rather not create special case code unless it's necessary. So, new parameter |message-id=
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have read the discussion above about {{ sfn}} and years but I don't know where we are. I have an article MV Alam Pintar and FV Etoile des Ondes collision where I want to use sfn to link to three {{ cite book}} references with the same author and year. In sfn I have 2010, 2010a and 2010d as years. In cite book I originally had "date" in the format Month 2010 and "year" as one of the three strings above. When I saw a CS1 date flag I removed "year" and put "date" as Month 2010a, etc. This (unsurprisingly to me) is also being flagged. In both situations the links resolve correctly. Am I making a silly mistake or is there a problem? Can someone advise before the bots come round? Thincat ( talk) 16:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
PS I think this has nothing to do with RefToolbar because, although I use it, I generally copy edit what it produces, as I have done in this case. Thincat ( talk) 16:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
|format=pdf
because the icon doesn't have an |alt=
description. I also wonder about MAIB. As I understand it,
Marine Accident Investigation Branch is the author and part of
Department for Transport who is the publisher. Making Marine Accident Investigation Branch the author requires changing |ref=harv
to |ref={{sfnref|MAIB|2010a}}
. Also, I wonder if for MAIB2010a you should use |chapter=Annexes
.|ref=harv
but the {{
sfn}}
s change to {{sfn|Meyer|2010}}
. Perhaps like these?:{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)In regards to cite book, probably also cite web: I was just now looking for a way to directly cite a page in a PDF, because with a lot of unlisted page numbers it wasn't obvious, especially if you're only scrolling down instead of across. So I wanted to point out that it's page 186 in the PDF, which maps to page 173 in the book itself. Is there a good way to do this? I don't even know if browser plugins understand any kind of hash-links, but it'd be good info regardless, since I personally couldn't find it for a bit with just the book's page #. I settled on "|page=173 (pdf p.186)", but I figured I'd ask what everyone else thinks of this. (Or if it's just not important at all.) SilverbackNet( talk) 09:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
| url=http://www.example.com/that-file.pdf#page=12 | format=PDF | page=9 |
or| url=http://www.example.com/that-file.pdf#page=12 | format=PDF | pages=9–11 |
|url=
parameter pointing at the correct page as far as the reader software goes (and the user takes pot luck whether their reader actually scrolls to the right place), and the |page=
parameter indicating the page number physically printed on that page. --
79.67.241.223 (
talk) 12:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
#page=12
" is something expected/honored by any PDF user agents? It doesn't make sense from a URL perspective (the #
syntax points to an anchor, but the =
syntax indicates a script variable being supplied, but there is no script here (no &scriptname
before the =
). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |chapter-url=
value (
help)#page=
number to the end of the |url=
, the user's reader is likely to scroll to the correct place.|page=
parameter in the usual way to record the page number as shown on the rendered page. --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 20:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
parameters are used with the {{
Citation}} and {{
Cite xxx}} templates to display a full citation; those parameters do not take urls. The question here is how to include an additional page number in the citation. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is sufficient. However, if it is to be shown in some cases, you are quite right that a "recommended" way should be documented somewhere. --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 20:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)those parameters do not take urls. It is true that including urls in the in-source locator parameters
|page=
, |pages=
and |at=
was discouraged. This because the urls were copied into and corrupted the citation's metadata. Until your post I thought that that had been corrected. I have discovered a couple of minor errors that were removing more than just the url from the in-source locator parameter values. I think that this has been remedied in the sandbox. So, using our example pdf citation, one can write it like this (using the sandbox here):{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
.The discussion of ORCID, above, seems to have stalled. Can we move to #3 of my points in that section, and add an ORCID parameter and the relevant check-digit code, which is already in a subtemplate of {{ Authority control}}? Incidentally, I'm presenting a poster at the ORCID outreach event in Chicago in a couple of weeks, on the use of ORCID in Wikimedia projects, and I'd like to include an update on its use in citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I am again thinking about ways to autofix many of the invalid parameters in
wp:CS1 Lua-based cites. It has been almost a year since transitioning to the Lua-based cite templates which were designed to autofix 25,000 pages for separators and page numbers (autofixes 'pages=7' as "p. 7" not "pp."), but there are still over 8,000 pages which contain "Unknown parameter" in the
wp:CS1 cites (new invalid values are added to pages almost every day). As discussed last year, it will take years to manually hand-correct so many pages, with the current rate as 100-to-150 pages hand-fixed per month (4 to 7 years). Instead, we should return to the original plan, using the power of Lua to "autofix" many simple invalid parameters and log those pages in autofixed categories, thereby reducing the categories of unfixed pages to list the fewer but severe pages which really need hand-editing to fix. Users who wish to hand-update all pages could still edit the autofixed pages, and there could be hidden error messages which some users could set for view by CSS options.
In practice, most of the autofixes would occur in 2 spots in the Lua modules; the first spot would be during initial loading of the cite parameters, and the 2nd autofix would occur when preparing to show error messages but instead logging to an autofix category or hidden autofix warning for simple cases. For example, the Lua module could treat invalid "other=" to be autofixed as "others=" or handle invalid "translator=" as "others=__(translator)". An unusual parameter could list the value, such as 'part=B' could show "part: B". Likewise, a missing "url=" could check for an unnamed parameter containing "http:..." and autofix with a warning category. Recall how these autofix plans were discussed about year ago, but several other issues have delayed enhancing the Lua modules to rapidly auto-correct parameters in perhaps 10,000 more pages with simple errors/typos. Unlike Bot updates, the actual page contents would not be altered, and so the autofixes would also rapidly correct cites in hundreds of talk-pages, user-pages, drafts, or archives without inserting "unused_data" or "DUPLICATE" or altering the page histories. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
|pages=
, assuming (incorrectly) that it is what it sounds like! To the lay editor, when describing a work, "pages" is obviously the total number of pages in a work. Except it isn't. I bet I've made this mistake myself. I wonder if confusion over this is the reason we have nopp=y, and if it's misused more often than not. So, let's discuss the |pagetotal=
idea. Pro? Con? Pros: 1)It's useful to know the total number of pages, as if it's off due to a change of format, it'll help the user find the cited material nonetheless. 2)The existence of this parameter will reduce the frequency with which people use |pages=
the total # of pages. (I just made
this related edit to
Template:Cite_book/doc. P.S.: Wow, nice to see all the thought and effort going into these citation improvements. Kudos. Apologies if this has been brought up before. --
Elvey (
talk) 16:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)No printed style guide I know of suggests giving the total number of pages for a large work, like a book.
For journals and magazines, when short footnotes or parenthetical references are combined with a bibliography, the page number(s) that support the point being made go in the short footnote or parenthetical reference, and the range of pages that includes the entire article are included in the bibliography. (This allows a copy request to be made to a distant library, and the librarian there won't have to pay too much attention to where one article begins and another ends; just look at the page numbers.) If only end notes are used, the Chicago Manual of Style indicates only the pages that support the point being made are given.
So even for journals, the total number of pages is never given, although it could be calculated from the page range. I really don't think we should be encouraging editors to clutter articles with information no style manual considers useful just so editors who don't bother to read the instruction will have a better chance of guessing what to do. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
|pages=600
to |page=600
. At some later date an editor looked at page 600 of the reference, found that the stated 'fact' was nowhere to be seen on this page, the last page of the document. Their next action was to replace the reference with {{
citation needed}}. Some time very much later the 'fact' was deleted because no-one had added a suitable reference. -
79.67.241.227 (
talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|pages=
is a problem. At a minimum, the documentation should be updated to explicitly state that |pages=
is not to be used for the total pages in the work.|total-pages=
. We do not need to display the information, and, if done, could explicitly state in the documentation that it is not desired, or displayed. However, it would provide a clear, intended location to record the number of pages in the work for those editors inclined to do so. Creating such a parameter might keep a reasonable number of editors from incorrectly putting the total number of pages in |pages=
. I'm only floating the idea; not sure about it myself. I'm looking at this as a user interface issue. Giving the user a specific place to put the information currently erroneously placed in |pages=
would, probably, reduce the erroneous use of that parameter. —
Makyen (
talk) 21:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The autofixes could be tagged with small "[fix cite]" where the various types of auto-corrected parameters would be:
Any non-autofixed issues would still log the current error messages, but the autofixed pages would link to different maintenance categories, such as:
Because one of the goals, of autofixes, is to reduce the clutter of simple typos and help pinpoint serious problems, there would be more categories to list the simple autofixes (such as obvious respelling "auuthor=" as "author="), away from pages with the more-complex cite problems. In a sense, reducing a category of 9,000 various unknown parameters into 5 or 6 categories, where one isolated the "unknown phrases" (as a separate list) could help to pinpoint just a few hundred pages which needed severe updates to fix the garbled cites. As the many simple cases are autofixed, then methods to auto-fix complex problems will become easier to spot. Currently, we have many simple cite typos, from 2 years ago, cluttering the list where the complex cite cases are drowned in an ocean of simple typo pages. Update: New essay " wp:Autofixing cites" describes some methods to autofix cites used by the new version of Lua-based cite templates. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:34, 6 March, 13:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created a working Lua prototype, to begin comparing the results when a citation has been autofixed for simpler display. Compare the sample results:
|
Note, in the above autofixed example, the missing "url=" is set with the " http://z" text, and linked to title "Test1" while the double-hyphen in pages "3--4" is filtered as a dash 3–4. Next, the 'Guardian' is shown, followed by "office: London" as extra text. By comparison, the current cite is awash in a sea of alarming red-error messages which overpower the text but demand attention to the simple details which have been quietly autofixed in the first case. - Wikid77 ( talk) 10:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
A major benefit of
wp:autofixing cites will be the echoing of the extra, unknown parameters (such as "paragraph: 6" when a user has inserted invalid "paragraph=6"), and hence, the autofixed cite tends to show more data, more details to help pinpoint the text to verify, such as "note: 3rd line from bottom". By contrast, the red-error message had shown "Unknown parameter |note=
ignored" to show only the name "note" but no mention of the "3rd line". Of course the main benefit of autofixing will be to reconstruct an unnamed or split URL with a rebuilt title, plus autofixing to show the author names. The strategy is to completely autofix the title/url plus first author or editor, but echoing extra parameters is another major benefit. -
Wikid77 11:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
|note=This is a really good book
pinpoints the in-source location? What is the plan to auto-validate good and useless comments? How many citations currently have notes? --
Gadget850
talk 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)When analyzing thousands of pages with invalid parameters, to look for common problems, a major issue has been users putting "comment=" or "note=" or other parameters to insert notes. Of course, autofixing will show any named parameter, such as "note:__" or "comment:__" (or "figure: 2b"), but it would be better to make "note=" and "comment=" as valid parameters, unlike "postscript=" replacing the final dot. Also, a few others should be added, such as "author_note=(members of ABC committee)" and "title_note=(written as the prequel to Book)" to further explain a book/magazine title where people have forced such comments into "format=" or "publisher=" as if being substitutes for missing "title_note". - Wikid77 17:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
By mid-April 2014, all remaining 3,500 articles with "Unknown parameter" had been hand-edited to correct the CS1 cite parameters. By 19-21 April, another dozen pages each day contained recent cite errors, such as: some (15%-20%) misspelled "accessdate=" (or 2 words), extra bar "|url|=", one "publishe=" misspelling, ten capital "Publisher=" in one page, "pags=" for page, and 3 uses of {{ cita_web}} in one page with 7 Spanish parameters (título, obra, fecha, formato, idioma, etc.). A variety of long-term upgrades can be used: similar to accepting capital "Author=" then capital "Publisher" should be among the common parameter names allowed; the Template:Cita_web should be changed to handle any Spanish parameters as switched into English parameters; and autofixing should handle a bar within "url|=http" in order to auto-correct and link the url data. Per the 80/20 Rule, perhaps allowing just 20 aliases of 100 common typos (such as "other=" or "note=" as postscript) would reduce ~80% of invalid cite parameters. For example 2-word "access date=" was used 11 times in article " University of Central Florida College of Medicine" (26 April 2014). - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:17, 19 April 2014, 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have been expanding the interwiki cite templates to handle other-language parameters, as wp:wrapper templates for {cite web}, plus auto-translate date formats and month names. For example, the 2008 Template:Kilde_www (for Norwegian interwiki cites) has been expanded to allow Danish or English parameters and translate date format or month names to English. Some users have suggested the other interwiki cite templates should allow wp:subst'ing to become {cite_web} markup, once the equivalent wp:CS1 parameters have been analyzed for each language. Template:Cita_web will be re-expanded to handle Spanish or Italian parameters, and Template:Lien_web will allow French parameters and dates. These interwiki cite templates provide the auto-fixing to show other-language cite data, as copied from the other wikipedias. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
As fast as I am sorting out issues, someone else is deconstructing |last1=
|first1=
|last2=
|first2=
author lists and
jamming everything into a single parameter as well as turning plain-English journal names into utterly indecipherable Int. J. Ph. Con. Phar. Sci. Ref. Clin. Soci. Chem. Res. Let. gibberish.
To me, both of these appear to be backwards steps. -- 79.67.241.222 ( talk) 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
defer to the style used by the first major contributor. My edits restored that predominate style.
|journal=Journal of addictive diseases
and |journal=The American journal on addictions
into |journal=J Addict Dis
and |journal=Am J Addict
seems to be going in the wrong direction. --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 19:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook.
Vancouver system citations are not helpful on WP and are not WP style; they're as "save paper at all costs" measure that emphatically does not apply here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|authorformat=
, |author-separator=
, and |author-name-separator=
demonstrates that variations in citation style, even in the CS1 era is allowed.
Boghog (
talk) 21:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)|initials=
from |first=
.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
As long as the information... helps readers to find the cited sourceis one of the key issues here. J. Am. Phys. Anth. and "Chin YP, Hall PJ, Marks EI" don't cut it, and neither does dropping quotation marks from article titles and italics from publication titles, replacing "vol." with just boldfacing of volume number, and various other style "sins" of some extra-super-geeky citation style WP has no business foisting on its readers. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Convert given (first) names and middle names to initials, for a maximum of two initials following each surname. Boghog ( talk) 23:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|vanc=
parameter, although it is defective. Furthermore the vcite templates are no longer actively maintained nor are they widely used (the {{
vcite journal}} template for example is trancluded into fewer than 300 pages). The main reason for the vcite template was not the rendered format but rather the
speed in rendering. The new lua based CS1 templates are much more efficient so that the main justification for using vcite templates has disappeared. As I have stated elsewhere, the best long term solution may be a template like the CS1 based {{
vcite2 journal}} template that would enforce display of the Vancouver system author style and could be modified to parse single author parameters to produced clean author meta data.
Boghog (
talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)I just added the following citation to Middle C (novel)#Further reading:
Perhaps there's a better way?
A similar question exists regarding the date of on-line and in-print publication, but I've never felt it to be a problem. I presume the default is to give the in-print date, simply because that's the date you need to know when looking for a hardcopy, as opposed to on-line which rarely needs to know the actual date. For example, NYT book reviews are filed on-line under the in-print date, regardless of the actual date any given article is posted. This is no different than the fact that the physical in-print is normally not the nominal in-print date. To continue the NYT example, the Book Review comes with a Sunday date, but to subscribers, it is part of the Saturday delivery.
But this logic doesn't seem to apply to the title. I have no idea what the right thing to do is. Choor monster ( talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|via=
set up so that the two could be combine "—available online as "<title>" via <republisher>." The word "online" in my example may be superfluous and could be dropped, but I think the idea is worth investigating. The NYT also will periodically alter the headline on an article between the print and online editions even if the body of the article is essentially the same. If the body text has been altered though, the two should not be conflated.
Imzadi 1979
→ 17:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)|trans_title=
and the other using |page=
.{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Use "page/at=" or else "format=" for online link: Setting parameter "at=[print]" seems ok for the print version, but also try "format=" for the online version of a chapter in {cite_book}, as below using:
That tactic allows "format=" to contain an online link, while the cite is mainly about the printed book title & chapter. We need a general parameter "title_note" (shown after title) to avoid overloading "format=" with extra data. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have tested the authorformat=vanc
parameter, and found that it removes all but the first letter of first1, first2,
etc. But according to our article
Vancouver system and
one of the sources, at least two initials are allowed (I don't know what that style does if the author has several middle names).
Jc3s5h (
talk) 21:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
authorformat=vanc
is not implemented correctly and it should be fixed. If there is a middle name (e.g., first1 = John Jacob), what should be displayed is "JJ".
Boghog (
talk) 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)authorformat=vanc
actually displays the Vancouver system author format. The relevant guideline is: Patrias K (2007). Wendling D (ed.).
Citing Medicine: The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers [Internet] (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine (US). Convert given (first) names and middle names to initials, for a maximum of two initials following each surname. Boghog ( talk) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|display-authors=
value, most of the authors in this example would not be displayed at all. Furthermore CS1 does allow variation in how citations are displayed. Otherwise, why do we have CS1 |authorformat=
, |author-separator=
, and |author-name-separator=
parameters? Finally there is no guideline that advises against author abbreviations. Quite to the contrary
WP:CITESTYLE, by listing the
Vancouver system as one style that is used in Wikipedia articles, specifically would allow it.
Boghog (
talk) 08:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)There's no point using a manual archiveurl in cite-web when there's {{ wayback}}. How about providing a proper way for something {{cite web| archiveurl={{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/*/... |date=* }}}}? - 79.180.38.91 ( talk) 19:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
| deadurl=yes | archivedate=1999-12-31 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/19991231235959/http://www.example.com/some-page-that-is-now-404 |
here? However, I have long thought that |archivedate=
could be optional where |archiveurl=
points to a date stamped archive at the Wayback Machine (and hence has the date within the archive URL). --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 21:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
A portion of the documentation in the Examples section for this template is incorrect:
Whereas if the url had not been specified, then the title is linked to PubMed Central's copy of the article and no duplicate PMC link is shown for compactness: (Emphasis added.)
{{cite journal |last=Viollet |first=Benoît |last2=Andreelli |first2=Fabrizio |last3=Jørgensen |first3=Sebastian B. |last4=Perrin |first4=Christophe |last5=Geloen |first5=Alain |last6=Flamez |first6=Daisy |last7=Mu |first7=James |last8=Lenzner |first8=Claudia |last9=Baud |first9=Olivier |last10=Bennoun |first10=Myriam |last11=Gomas |first11=Emmanuel |last12=Nicolas |first12=Gaël |last13=Wojtaszewski |first13=Jørgen F.P. |last14=Kahn1 |first14=Axel |last15=Carling |first15=David |last16=Schuit |first16=Frans C. |last17=Birnbaum |first17=Morris J. |last18=Richter |first18=Erik A. |last19=Burcelin |first19=Rémy |last20=Vaulont |first20=Sophie |display-authors=5 |date=January 2003 |title=The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity |journal=The Journal of Clinical Investigation |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=91–8 |doi=10.1172/JCI16567 |pmc=151837 |pmid=12511592}}
- Displays as:
- Viollet, Benoît; Andreelli, Fabrizio; Jørgensen, Sebastian B.; Perrin, Christophe; Geloen, Alain; et al. (January 2003). "The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity". The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 111 (1): 91–8. doi: 10.1172/JCI16567. PMC 151837. PMID 12511592.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)
Note that the citation is still linking the article title to the PMC
and displaying the PMC
link. While I support eliminating the latter, in the case where this is true, should the PMC
number be given in parentheses after the article title as part of the link? Example:
I think it might be important to still include the PMC
number as part of the reference. Is there a way to just de-link it if there is no |url=
present? That would still maintain the proper order in the citation without having a double link:
Additionally, I stumbled across the discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#PMC error check needed while looking for something entirely different. I think the change that was made might need to be reverted; I found the following at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Sample References:
Apparently we're not doing it correctly; perhaps the editors who are typing PMC
before the number are trying to get the citation to match this style. The full format includes PubMed Central PMCID:
followed by a space and then PMC
is inserted before the number with no space between. The format we're using for PMID
is apparently incorrect, as well; note that PubMed
precedes PMID:
followed by a space and the number. While we might be able to eliminate the PubMed
and PubMed Central
notations, apparently including PMC
before the number is standard. The template will need to be updated and the instructions made clear that the template will add the PMC before the number, all the editor needs to do is supply the number. More examples may be found here that eliminate PubMed
:
(List of other PMC
articles citing the referenced article) The
article at pubmed.gov lists the following at the end of the article: PMID: 19204236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC2653214
. I think we may safely drop [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
. There is also a PDF
article from the Perdue University Biological Sciences department that specifically states that PMC
is to be included before the number, read the
Citation examples section on page 2.
Additionally, I note that the style does not put the title of the article in quotation marks, the author names are given with just initials, and there is no italicization or bolding; I'm assuming we're doing this to be more in sync with other citation styles and adapting the Vancouver style (I think), but should we? It seems that these examples come from a higher authority. Sorry if I've opened a can of worms; let me know if there's something I can do to help. Thanks.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 22:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Specify the DOI to provide a permanent link. Also give the PMID abstract for medical articles, and the URL if the article is free. PubMed Central free full-text repository links may also be supplied and will link the title if URL not specified, else as additional linked PMC value at the end of the citation
{{cite journal |last=Viollet |first=Benoît |last2=Andreelli |first2=Fabrizio |last3=Jørgensen |first3=Sebastian B. |last4=Perrin |first4=Christophe |last5=Geloen |first5=Alain |last6=Flamez |first6=Daisy |last7=Mu |first7=James |last8=Lenzner |first8=Claudia |last9=Baud |first9=Olivier |last10=Bennoun |first10=Myriam |last11=Gomas |first11=Emmanuel |last12=Nicolas |first12=Gaël |last13=Wojtaszewski |first13=Jørgen F.P. |last14=Kahn1 |first14=Axel |last15=Carling |first15=David |last16=Schuit |first16=Frans C. |last17=Birnbaum |first17=Morris J. |last18=Richter |first18=Erik A. |last19=Burcelin |first19=Rémy |last20=Vaulont |first20=Sophie |display-authors=5 |date=January 2003 |title=The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity |url=http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16567 |journal=The Journal of Clinical Investigation |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=91–8 |doi=10.1172/JCI16567 |pmc=151837 |pmid=12511592 |accessdate=2012-11-17}}
- Displays as:
- Viollet, Benoît; Andreelli, Fabrizio; Jørgensen, Sebastian B.; Perrin, Christophe; Geloen, Alain; et al. (January 2003). "The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity". The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 111 (1): 91–8. doi: 10.1172/JCI16567. PMC 151837. PMID 12511592. Retrieved 2012-11-17.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)
- Specify the DOI to provide a permanent link. Also give the PMID abstract for medical articles, and the URL if the article is free. PubMed Central free full-text repository links may also be supplied and will link the title if the URL is not specified, else as an additional linked PMC value.
- Whereas if the URL has not been specified, the title will link to the PMC link, which is repeated:
|url=
parameter) and the "Displays as:" sections remain the same.{{U|D'Ranged 1}}
.)
In the feedback about the VisualEditor citation dialog it's been suggested that some of the TemplateData field names be changed to be more descriptive. Hopefully that feedback will be of use to the maintainers of this template. Trevor Parscal ( talk) 21:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
As recommended, I am moving this post from Category talk:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for discussion here. — D'Ranged 1 talk 07:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to suppress additional types of pages being added to this category? Reading through all the ones that shouldn't be here to find the ones that should is a waste of time, there were 173 pages that didn't require attention and about 6 that did. Suggested additions:
|
|
|
Alternatively/in addition, could a tag template be developed to add to pages to exclude them from the category?— D'Ranged 1 talk 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Why is the "chapter=" picked as anchor for the general url parameter? trespassers william ( talk) 23:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a bookmarklet script that can help you to generate references using {{ cite web}} in just one click. Say you want to generate a reference for the following page: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
You just have to push the bookmarklet button in your bookmarks toolbar and you get this:
The script can do the job for some of the most known news websites like: BBC, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph, Huffington Post, Huffington Post Canada, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Times of India, Financial Times, The Economist, Business Week, Ars Technica, TG Daily
The script is named RefScript and you can find it here. It can save hundreds of hours for those editors who introduce lots of references, helping them to focus on editing Wikipedia, instead of painstakingly create references with lots of parameters. — Ark25 ( talk) 22:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
|last=
should only include the author's last name, with the first name/initial placed in |first=
, to produce:
|last2=
and |first2=
, etc. would need to be populated. Using the script as written will just create problems for bots to have to clean up later. See
Help:Citation Style 1#Authors,
Template:Cite#Authors, and
Template:Cite#COinS. Putting multiple values in the |last=
field screws up retrieval of the metadata.<ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-10c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |title=Whale Advocates Gain Victory |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=David A. Fahrenthold |accessdate=May 10, 2014}}</ref>
<ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-10c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/19/AR2008071900540.html |title=Iran Nuclear Talks End Without Agreement |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=Glenn Kessler |accessdate=May 10, 2014}}</ref>
<ref name="washingtonpost.20080719">{{cite ...
or <ref name="washingtonpost.AR2008071900540">{{cite ...
<ref name="wp.AR2008071900540">{{cite ...
.<ref name="pmc.37272821">{{cite ...
. Likewise the final chunk of a DOI can be used as a reference name. For newspapers, many have a unique (to that publication) article ID within the URL. This is often only 5 to 8 characters long. Suggested usage<ref name="dailymail.2620556">{{cite news | url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2620556/How-travel-Europa-cheap-Nasa-calls-cut-price-mission-ideas-explore-Jupiters-icy-moon.html | title= ...
.|archiveurl=
and related parameters (which don't work on The Washington Post), but it's good practice to include this information where availalbe to avoid
WP:ROT.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)|archiveurl=
. Although it adds the today's date for |archivedate=
, not when it was actually archived. The script can be configured to add the archive link or not to add it, depending on the line var Archive = "Yes";. Now the reference looks like this:<ref name="MyUser_The_Washington_Post_2014-05-11c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |title=Whale Advocates Gain Victory |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=David A. Fahrenthold |archiveurl=http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |archivedate=May 11, 2014 |accessdate=May 11, 2014}}</ref>
|last=
parameter. For example this link has two authors:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-for-bigspending-whales-07072011.html<ref name="MyUser_BusinessWeek_2014-05-11c">{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-for-bigspending-whales-07072011.html |title=Zynga’s Quest for Big-Spending Whales |newspaper=BusinessWeek |date= July 6, 2011 |last=Douglas Macmillan, Brad Stone |accessdate=May 11, 2014}}</ref>
, which produces the following:<ref name="Ark25_TWP_July_19_2008c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |title=Whale Advocates Gain Victory |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=David A. Fahrenthold |accessdate=May 11, 2014}}</ref>
|authors=
and not one of the other aliases. --
79.67.241.234 (
talk) 19:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
|authors=
is deprecated in favor of |author=
, AWB is making the change.|authors=
is not deprecated. Perhaps you're thinking of |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
which are deprecated.’
to '
and convert pipes to, perhaps, hyphens. These are both mainly found in article titles. --
79.67.241.233 (
talk) 09:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
%7c
. However, in titles, that's often not useful because the additional information after the first pipe has nothing to do with the title. It may be the publication date or the publication name or something else. --
79.67.241.233 (
talk) 14:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
79.67.241.234 Ark25 On the topic of named references, there is actually a prohibition of adding named references to articles that don't use them. See:
Adding names to every reference in every article adds extraneous text that makes it more difficult to edit the article. It also increases storage requirements by increasing the length of articles unnecessarily. Failing consensus that this should be done, which I doubt is likely forthcoming, |refname=
should only be used: a) in articles that already employ named references, so as not to violate the strictures against changing referencing styles in an article, and b) where multiple references to the same citation exist. Any other use is more damaging than helpful, and outside their intended use. In addition, the naming scheme you propose doesn't seem very helpful to editors. I would much rather use <ref name="Fahrenthold Whales">
than <ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-11c">
. If you insist on using something that includes a date, please don't use yyyy-mm-dd
; mmm dd, yyyy
or dd mmm yyyy
is much preferable and easier to read while editing. Also, the |date=
, |accessdate=
, and |archivedate=
values need to follow the established usage for the individual article, regardless of the usage by the publication. So if you're editing an article that was created by someone using dd mmm yyyy
for dates in citations, that usage needs to be followed.
Listing multiple authors in the same |author=
parameter is more than a "minor cosmetic difference", it breaks another part of Wikipedia that is collecting and sorting data on its articles using
Wikipedia:COinS. This is not trivial; it ensures access to references over time. I can't support using a script that creates more works for bots; the citation should be properly formatted from the start.
As for archives, not all publications allow their pages to be listed on web archive sites; The Washington Post is a prime example. Due to this, trying to automate the process may be futile, and while your latest script example added
http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
to the citation, that page doesn't exist, so would create a broken link in the article. It is also important that the |archivedate=
be correct, rather than the current date, as some articles are archived multiple times and the citation should use the archive that specifically reflects the article at the time of its citation in the article. In some cases, the |archiveurl=
is incredibly important, as some web sites are updated over time to reflect current information, while the article cites a previous version of the site with information that was current at the time of the citation. U.S. News and World Report, for example, issues an annual ranking of "Best Schools"; however, they use the same url
each year for the results. Therefore, if an article is citing the results for 2010, it would need to include |archiveurl=
http://web.archive.org/web/20110211210723/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/quantum-physics-rankings
rather than just using |url=
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/quantum-physics-rankings
, which gives the results for 2014.
Part of being a good editor at Wikipedia includes including citations in articles that are properly formatted. While I appreciate that this is time-consuming at times, and support making the process faster, the speed factor shouldn't supercede the accuracy factor. Good editing takes time, some of which is spent ensuring that citations "follow the rules". A script that doesn't isn't much help.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 00:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Conversions:
Now the script converts ’
into '
. It also transforms automatically the pipes into %7c in the url. I tried on
this link. But it will also convert pipes into |
if it's found in the title of the article.
Reference names:
<ref name="Fahrenthold Whales">
than <ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-11c">
.|date=
, |accessdate=
, and |archivedate=
values need to follow the established usage for the individual article, regardless of the usage by the publication. So if you're editing an article that was created by someone using dd mmm yyyy
for dates in citations, that usage needs to be followed.|author=
parameter is more than a "minor cosmetic difference", it breaks another part of Wikipedia that is collecting and sorting data on its articles using
Wikipedia:COinS. This is not trivial; it ensures access to references over time. I can't support using a script that creates more works for bots; the citation should be properly formatted from the start.
http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
to the citation, that page doesn't exist, so would create a broken link in the article.|archivedate=
be correct, rather than the current date, as some articles are archived multiple times and the citation should use the archive that specifically reflects the article at the time of its citation in the article.
|archivedate=
, since the link to
http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
will send you to a page where you can choose from different snapshots of the given page (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
), taken at various moments of time - check for example
http://archive.today/www.nytimes.com/ - it has tens of snapshots of the front page of The New York Times, the first one being from March 19, 1999. Of course, some snapshots might have the quoted data, and some not, and then it's important to link to the right snapshot and to provide the data of that snapshot, but that's more likely needed for annual lists than to individual newspaper articles which, after a maximum of a few days when they can be updated, will stay the same forever.This script should not provide links to archive.is. Linking to archive.is is currently banned from enwiki and blacklisted (edit filtered) ( a current discussion at WP:AN). — Makyen ( talk) 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've compiled a list of ISBN errors based on Category:Pages with ISBN errors and the ISBN errors detected by WikiProject Check Wikipedia, grouped by incorrect ISBN. It's currently available here and can be updated with WPCleaner. I'm using the same kind of list on frwiki, it helps being more efficient to fix ISBN errors. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 06:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This list is helpful. I have been fixing some of the ISBNs with 12 or fewer occurrences, focusing on the CS1 citation errors, and expect to fix more over the next few days. NicoV, would you mind posting a new list in a couple of days? Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I just got a notice that there was an error in a |date=
field because I was using "ca." as an abbreviation instead of "c.". Please change the templates to allow either; they're both valid abbreviations and we shouldn't be dictating abbreviation choice here. Thanks—
D'Ranged 1
talk 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
When |authors=
is populated with multiple authors as designed, then the COiNS metadata is polluted. For example:
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |authors=Smith, John; Johnson, Joe; Green, Ethan |title=Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7}} |
"Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors. Book Publishers. January 1, 2001. pp. 100–110.
ISBN
978-1-234-56789-7. |
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000088-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">"Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". ''Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors''. Book Publishers. January 1, 2001. pp. 100–110. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/978-1-234-56789-7|<bdi>978-1-234-56789-7</bdi>]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Chapter+2%3A+The+History+of+the+Bloggs+Family&rft.btitle=Big+Compilation+Book+with+Many+Chapters+and+Distinct+Chapter+Authors&rft.pages=100-110&rft.pub=Book+Publishers&rft.date=2001-01-01&rft.isbn=978-1-234-56789-7&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+5" 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">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>
Key | Data |
---|---|
rft.au | Smith, John; Johnson, Joe; Green, Ethan |
rft.aufirst | not used |
rft.aulast | Smith, John; Johnson, Joe; Green, Ethan |
Possible solutions:
-- Gadget850 talk 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|author=
, |authorn=
, |last=
, or |lastn=
. Option 1 fixes none of those situations. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|author=
or |authors=
, and if detected, easily parse that parameter to produce clean metadata. Hence option 2 is viable.
Boghog (
talk) 19:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|authors=
parameter (or any other) is a problem with every system of templates; it is not Vancouver/vcite specific. But some editors deem this a feature, not a problem, and any kind of bot-fixing is likely to be displeasing. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)|coauthors=
would be relevant here. Anyone know where that happened? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
is likely in the
Module talk:Citation/CS1 archives. I don't think it all that relevant because content of those parameters was never included in the
COinS metadata and, with the migration to Lua, no longer required as a hack to display additional authors when a work had more than the nine authors supported by {{
citation/core}}
.|coauthor=
with |authorn=
. There are four because that covers the most common of name formats and the attendant variety of separator punctuation but certainly not all. While Lua is a much more capable language than an AWB regex script, writing code to reliably parse names out of |authors=
will not be easy.|authors=
(and |authorsn=
– why do we have that?) in favor of |lastn=
and |authorn=
and prohibit multiple names in those two parameters. I suspect that it's easier to detect multiple names in a single parameter than it is to extract multiple names.Help:Citation Style 1 contains the statement
Editors should use an
|author=
organizational citation when the cited source, such as a committee report, specifically names an official body or a sub-unit of the publisher as the collective author of the work, e.g.|author=Commission on Headphone Safety
or|author=Rules Sub-committee
.
This statement has several important consequences. Trying to parse |author=
or |authors=
for names of natural persons is unsafe because they may contain the name of institutions. For example, G. W. Savage might refer to a person, or it might refer to a
business with a website that could potentially be used as a source. (I chose this example because in my area, everyone always calls the business G. W. Savage, no one ever mentions the "Corp." part of the official name.) If the name referred to a person, it would be displayed in the article as "Savage, G. W." (or maybe "Savage GW"). But if it referred to the business, it would be displayed in the article as "G. W. Savage".
{{ Citation}} does not say anything about organizational authors. {{ vcite book}} documentation contains these valid examples: Smith RC Jr, Jones B III, Barney MR Jr; American College of Academics and Smith, Robert C. Jr; Jones, Bertram III; Barney, Max R. Jr; American College of Academics. Therefore, vcite authors are not necessarily natural persons, and there is no statement as to whether Citation authors are natural persons. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
{{vcite}}
templates are not CS1 templates; that which applies to {{vcite}}
has no relevance to CS1.|authors=
will not likely rely on lists of all possible human or corporate names. More likely, parsing will have to rely on patterns of letters, spaces, punctuation that typically reflect how names, both human and corporate, are rendered in the Latin alphabet – and of course, on the hope that editors are consistent in how they separate individual names (I'm not so optimistic that editors will ever be infallibly consistent). This sort of parsing will completely fail when citations contain |authors=
parameters with multiple names rendered in non-Latin alphabets (Cyrillic, Greek) or in ideograms (Chinese, Japanese, etc). Like it or not, these types of citations exist in the English Wikipedia.|author=
or |authors=
. It is, I think, too difficult to get right even in cases like the Vancouver System where the format is clearly and unambiguously defined. This because, Wikipedia editors are sometimes lazy, sometimes overlook things, sometimes all too human. This, I think, is why we have CS1 templates in the first place: getting all of the details right in all of the citations in an article is difficult; templating the citations relieves editors of that burden.{{vcite}}
templates. At invocation, each template identifies itself to the module so that the module can take appropriate actions. This is how among other things {{
citation}}
gets its default |separator=,
and |ref=harv
; how the module knows to set the various title types, etc. The {{vcite}}
templates would need to provide similar unique identifiers.the warnings built into Module:Citation/CS1 can't tell if an article is a medical-related hybrid system described by User:Boghog. I interpreted Editor Boghog's hybrid to be some subset of
{{vcite}}
modified to use Module:Citation/CS1 or {{mcite}}
templates which I understand would have certain Vancouver-like characteristics as well as certain CS1-like characteristics. Without doubt, Module:Citation/CS1 can be coded to distinguish between a {{vcite}}
/ {{mcite}}
and any of the CS1 templates.|authors=
and disallow the use of multiple names (human or corporate or institutional) as a value for |author=
. |author=
and |authorn=
should contain only single values.|author=
or |authors=
could be used to produce correct COinS data.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 00:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
{{vcite}}
? Because right here, right now there are two adjacent discussions that are sort-of discussing different aspects of the same topic? Because in that other discussion you referred to {{
vcite2 journal}}
?Shortening of parameter names addresses one of the reasons editors stuff "authors=", but in order to keep this unentangled from other sub-topics I have broken it out into a subsection. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Current | Possible alternative |
---|---|
|author1= , |author2= , |author3= |
|a1= , |a2= , |a3=
|
|first1= , |first2= , |first3= |
|f1= , |f2= , |f3=
|
|last1= , |last2= , |last3= |
|l1= , |l2= , |l3=
|
|editor1= , |editor2= , |editor3= |
|e1= , |e2= , |e3=
|
|editor1-first= , |editor-first2= , |editor-first3= |
|e1f= , |e2f= , |e3f=
|
|editor-last1= , |editor-last2= , |editor-last3= |
|e1l= , |e2l= , |e3l=
|
I would support something similar to this, but just a bit longer; single-letter abbreviations can be confusing. How about:
Current | Possible alternative |
---|---|
|first1= , |first2= , |first3= |
|fn= , |fn2= , |fn3=
|
|last1= , |last2= , |last3= |
|ln= , |ln2= , |ln3=
|
|editor1-first= , |editor-first2= , |editor-first3= |
|edfn= , |ed2fn= , |ed3fn= and/or |edfn= , |edfn2= , |edfn3=
|
|editor-last1= , |editor-last2= , |editor-last3= |
|edln= , |ed2ln= , |ed3ln= and/or |edln= , |edln2= , |edln3=
|
I see no reason to have 1
as a part of any parameter; leaving it out would further shorten the text required. I've left out |author=
and |editor=
altogether; continuing to use these, rather than the first/last parameters, just increases the headaches involved in parsing names; however, I could see their use being restricted to institutional authors/editors and the parameters renamed accordingly, perhaps |orgau=
/|orged=
(I'm assuming that |fn=
and |ln=
would extract to rft.aufirst
and rft.aulast
, respectively, and |orgau=
would extract to rft.au
.) Since COinS metadata doesn't currently include anything for editors, I'm less worried about those parameters. On the topic of metadata, I think the decision needs to be made at a much higher level as to whether or not all citations will support COinS metadata. Is it acceptable that some don't/won't?—
D'Ranged 1
talk 09:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
{{{af|{{{af1|{{{first|{{{first1|}}}}}}}}}}}}
. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that shortened parameter names do anything to help clutter. Does this really help:
-- Gadget850 talk 11:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The {{ vcite}} template is being used incorrectly here. It is a typing aid and should not be escaped with {{ tl}}. {{ vcite}} = Citation Style Vancouver. More at Help:Citation tools#Documentation. -- Gadget850 talk 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
One error that I see repeatedly is |access date=
instead of |accessdate=
. Could/should we add |access date=
as an alias to the templates?—
D'Ranged 1
talk 23:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok ( WorldCat search) is used as a reference on about 55 pages ( wikipedia search). Until recently, most of these pages had ISBN errors due to use of Unknown non-ISBN IDs in the ISBN. It looks like all the ISBN errors have now been fixed, either by moving the unknown IDs to the ID field ( example1 or example2) or by deleting the ID ( example3, example4). Examples 2 and 4 also added an OCLC - 14111333.
I think these IDs are taken from signature marks in the documents, although some of them (especially 412070) may have been garbled or misapplied. Searching gso.gbv.de for "charlottas dagbok" and following eg "Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas ... ; 5 ; 1795 - 1796" leads to a scanned pdf table of contents (Inhaltsverzeichnis in the default german) eg like this. In this case the number 231845 is part of the mark at the bottom of page ix, the last page. In other cases the mark is at the bottom of page xvii:
Note that for the books with no mark, either page ix or page xvii is absent from the toc, so the marks are probably present, they just happen not to coincide with the scanned section. Note that although the commonly occurring id 412070 is not on this list it is an adjacent-key typo for 412970, which is.
I'm not sure whether this implies the ids should be removed or preserved or documented further or left as-is but I thought it was relevant. Or should I have posted somewhere else? Should I put some links on the talk pages of some of the articles citing these books (eg the 4 examples above) to try to bring in anyone with a specific interest in these books? TuxLibNit ( talk) 22:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC); added direct links to all table of contents PDFs, and Google Book where available. — Makyen ( talk) 07:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
|id=
or (more common) |isbn=
parameters. In all cases, I provided the OCLC number for the entire series. The choice to use the OCLC for the entire series rather than the individual OCLC was because the majority of libraries listed their collections of these books under the series OCLC rather than the OCLC for each individual volume (usually only one or two libraries for each volume). I felt that this would make it easier for interested readers to find the book. Because I used the OCLC for the entire book, I also included a link to a search on WorldCat showing all matches for "Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas dagbok".|title=
.|volume=
, embedding the volume with the title and translated title in a single |title=
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat|editor-first=Cecilia
and |editor-last=af Klercker, född Lewenhaupt
)|editor-first=Cecilia af
and |editor-last=Klercker
|editor-first=Cecilia
and |editor-last=af Lewenhaupt Klercker
)|editor=Cecilia af Klercker, född Lewenhaupt
|editor-first=Cecilia
, |editor-last=af Klercker född Lewenhaupt
, and |others=Translation by Cecilia af Klercker född Lewenhaupt
|id=
" variety. It was obvious, given the publication date and clearly incorrect format, that it could not be an ISBN. I only started to look more in depth into these citations as a group when I noticed that I was encountering multiple citations with them and the IDs were not matching across citations of the same volume sometimes even when the citations were in the same article.If you check the example at Template:Cite_interview#Examples, the first example is coming up with an error message: "Missing or empty |title=". I'm not sure how this should be fixed, since the title and the name of the program seem to be synonymous in this instance. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
|title=
is required and should be used in place of the name of the program when no separate title is available. Even better would be to get the template to do this automatically. The current example is this:
{{cite interview |last= Blackmun |first= Harry |subjectlink= Harry Blackmun |interviewer= [[Ted Koppel]] |program= ''[[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]]'' |callsign= [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |city= New York |date= April 5, 1994 }}
, which displays with the error:
{{
cite interview}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |callsign=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink=
ignored (|subject-link=
suggested) (
help)|title=
instead:
{{cite interview |last= Blackmun |first= Harry |subjectlink= Harry Blackmun |interviewer= [[Ted Koppel]] |title= [[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]] |callsign= [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |city= New York |date= April 5, 1994 }}
, which displays without the error:
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |callsign=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink=
ignored (|subject-link=
suggested) (
help)|title=
eliminates the need to manually add italics to the name of the program. The template should definitely be updated to automatically italicize the |program=
field, in keeping with
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics#Titles: "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, ...." I would also propose that when both title and program are used, the program is italicized and the title is enclosed in double quotation marks.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 00:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Pursuant to someone else's comment, I went to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to review the list of parameters used in CS1 templates. As a possible first step in creating some sort of naming convention for CS1 templates, I would propose that we start by:
This isn't radical—it's nearly true now. If we added some aliases, and stressed using the lower-case, hyphenated forms of parameter names in documentation (a project I am willing to take on), we might eventually get to deprecate a few others.
What I propose:
Add the following aliases to comply with lower-case, hyphenated parameter names:
|
|
|
Add the following in lieu of upper-case names:
Eventually, deprecate upper-case names that are not acronyms:
|
|
|
Note that the additions are in keeping with existing aliases for other parameters and I am not advocating adding aliases for run-on words for parameters that already are hyphenated (|transtitle=
, authorfirst=
, |authorlast=
come to mind as examples of aliases that should not be created). Additionally, the only url parameters in the list that are not hyphenated currently are |deadurl=
and |eventurl=
. I realize that |deadurl=
is a different animal than the url parameters that are links, but I think for less confusion it would be helpful to always hyphenate parameters that are composed of two (or more) words. It is quite frustrating when tweaking citation information by hand (due to the RefToolBar still using deprecated parameters, and no way to customize it for individual use, contrary to documentation) to have to go back and correct the parameter name because I forgot whether it used an underscore, hyphen, space, or nothing at all. Establishing some conventions would go a long way toward making editing faster and more intuitive.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 14:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
|subjectlink#=
that doesn't currently have aliases parallelling those of the other numbered arguments, which seem to have every possible permutation regarding where the number goes in the name, as in |author-link#=
,|author#link=
, |author#-link=
, and |authorlink#=
; currently, only |subjectlink#=
exists. Which of these conventions should be adopted as preferred is probably a lengthy discussion that can wait for now.)|deadurl=
, for example, is "one of the short ones that doesn't need a hyphen" just continues the problem.
Jonesey95 didn't think my suggestion of adding |access date=
as an alias was a good one; upon more thought, he's right. We don't need aliases for every conceivable misspelling, but standardizing the spelling/naming conventions might go a long way toward reducing the errors. However, the documentation at
Template:Cite interview states that |access-date=
was deprecated in favor of |accessdate=
so perhaps there is opposition to using hyphens. (I might also question the need for the CamelCase |EditorGiven=
and |EditorSurname=
or alises thereof, at all, but that's another discussion.|authors#=
and |editors#=
to the list of parameters to be deprecated.|news=
alias be added with all of this? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
|newspaper=
exists; in which template(s) would |news=
be used, and what information would it contain? What is being used in its place now? Are you proposing that it be an alias of an existing parameter, or a completely new one?|authors#=
and |editors#=
, and would also propose that |authors=
and |editors=
be deprecated as well. I think if we obtain consensus on the naming convention we can use the consensus as validation of creation of any aliases that don't meet the convention, and subsequently put forth arguments for deprecation; in a separate RFC if that is needed. So I would limit the RFC to the naming convention proposed. Does that seem best?—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 20:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Is there some way we could get formal consensus to make the changes I've proposed (if formal consensus is needed; general consensus seems to be supportive) and then have them actually carried out?The answer to the 'formal' part of that is WP:RFC.
|authors#=
and |editors#=
and Editor J. Johnson's suggestion to add |news=
should not be part of your RFC because that will distract from your intended change.An easy mistake, at least for me, is to write doi= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03191222 rather than doi=10.1007/BF03191222. Would it be possible and desirable to silently suppress an initial http://dx.doi.org/ or https://dx.doi.org/ in the doi field? Deltahedron ( talk) 06:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
So I bought the ePub of Ed vs. Yummy Fur to fix up Ed the Happy Clown, and discovered it's not paginated (the print version is, but I'm not buying it twice). How should I cite such a book (using, say, {{ sfn}})? Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 11:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
|at=loc. 33
to cite the location given by the Kindle app. In {{sfn}}
you'd have the option of |loc=loc. 33
to accomplish the same thing. Of course, this assumes your ePub edition has some sort of numbering scheme to reference.
Imzadi 1979
→ 11:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
{{sfn|Evenson|Kaczynski|2014|loc=chpt. 3}}
which will render as ^Evenson & Kaczynski 2014, chpt. 3. If what you're citing isn't in a chapter, but in a named section, use that for |loc=
; I would enclose it in double quotes, however: {{sfn|Evenson|Kaczynski|2014|loc="distinction & meaning"}}
, rendering as ^Evenson & Kaczynski 2014, "distinction & meaning". It would seem that the {{
sfn}} format for footnotes isn't well-suited for e-books.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
See this . I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing. Template:Cite journal#Date is not helpful about both types of abbreviations. Besides fixing/improving the page I edited, I'm more concerned if anyone can "fix" the help here. comp.arch ( talk)
I have noticed that when editors cite a newspaper they tend to find |newspaper=
okay. But when they have a source that is obviously news (such as a television network) but not a paper, they balk (quite rightly, as it is not a newspaper), then get confused as to what alternate to use. Which would hardly matter, as |work=
, etc., are just aliases, except that names do carry meaning. So I wonder if, to avoid semantic conflict, |news=
could be added as an alias? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
|network=
or |station=
as aliases to |publisher=
, not |work=
because a TV network or TV station is a publisher not a publication.
Imzadi 1979
→ 00:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)news=''Guardian''
" if needed, but suppressing italics (prepend "</i>") would be a challenge for most users. For the rare case of "news=" plus "agency=" then I would append them both with a separator, and store in the
COinS metadata as the agency parameter. What we really want to avoid is people (or Bots) rushing to fix "news=xx.com" and put "work=xx.com" to show italic "xx.com" which just makes Wikipedia look ill-formatted. Meanwhile, I will update "
wp:autofixing cites" to fold "news=" into "agency=" where autofixing would provide better (non-italic) results, compared to human/Bot fixes very likely forcing italics (see:
dif289), because there is a limit to what people can rapidly hand-fix, while autofixing is now handling hundreds of tedious issues instantly. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)|news=nreionline.com
being changed to |work=nreionline.com
. For that citation "nreionline.com" is the work in which the news report is contained. |work=
is correct. You imply that it should be |agency=
which it should not in that case. In that citation, there should be no |agency=
as there is no agency credited and a author is named. You appear to be advocating significantly changing how we display citations.|news=
parameters.|agency=
should be higher than it is, I highly doubt that the correct alias, if we establish one, for "news" would be |agency=
. I believe that it is far more likely that "news" be mistakenly used for |work=
than for |agency=
.We've had an interesting romp across the landscape of possible complications, but I wonder if we might return to the original request: Could we have a new parameter, |news=
, aliased to |work=
in the same manner as |newspaper=
? This would alleviate the confusion some editors seem to have in citing a news source that is not a paper, and avoid the kludge of using the non-intuitive and more general |work=
. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion having waned without any definite objection, could |news=
be implemented as an alias to |newspaper=
? If not, what else is required? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite interview has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update {{
cite interview}} to automatically italicize |program=
, in keeping with
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics#Titles: "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, ...."—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Per
MOS:TITLEQUOTES, Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work. Examples of titles which are quoted but not italicized... — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)I ran across this and wondered if there's a way to avoid it:
{{Cite journal |author=Rabie, Mohamed |date=Summer 1992 |title=The U.S.–PLO Dialogue: The Swedish Connection |journal=[[Journal of Palestine Studies]] |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=54–66 |accessdate=1 July 2007 |doi=10.1525/jps.1992.21.4.00p0140g |ref=harv |jstor=2537663}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I fixed it by putting the retrieval date outside the template but still within the <ref>
tags:
<ref>{{Cite journal |author=Rabie, Mohamed |date=Summer 1992 |title=The U.S.–PLO Dialogue: The Swedish Connection |journal=[[Journal of Palestine Studies]] |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=54–66 |doi=10.1525/jps.1992.21.4.00p0140g |ref=harv |jstor=2537663}} Retrieved 1 July 2007.</ref>
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Retrieved 1 July 2007.Both the doi and jstor parameters link to the same website (the doi link redirects to the jstor link); could the template be modified to ignore the error if one or both is present?— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 03:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
url:http://www.example.com
appears between two pipes), the access date error goes away.|accessdate=
error messages are hidden by default.In the documentation under Display options, the following statement is incorrect:
(.)
; for no terminating punctuation, specify |postscript=none
– leaving |postscript=
empty has the same effect but is ambiguous. Ignored if quote is defined.In testing, I find that if you leave the parameter empty, it defaults to a period. In order to suppress the closing punctuation, the value must be set to |postscript=none
:
{{cite web|first1=First|last1=Last|title=Sample Title|date=June 9, 2014|accessdate=June 9, 2014|url=http://www.example.com|postscript=}}
{{cite web|first1=First|last1=Last|title=Sample Title|date=June 9, 2014|accessdate=June 9, 2014|url=http://www.example.com|postscript=none}}
The statement about the parameter being ignored if
is defined is correct:
|quote=
{{cite web|first1=First|last1=Last|title=Sample Title|date=June 9, 2014|accessdate=June 9, 2014|url=http://www.example.com|quote=Pithy statement.|postscript=none}}
Pithy statement.
I haven't been able to figure out how to test this on non-lua templates; I don't know if the language there needs to be updated as well. The subtemplate {{
Citation Style documentation/display}} uses #if
statements to control what's displayed if the template is lua-based; I'm not comfortable in editing the documentation. Could someone more savvy do so? I think just deleting – leaving would be sufficient. Thanks!—[[User:D'Ranged 1D'Ranged 1]]
VTalk 04:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
empty has the same effect but is ambiguous
|postscript=
empty is the same as omitting it, but is ambiguous." Does that work? That text will display only in Lua citations (e.g. cite journal, cite book), the ones that use the CS1 module. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This parameter is mentioned in the documentation for {{
cite encyclopedia}}
, but is not recognized (leaves an error message) when used there or in {{
citation}}
. The documentation is suggestive that it is intended to be an alternate (synonym) for publisher, but when publisher is absent and distributor is present, the error says distributor is unknown (and suggests publisher instead). When both are present, another error also says both cannot be specified. What's the story? Documentation bug, or template bug, or old deprecated (nonfunctional) parameter?
Evensteven (
talk) 22:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
|distributor=
is not listed at
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist but is defined as an alias of |publisher=
in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. The {{
citation/core}}
version of {{
cite encyclopedia}}
did not use |distributor=
; the mention of |distributor=
is in a section of the common documentation referring to parameters that produce the
COinS metadata.|distributor=
is {{
cite sign}}
(currently transcluded into 161 pages). Because |distributor=
isn't included in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist but is listed in
Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, it would appear that the intent was to deprecate and remove |distributor=
in favor of |publisher=
.|distributor=
, then to complete the task we need to edit
Template:cite sign/doc to remove mention of |distributor=
as an alias of |publisher=
; edit
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/coins to remove mention of |distributor=
; edit
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to remove |distributor=
as an alias of |publisher=
.|distributor=
does not appear in the
Whitelist of valid parameters. It was added to the Whitelist on
31 August 2013, but it was not added to Whitelist/Sandbox at the same time. The next time the Sandbox was synced to the main Whitelist file, distributor was removed, probably inadvertently.|distributor=
appears in the
Module Configuration code as an alias for |publisher=
.|distributor=
to the Suggestions list on
13 December 2013, probably after noticing that it was marked as unsupported in a citation.{{
cite encyclopedia}}
and {{
citation}}
, as noted above, as well as {{
Cite sign}}
and probably others.|distributor=
was inadvertently removed from the Whitelist, and that re-adding it to the Whitelist and removing it from Suggestions will fix the problem.
Trappist the monk has been making most of the changes to the CS1 module lately, but is on a wikibreak. I'm willing to make this small change and will document it accordingly. Any objections?|others=
for niche cases such as this. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Could a parameter be added for a thesis' BLDSC number? See e.g. [2] (linked to at Timothy Gowers). It Is Me Here t / c 14:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
|id=
could not be utilised? BTW the abbreviation
e.g. is not italicised, see
MOS:TEXT#Foreign terms. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
|index-name=
, |index-number=
, |index-link=
? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. This parameter can have text describing the id, the ID number and a link to the appropriate location. Is there a reason this is not sufficient? —
Makyen (
talk) 06:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The table in this documentation contains a parameter called "websitework", but that doesn't actually seem to exist? Derboo ( talk) 08:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Derboo, can you please provide a link to the page that displays this erroneous text? Thanks. It looks like you may be seeing the same thing that an editor saw at this discussion. The resolution is not given there, but it looks like the specific web browser version was the cause. What web browser are you using? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the edit requested above, I propose the following:
|interviewer=
a numbered parameter, |interviewer#=
|cointerviewers=
has been deprecated; there are still programs that use more than one interviewer. |subject#=
is an alias of |author#=
; so utilizing |author#=
would put the interviewer in the wrong place.|interviewer-link=
and |interviewer#-link=
|interviewer=
[[Ted Koppel{{!}}Koppel, Ted]]
Does this need an RFC? Or will discussion/support/oppose here suffice? Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 23:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite interview}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|title=
, "|" should be replaced with |
as is described at
Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters. In |url=
, "|" should be replaced with %7C
as is described at
Help:Citation Style 1#Special characters.|interviewer=
documentation describes that multiple interviewers should be listed in the single parameter with the names separated by a semicolon. It is unclear to me if it is desirable to handle this as a situation where the names should be split into multiple parameters. As I understand it, one of the main reasons why authors and editors are split in that manner is to facilitate creating the COinS data. I don't believe the interviewer is included in that data.|author-link=
and |editor-link=
. —
Makyen (
talk) 04:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
|ref=harv
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13, I am not asking to change any parameter names; rather to expand the |interviewer=
parameter to an incrementable parameter that would function the same way |author=
and |editor=
do. I also am proposing adding a new parameter, |interviewer#-link=
, to easily insert a link to the interviewer(s)' article(s) on Wikipedia into the citation. No one would need to learn different syntax unless they chose to use the incremental form of the parameter (by adding a number to the parameter); they could easily continue to use the present method of listing multiple interviewers in |interviewer=
and manually wikilinking the interviewer name(s). I'm proposing an enhancement, not a replacement. As for the use of {{
!}}, I mistakenly believed that use of it was necessary when wikilinking names within a citation template.
Makyen, thank you for the clarification regarding the use of {{
!}}; I was sure I had seen one of the reference tools automatically replace the pipe in a wikilink with {{
!}}; I was mistaken. I went back and reviewed the citation, {{
!}} was used to insert a pipe in the |work=
parameter; your information on a better way to do that is duly noted.
Makyen,
Redrose64,
Jc3s5h, and
Gadget850—my proposal isn't prompted by considerations of COinS data or shortened footnotes. As has been pointed out, the |interviewer=
parameter isn't included in COinS metadata and this change would have no impact on shortened footnotes.
The primary purpose of the proposal is to help make editing methods across these templates more consistent. To my knowledge, there are currently four parameters (and their aliases) in the CS1 templates to capture names of people: |author=
, |editor=
, |interviewer=
, and |others=
. Both |author=
and |editor=
are incrementable via attaching a number to the parameter. Like |interviewer=
, an editor still has the option of listing all the authors in |author=
and all the editors in |editor=
, separated by semicolons and wikilinked if desired. However, in my opinion, it is much easier, especially with tools such as RefToolbar, to enter names in separate parameters and let the tool take care of the punctuation. My goal, about which Technical 13 inquired, is to cut down on the exceptions that an editor has to remember when using the CS1 templates. Just as an editor shouldn't have to remember that this parameter name takes a hyphen, but that one needs an underscore, and that other one mushes the words together, an editor shouldn't have to remember to structure his citation differently when dealing with similar data.
(As a side note: I am much less concerned that this methodology be applied to |others=
; its use seems infrequent and I would imagine that its inclusion is rarely required in order to provide an accurate, identifiable reference to a specific source. If we wanted to be completely consistent, |others=
would be incrementable and there would be parallel, incrementable |role=
) and |others-link=
to make data entry easier and, again, let the template add the proper punctuation and formatting. I don't see a real need to do any of that.)
I'm also not proposing that the parameter be further divided with |first=
and |last=
names; those exist for the reasons stated above; their use is not required (nor desirable) here. So it still wouldn't be a perfectly consistent method, but it would be more so than it is now. I hope this clarifies things; thank you for your patience. (My Talk page posts are probably in need of a good copyeditor for length.)—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 02:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
, it would seem that the effort required to implement this proposal would far outweigh the benefit.|lastn=
and the like arbitrarily scaleable (instead of having to explicitly make a bespoke |last19=
, |last20=
, and so forth). It would therefore be in keeping with this thinking to have |interviewern=
, |interviewern-last=
, |interviewern-link=
, |subjectn-link=
, ..., work in the same way.
It Is Me Here
t /
c 11:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)perhaps we should add a section parameter to template:cite book, not all books that will be referenced are separated by "chapters". I feel a little awkward constantly using the chapter parameter when its not really a chapter. Lucia Black ( talk) 11:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
|at=
parameter, but bear in mind that it can't be used with |page=
, so you could use |at=section 3.2.1, p. 123
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
First time i'm asking for one i believe, anyways, why shouldn't there be a section parameter? it'll make things much easier. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
permits use of either |chapter= or |section=, just not both at the same time. They are treated as synonyms, and produce the same textual output, so the difference is really just a matter of internal record. You won't see it unless you look at the wiki source code.
Evensteven (
talk) 07:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
to use sections, which is important for DVD/Blu-ray releases several sections such as commentary and production notes.
Lucia Black (
talk) 07:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
also permits |section= in place of |chapter=. Yes, the documentation is inadequate. Many of these "cite" templates permit the full range of parameter choices equally - anything that {{
citation}}
allows. You can pretty much select which of them you want to employ in any individual citation.
Evensteven (
talk) 10:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, "the {{ vcite journal}} template [has] fallen into disuse". It has only 285 transclusions. It seems that it and the related templates ({{ vcite book}} (208 transclusions), {{ vcite news}} (100), {{ vcite web}} (168)) were forked from their more commons equivalents due to performance issues, which have since been solved. They also lack COinS metadata. Is there any need to keep them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
templates: you can't pass something to a template unless the template is preconfigured to receive it.{{vcite}}
templates. I'm sure that there are other peculiarities I haven't discovered.{{
vcite journal}}
does have quite a few unique parameters that aren't supported by CS1, for example the dot versions of several parameter names, the |xxxphrase=
parameters, etc. Are these necessary? Are they used in current {{vcite}}
templates? What is the list of all things where the {{vcite}}
templates differ from CS1 templates? Are all of these differences required?The vcite templates do not have strict naming conventions because institutional authors are allowed. seem my post to the #Authors and COinS thread at 15:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC). Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
...
which in turn refers to:Only use initials in a personal name if the name is commonly written that way.
— MOS:ABBR
Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format.
— Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_initials
Imzadi: What do you mean by "if you want to use Vancouver style, you use vcite * templates"?
It seems to me the only reason people use vcite is because they are in love with the "initials condensed together" of the Vancouver system. But this can be done with the other templates, so why are vcite templates necessary? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Imzadi1979: or anyone else: what do the {{ vcite}} templates do that can't be done with any other citation template?
[display] a semicolon as a punctuation mark to separate authors and editors.Setting
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
will cause the template to display the authors in Vancouver style. This is neither prohibited nor goes against the documentation (or why would these documented parameters exist in the first place?).
Boghog (
talk) 05:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Should the question of whether there is any need for the vcite templates be raised in an RfC? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This subject was brought up previously, but was abandoned. Now it's been archived. The problem occurs when using RefToolbar's auto-fill ISBN feature on {{ cite book}}:
{{cite book |first1=Ian H. |last1=Witten |first2=David |last2=Bainbridge |first3=David M. |last3=Nichols |title=How to build a digital library |date=2010 |isbn=978-0-12-374857-7 |publisher=Morgan Kaufmann Publishers |location=Amsterdam |edition=2nd ed.}}
:{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)RefToolbar extracts the data, which includes the " ed." text, and inserts it into the template. When parsed, the template adds another " ed." to the end of |edition=
. What is the best way to proceed to fix the problem? Should we ask Mr.Z-man to alter the RefToolbar gadget? Is there a way to programmatically have the template replace an instance of " ed. ed." with " ed."? Or should we just rely on editors to remove the " ed." from the gadget before inserting it into the article? Since many will miss it, this should be on the replacement list for many bots, I would think; it may already be. Any ideas for next steps to fix this?—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I originally thought this was a simple fix; upon further investigation and testing, it's more complicated than what was in my protected edit request above.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles states:
Use italics for the titles of ... television series .... The titles of ... television episodes ... are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks.
Here is how the current {{
cite interview}}
template formats a citation including both
and |program=
data:
|title=
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |title=The Secretary of State |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley|Pelley, Scott]] |program=60 Minutes |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink1=
ignored (|subject-link1=
suggested) (
help)Here is the additional formatting needed within the current template to make it display properly:
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |title=''"The Secretary of State"'' |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley|Pelley, Scott]] |program=''60 Minutes'' |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink1=
ignored (|subject-link1=
suggested) (
help)Here is how the current {{
cite interview}}
template formats a citation which only has
data:
|program=
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley |Pelley, Scott]] |program=60 Minutes |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink1=
ignored (|subject-link1=
suggested) (
help)Note that in addition to the error message, data in
is rendered as a raw URL. I have updated the template documentation to indicate that |url=
is required; however, ideally, this is how the template would function:
|title=
|title=
or |program=
; eliminate the error message when |program=
is populated but |title=
is not.|program=
and |title=
are populated, italicize |program=
and wrap |title=
in quotation marks; if |url=
is populated, map it to |title=
.|title=
is populated, assume it is the name of the show/series, not the episode, and italicize it; if |url=
is populated, map it to |title=
.|program=
is populated, italicize it; if |url=
is populated, map it to |program=
.Can this be done?— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 04:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
or |program=
is necessary unless |url=
is present. In that case, one or the other should be required.|title=
as an alias of |program=
in some cases; we have other cite templates like this (encyclopedia comes to mind), and they are very confusing. I'd rather see |title=
in quotation marks always and just let editors change |title=
to |program=
if it makes sense to do so. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)|title=
and |program=
are empty but |url=
is supplied, that it map to "Interview with", which the template automatically generates unless |type=
is supplied; in that case, the URL could map to the value in |type=
. This would avoid another error message.
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |first2=Hillary |last2=Clinton |subjectlink1=Hillary Clinton |type=Round-table discussion |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley|Pelley, Scott]]; [[Morley Safer|Safer, Morley]] |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
could display as:{{
cite interview}}
(perhaps |source=
?) than to fold additional parameters into {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
?—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 00:01, 7 June 2014To summarize, here's what seems to need consensus:
|program=
is populated but |title=
is not.|program=
and |title=
are populated, italicize |program=
and wrap |title=
in quotation marks; if |url=
is populated, map it to |title=
.|program=
or |title=
are populated and |url=
is populated, map it to the populated parameter.|program=
or |title=
only if |url=
is populated (error message generated)|program=
nor |title=
is populated and |url=
is populated, map |url=
to the default text "Interview with" or the value of |type=
(no error message).Further comments? This seems to have stalled; I'd like to get it resolved and implement whatever conclusion is reached. Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that in 2011 CrossRef began encouraging the display of DOIs as URLs, why is {{ cite journal}} still rendering them as URNs, even if the namespace-specific strings are hyperlinked to the resolver? I believe that we should be following their guidance for best practice, and rendering the DOIs as URLs, which will facilitate research using printed copies of our articles.
Looking at
this discussion from 2011, it may be due to the desire to present the string "doi" as an explanatory hyperlink, as with the rendering of
PMCs,
PMIDs, etc. There are good arguments made in that discussion for the current link-next-to-a-link behavior as being harmful (
Kaldari wrote: I often click the wrong one by mistake.
), but also the valid point is made that readers may not know what a DOI is. I believe the issue should be reconsidered in the light of CrossRef's guidance. —
Scott •
talk 14:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
doi:10.3389/gene.2013.00151
and links to http://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffgene.2013.00151
, a URL.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)DOI 10.3389/gene.2013.00151
? The brief, unconcluded discussion at
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5 may be relevant. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/gene.2013.00151
within the reference citation. --
79.67.248.252 (
talk) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
doi:10.3389/gene.2013.00151
" and "http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/gene.2013.00151
" is not significant. You selectively quote the least important part of the CrossRef statement, as opposed to This change will allow users to copy permanent CrossRef DOI links from HTML pages to emails, blogs, reference management software and other applications. It's applications other than web browsers where linkification may need to happen, or even simply places where humans enter URLs by hand, such as from print, an issue which I raised and you do not address in your comment. Also, "which many consider ugly" is weasel words and "I don't like it" in one. You'll also notice that virtually all of
WP:BAREURLs is about the problem of link rot, which is irrelevant to the DOI resolver system for obvious reasons. —
Scott •
talk 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment – Looks to me like we are already in compliance with the CrossRef guideline. To wit, Option 6 which reads:
That same citation using {{
cite journal}}
is:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)Here we are complying with the 'something similar [the identifier] with the permanent DOI link behind the text.' The permanent link is available with a right-click > Save link as ... or similar functionality in every browser I have to hand.
As I read the guidelines, there doesn't appear to be any requirement for print versions of articles to use the full URL. In fact, were that a requirement, then none of Options 4, 5, or 6 would make any sense.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
We should bring DOI display into consistency with other identifiers. I.e., going from
to
The URN formulation is not particularly useful - in fact, it's not even valid. URN syntax requires them to begin with urn:
, meaning that doi
would be a namespace; the DOI Foundation has deliberately not registered a DOI namespace for URNs. See
Uniform resource name#Absence of DOI namespace. —
Scott •
talk 10:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
doi
was because the output was a URI, and that URI schemes are required to be in lowercase. However, the output is not a proper URI, because doi
is
not a URI scheme (permanent or provisional). And as mentioned above, even if it were to be prefixed with urn:
, there's no DOI namespace for URNs either - so the output in its current state is malformed, being neither a URN or URI. —
Scott •
talk 12:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)doi:
should be replaced with DOI
. —
Scott •
talk 12:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)It is not a bug. It is displayed that way because the DOI specification explicitly calls for lowercase "doi:". (see 2.6.1 Screen and print presentation) — Makyen ( talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I just added templatedata for cite book for the editor2 parameters. Now opening a cite book template in VE brings up the new parameters but without the descriptive name I provided. Did I screw something up? I checked the VE archives and found mention of a null edit to the template being necessary after an edit to templatedata; is that the issue here? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The current state of TemplateData is:
Template | Number of parameters |
---|---|
Citation | 248 |
Cite AV media | none |
Cite AV media notes | none |
Cite DVD notes | none |
Cite arXiv | none |
Cite book | 116 |
Cite conference | none |
Cite doi | none |
Cite encyclopedia | 66 |
Cite episode | none |
Cite hdl | none |
Cite interview | none |
Cite journal | 92 |
Cite mailing list | none |
Cite map | none |
Cite music release notes | none |
Cite news | 93 |
Cite newsgroup | none |
Cite pmid | none |
Cite podcast | none |
Cite press release | 25 |
Cite serial | none |
Cite sign | 93 |
Cite speech | none |
Cite techreport | none |
Cite thesis | none |
Cite web | 91 |
I have been considering harmonizing the TemplateData for CS1 templates for some time. Such has also been suggested over at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Templatedata for cite book. I would think that it would be a good idea to have TemplateData in all of the CS1 templates. We should probably organize it such that the text is in templates containing the commonly used parameters. — Makyen ( talk) 13:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All parameter names in Citation Style 1 templates shall include at least an alias which is in lowercase that has separations with hyphens between English words, between (not within) acronyms, or between English words and acronyms. The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for "normal use". This is to establish a parameter name format that is uniformly available for all CS1 templates. Establishing this uniform parameter name convention does not preclude the existence of any other alias for a parameter, merely that a lowercase, hyphenated version will exist for each parameter.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 22:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC); Reworded to make it more clear that this proposal is not to eliminate any current version of a parameter. — Makyen ( talk) 22:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(Please only indicate Support or Oppose here, with discussion in the section below.)
Citation Style 1 parameter names are now a mix of CamelCase, mergedwords, and words separated by spaces, hyphens, or underscores. Remembering which style applies to what parameter name is frustrating; all parameter names should follow the same style so that an editor intuitively knows how to enter the parameter name. Most names are lower-case, hyphenated names, or have an alias that is, but not all. Adopting a naming convention will ensure that all current and future parameter names create less confusion and easier editing for editors.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 22:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to this concept, but I think it should be reworded to forbid bots from changing from the hyphenated version of a parameter name to an earlier version of the name, and the RFC be advertised at appropriate bot-related talk pages. Otherwise we will have warring bots. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
|TrANs__tITle=
for |trans-title=
that is not excluded by this RfC. I hope that it is not done, but it is not excluded. The goal of the RfC is to have at least one consistent style of parameter names across all of CS1 so that editors of enwiki do not have to guess at what parameter name style happens to be used in a particular template, or for a specific parameter within a template.|coauthors=
, etc. are being changed due to those parameters being deprecated, but I don't recall any bot going through and specifically changing other parameters. —
Makyen (
talk) 01:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
|date=
to |year=
here on May 17. I seem to recall that this was discussed and that AWB users were to stop doing it, but I don't remember when that took effect.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 15:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
|trans-title=
over to |trans_title=
for a long time. That process was recently halted. --
79.67.241.215 (
talk) 14:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)date = 2011
is perfectly valid, then
consensus has changed. I will read the discussion.
Mr Stephen (
talk) 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus to implement this. In order to do so, the following parameter names need to be added to the Whitelist and recognized as valid aliases by the templates:
|
|
|
And numbered_arguments:
|
Once this is done, I will notify the AWB users of the additions so that valid parameter names aren't mistakenly "corrected". I will then undertake updating the documentation on the templates.
Would someone with the ability to make the necessary changes please do so? Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
So there's a trans_title
parameter... might there also be a need for a trans_work
(or trans_journal
, trans_newspaper
, etc.) parameter? —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 01:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
|title=
italicizes all titles— italics are not appropriate for Asian languages. The fix has been to use {{
asiantitle}}, but this pollutes the metadata with markup. --
Gadget850
talk 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Cite_web#Examples includes the following (highlighting added):
{{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=Honi soit qui mal y pense |last=Joliet |first=François |date=30 April 2005 |accessdate=10 July 2014 |language=French |trans_title=Shame on those who think evil }}
How does the template transform the translated title (trans_title=
)
Shame on those who think evil
to
??
There's obviously something going on behind the scenes in this example that goes way beyond the parameters. Whatever it is, it's distracting and needs to be explained, or the example replaced by something straightforward. I can't see the actual code because
Template:Cite_web's "View source" tab says "You do not have permission to edit this page…" (I don't want to edit it, just view it) and shows the entire code as
<includeonly>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</includeonly><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>
which is no help at all. {{ping}} me if you want to discuss it. -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Should the non-English, official publisher name be included, or only the English translation of it? Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 11:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
|publisher=Le Chat Rouge [The Red Cat]
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)This obituary in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette appears to have been originally published in the Dallas Morning News. Should I cite it like this...
...or is there some way to credit the original paper? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
|agency=
, but that just added the "agency" with out comment. Perhaps just add text after the template, something like "Syndicated from the Dallas Morning News". ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help), crediting Smith, John (November 9, 2000). "More on JFK assassination". Daily Bugle. p. 2. {{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)|postscript=none
This comes from Elmo Hope, best seen in an earlier version [7]... Using {{sfn}} if the author field is blank (e.g., citation 2), then it is the newspaper name that pops up when the numbered citation is hovered over, but clicking on that name has no effect (it should jump to and highlight the relevant work in Bibliography). There is a similar problem with citation 4, I assume because the publication date is "2002" in the sfn but "2012 [2002]" in the Bibliography. {{rp}} has been used as a way around this, but that has introduced a second referencing system and removed the functionality of {{sfn}}. Is there a solution to these two problems, using {{sfn}} or another system? EddieHugh ( talk) 12:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
|ref={{sfnref|New York Amsterdam News|1940}}
to the citation under §Bibliography.|year=2012 [2002]
is not valid syntax in the complicated world of the citation templates. I changed it to |year=2012
|origyear=2002
, which works fine. I also changed the year in the {{
sfn}}
references to 2012; since the bibliography lists only the 2012 version, that's what needs to be cited. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose to add parameters |transcript=
, |audio=
, |video=
and |slides=
to
template:cite conference, so that readers could verify citation in a format according to their preference. I am planning to implement this in sandbox of corresponding module, but I wanted to gather some feedback on this idea before I spend too much time on implementing it. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track) 01:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The Cite web documentation states:
Thus, url should not be required, if title is wikilinked. However, this is not reflected in the
TemplateData which shows both of these parameters as required, always. If you try to use a wikilinked title without a URL, you get errors: Missing or empty |url= (help); |accessdate= requires |url= (help)
I think it should be possible to use a wikilinked title without a URL; if you use URL for an internal link, it will be followed by an external link icon. –
Wdchk (
talk) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
requires a URL, since you are citing a web page. Therefore, the title cannot be wikilinked in a {{
cite web}}
citation. I have corrected the documentation. Thanks for notifying us about this inconsistency. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Cite web documentation states:
Thus, url should not be required, if title is wikilinked. However, this is not reflected in the
TemplateData which shows both of these parameters as required, always. If you try to use a wikilinked title without a URL, you get errors: Missing or empty |url= (help); |accessdate= requires |url= (help)
I think it should be possible to use a wikilinked title without a URL; if you use URL for an internal link, it will be followed by an external link icon. –
Wdchk (
talk) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
requires a URL, since you are citing a web page. Therefore, the title cannot be wikilinked in a {{
cite web}}
citation. I have corrected the documentation. Thanks for notifying us about this inconsistency. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I have come to the wrong place to ask a question, /slash add a "comment" (to suggest an idea). Any help / advice would be welcome, in that case.
While reading the article Von Neumann architecture, I noticed that the first footnote (footnote number [1]) was a " dead link" ("See also" dead link.) I was able to find an "archived" copy of the dearly departed "deceased" web page (which was previously at the URL http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf ). The "archived" copy was found at https://web.archive.org/web/20130314123032/http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf .
Then, while I was updating the "<ref>...</ref>" tag, for footnote number "[1]", to add some fields such as "archiveurl" and "archivedate" (and "deadurl = yes"), I tried adding a field called "archiveurl_added_date"; but that did not work. (I got some error messages...)! I later decided that maybe "archiveurl-added-date" would be better (minus sign "-" characters, instead of underscore "_" characters), but way before that, I started snooping around, and somehow found my way to Help:Citation_Style_1 ... and I saw that it has an " Elements_not_included" section.
"Great!" [I thought]. I started to an an item to the list there. The existing list says:
and I was about to edit that list, there, and add a new item, saying something like:
...but I quickly realized that (a) it was getting too long; and (b) it was starting to contain some material that is more appropriate for a "Talk:" page, than for a NON-"Talk:" page. (Is there a correct name for a NON-"Talk:" page? Maybe in this case, it is just [called] a "Help:" page? Sorry...).
So, I tentatively decided to add this question, /slash "comment" (to suggest an idea) here on this "Talk:" page.
But meanwhile, I went back, and modified my revisions to footnote number "[1]" of the article about Von Neumann architecture. The details of my "edit" can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Von_Neumann_architecture&diff=618928560&oldid=616552075 .
As you can see from my edit, the newly updated "<ref>...</ref>" tag, has an "| archivedate = March 14, 2013" -- because that is the creation date, of the "archived" copy of the "deceased" web page (which was previously at the URL http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf ).
I did not change the "| accessdate = August 24, 2011", because I thought I was supposed to leave that, as the last known date when the URL shown in the "url" field was used (and worked OK).
Is that my mistake? Should I maybe have changed "| accessdate = [...]", to reflect the date when the "archiveurl" field was added? I could be wrong, but I didn't think so.
Or MAYBE ... no one cares about the date when the "archiveurl" field was added? If so, then kindly disregard this entire comment [section]!
Or MAYBE ... the "temporary" solution I used, should just be used permanently? (That is, the "solution" of documenting the date when the "archiveurl" field was added, but just doing so outside of the "{{citation}}" tag). (See the LINK to the edit I made [also shown above].) If so, then Case Closed. However, I would be surprised.
Any comments would be welcomed. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 07:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
was added, there is always the page history. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
|citation-added=
or |title-added=
or |url-added=
. The article history suffices if people are sufficiently interested in determining when a specific piece of text was added to an article or its references.|accessdate=
for citations I "
wikt:resurrect" by |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
, as these two already provide enough information about the measures of link rot prevention. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I see that in a recent use I made of the "via" parameter in {{ Cite news}} that there is no exposed information when the template is rendered; see the diff leading to this version of the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak article. This is contrary to documentation and I'm wondering if the parameter is broken or it is excluded from display due to the presence of another parameter. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 09:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
|publisher=
field. I changed it to |via=
and it displays properly now.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 15:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)I was pointed here from the
Help Desk. I've started using the "Cite" form in the GUI editor more and more, in lieu of manually typing {{cite web|blablabla}}. I understand that clicking "Show/Hide Extra Fields" will show probably more fields than most people would use anyway, but there are still some fields that I wish it included. One is subscription=yes/no
. I also wish that the format
field in the GUI was a dropdown instead of free text, which included some of the most popular formats, such as PDF, DOC or XLS. First, is this the place I should be discussing this? If so, what is the process for making a request and discussing and then making the change?
The article
John Roselli states that Roselli testified before the
Church Committee on June 24, 1975, however, the statement is unsourced. I am interested in using a primary source document,
[8], as a citation for that material. The document is essentially a transcript typed up by the shorthand reporting company Ward & Paul and I imagine it was obtained via the FOIA. I am unsure as to which citation template to use, and I don't know what to put as |publisher=
or if I need to use |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
. Any help on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
Location (
talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web |title=Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli |url=https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1446&relPageId=3 |website=Mary Ferrell Foundation |publisher=United States Senate |accessdate=August 6, 2014 |date=June 24, 1975}}</ref>
|website=
parameter because it's the name of a website published by the U.S. Senate. Rather, I would put it in the |via=
parameter to indicate that it's it the entity republishing the report. Actually, the Senate committee should be listed as the author of the report, and the actual publisher (Ward & Paul in Washington, DC) should be listed, and {{
cite report}} would be a better option (although it currently doesn't support |via=
). That would give something like:
The primary purpose of citations is to direct the reader to the source of the information. Since the source is at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, that information needs to be included; however, it works to put it in the |via=
parameter:
<ref>{{cite web |title=Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli |url=https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1446&relPageId=3 |via=Mary Ferrell Foundation |publisher=United States Senate |accessdate=August 6, 2014 |date=June 24, 1975}}</ref>
Which displays as:
To me, it is less clear that the source is a website in either example I have given; you might want to use "www.maryferrell.org" instead of the name of the foundation. While the report is being cited, the source is the website, not the report, so the {{ cite web}} is the correct template. If whoever cited the report did so from a hard copy of it, then you would use {{ cite report}}. (I make this same distinction between {{ cite web}} and {{ cite news}}; I only use the latter if I'm citing from an actual physical copy of an article. If I'm citing something I found on the internet, I use {{ cite web}}. Other editors use them interchangeably when citing newspaper articles.) Arguably, you could list the committee name as the author, but the citation as above is sufficient to direct the reader to the source. The publisher is the U.S. Senate, regardless of who transcribed the proceedings—they would have had to release the tape recording from which the transcription was made. While I agree with the comments about primary sources; it would seem in this instance that the source is an actual photocopy or microfiche of the transcription that has been approved for release by the CIA; I wouldn't think that it would fail a reliable sources test.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
|url=
which it not applicable to a hard copy that I might possess. Thanks to all for the feedback!
Location (
talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|via=
parameter. This is useful for saying you got the copy of the source through Google Books, Google News,
Highbeam Research, etc. and not the original publisher. The U.S. Senate, or the specific publishing company/office, is the original publisher, and they made the original document publicly available. Mary Ferrell Foundation is just mechanically republishing it online. We would never say that a "Microfilm Archival Corporation" is the publisher of an article from The New York Times that I consulted in the library on microfilm, but if for some reason we should credit them, they'd go in the |via=
parameter. (The terms of the collaborations with various news archive sources say that we're supposed to credit them.)|url=
and related parameters for online copies. {{Cite web}}
is really for any type of online source where there isn't a more specific template. An online map is still a map, and {{cite web}}
does not support the parameters to indicate the cartographer, the scale, etc, which are still items that should be cited for any map, even if you consulted a copy of the map online. How do you properly indicate the wire agency behind a newspaper article in {{cite web}}
when |agency=
is only found in {{cite news}}
? How do you indicate the volume/issue/page for a journal article mechanically reproduced online when {{cite web}}
lacks those parameters?
Imzadi 1979
→ 02:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|url=
in {{
cite news}}. I reserve use of {{
cite news}} for printed works. You'll find, also, that the documentation for the Citation Style 1 templates is woefully inadequate and sometimes inaccurate—using |agency=
with {{
cite web}} works perfectly well:
{{cite web |title=World Gold |date=December 31, 1980 |accessdate=August 8, 2014 |website=nytimes.com |url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D01E1DF133EE532A25752C3A9649D94619FD6CF |agency=The Associated Press}}
{{cite news |title=World Gold |date=December 31, 1980 |publisher=The New York Times |page=72 |agency=The Associated Press}}
|publisher=The New York Times
is incorrect. It may be |work=The New York Times
or |newspaper=The New York Times
as you see fit; but according to
Contacts and Services - The New York Times, the publisher is Arthur Sulzberger Jr. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|newspaper=The New York Times
, in my view. --
Alarics (
talk) 16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the templatedata for {{ Cite news}}, the phrase "forth author", which occurs in three parameters, should be "fourth author". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This
change to the css styling for the <code>...</code>
tag has, in my opinion, buggered up the error messages emitted by
Module:Citation/CS1. The new css is at
skins/common/commonElements.css.
Before the change, CS1 error messages had this look:
After the change, the same error message looks like this:
|accessdate=
requires |url=
With a small modification to override the text color (<code style="color: #cc0000;">...</code>
), we could get this:
|accessdate=
requires |url=
I think that we should return to the previous styling. There is no need to draw little boxes around the parameters displayed in error messages. To do that, I will replace <code>...</code>
in error messages with <kbd>...</kbd>
which seems to be the most appropriate tag; see
The kbd Element.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
para}}
which is oft used here.<kbd>...</kbd>
is for examples of user input (i.e. the values of parameters), not the parameter=
code! It's semantically incorrect to use kbd this way. Use Jonesey95's CSS fix, above. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
<kbd>...</kbd>
is documented at
w3c.code
element;
4.5.13 The var
element
4.5.14 The samp
element
4.5.15 The kbd
element. If you examine the source for that page, you'll see just how often the <code>...</code>
element is used. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is italic, while this is bold
is source code (we call it wikisource and source-view editing for a reason), and definitely not within the intended uses of <kbd>...</kbd>
, except in quite peculiar circumstances. E.g., perhaps if I were explaining on Simple Wikipedia, "How to make text italic: First type '' (two single-quote characters in a row)), then the word or words you want to make italic, then finish by typing '' again". Even then purists would say to use <code>...</code>
because the input in question is the input of source code, and kbd does not mark up source code.<code>...</code>
at all in this particular case. I'm in favor of doing so, because the boogering of this template's error message output is an unintended consequence of CSS changes to the element. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)In
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have overridden the default commonElements.css definition for <code>...</code>
to <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">...</code>
.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(noticing that I have been redirected to this talk page via the talk page of Template:Cite journal, the following refers to articles in academic journals)
A number of bibliographic databases have introduced the parameters "print year" and "online year", due to the increasing problem of articles being originally published electronically one year and then published in print one or two years later. A journal article is considered published in the year it was first published (usually electronically these days), but that year might be a different year than the year the print issue appears. I suggest we add at least "print year", to be used with volume, issue, pages etc, when the electronic version that the doi usually refers to was published in a different year.
Example: If I published the article "The reliability of Wikipedia articles" in the Journal of Wikipedia Studies, that started publication with Volume 1 in 2014, it would usually first appear only electronically, and be cited as:
But then, a year later, in 2015, the editors would finally manage to squeeze the article into the print issue Vol. 2, Issue 1, and then we have, according to the current template:
Here we would need a parameter to indicate that the print version (Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 50–65) appeared in 2015, not in 2014. Changing the "year" parameter from 2014 to 2015 would not be acceptable, because the work originally appeared in 2014 and may be cited as such by other literature. Bjerrebæk ( talk) 11:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|date=2015
and possibly |origyear=2014
:
|origyear=
(and |doi=
or other online links) may not be appropriate if there were editorial changes made to facilitate the hardcopy format. You can also use |type=
to distinguish between versions|type=
in a case this "delicate", and then just move on. Any time spent agonizing over this kind of source massaging is time not spent on adding more sources. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|publication-date=
might be applicable in some instances.Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |last=White |first=T. H |title=[[The Book of Merlyn]] |year=1941 |publication-date=1977 |publisher=University of Texas Press}} |
White, T. H (1941). The Book of Merlyn. University of Texas Press (published 1977). |
|publication-date=
should not be used because it is not mentioned in
Help:Citation Style 1. Thus, no one knows what it means or when it should be used. Maybe it is only intended for internal communications between templates. Maybe it is deprecated and is only supported to keep from breaking old citations that have not been updated yet.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 16:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)|publication-date=
is documented on most, if not all, CS1 template documentation pages which, I think, should be the first place editors should go for template parameter information.Can a parameter for linking to a transcript be added to Template:Cite podcast?-- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
|transcript-url=
in the CS1 module, but it appears that it is not currently used in any citations that use the CS1 module for rendering (I could be wrong). It is used in {{
cite serial}} and {{
cite episode}}, but those still use the old citation/core code. Adding it to cite podcast should be straightforward but would take some new code. Let's see if it works already:Wikitext | {{cite podcast
|
---|---|
Live | Jack Handey.
"Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Jack Handey.
"Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
First request with errors and no error-checking
| ||
---|---|---|
I played around in a sandbox and got it to work. Two parts of Module:Citation/CS1 need to be edited:
Currently:
Proposed edit:
Currently:
Proposed edit:
These changes result in the citation rendering as:
Could someone with editing access please make these (or more refined) changes? Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
local TranscriptAssemble
?|transcript-url=
is missing or empty?This
edit request to
Template:Cite podcast has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've tried again; I've corrected the needed modifications and included testcases below. The test citation template is {{
cite podcast/sandbox2}}
, which invokes the modified
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4
, which calls the modified
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3
. The only change in the configuration module not documented below is that
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4 calls
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3
under function z.citation(frame)
rather than
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox
. (I was loathe to edit existing sandboxes for fear of disrupting other testcases; I don't know what standard practice is with regard to the sandboxes.)
Two parts of Module:Citation/CS1 need to be modified:
Currently:
if is_set(Transcript) then
if is_set(TranscriptURL) then Transcript = externallink( TranscriptURL, Transcript ); end
elseif is_set(TranscriptURL) then
Transcript = externallink( TranscriptURL, nil, TranscriptURLorigin );
end
Proposed modification: (I added some additional line breaks to make the code more readable.)
if is_set(Transcript) then
if is_set(TranscriptURL) then
Transcript = sepc .. " " .. externallink( TranscriptURL, Transcript );
else
Transcript = sepc .. " " .. seterror('transcript_missing_url');
end
elseif is_set(TranscriptURL) then
Transcript = sepc .. " " .. seterror('transcripturl_missing_transcript');
else
Transcript = "";
end
Currently:
local idcommon = safejoin( { ID_list, URL, Archived, AccessDate, Via, SubscriptionRequired, Lay, Quote }, sepc );
Proposed modification:
local idcommon = safejoin( { ID_list, URL, Archived, AccessDate, Via, Lay, Transcript, Quote, SubscriptionRequired }, sepc );
Additionally,
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration will need two new error messages in the citation_config.error_conditions
section. I don't know what determines whether an error message is hidden or not; I would think these should always show, but I could be mistaken. Note that the category called by the errors doesn't currently exist; if it shouldn't be created, please comment out the category name. (I personally see no harm in having a new error category; it is not likely to ever have very many pages in it, but would be useful in tracking this particular error.) Please let me know if I need to create the category.
transcript_missing_url = {
message = '<code>|transcript=</code> requires <code>|transcript-url=</code>',
anchor = 'transcript_missing_url',
category = 'Pages with transcripturl citation errors',
hidden = false },
transcripturl_missing_transcript = { message = '<code>|transcript-url=</code> requires <code>|transcript=</code>',
anchor = 'transcripturl_missing_transcript',
category = 'Pages with transcripturl citation errors',
hidden = false },
To answer the questions above:
local TranscriptAssemble
; it was present in the sandbox I edited; it is no longer part of the proposed modifications.|transcript-url=
and |transcript=
with data in both:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
|transcript-url=
and |transcript=
:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123}}
|transcript-url=
and |transcript=
are present but empty:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url= |transcript=}}
|transcript=
is present, but empty:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript=}}
|transcript-url=
is present, but empty:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=}}
|transcript=
is populated; |transcript-url=
is empty. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url= |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
|transcript=
is present and populated; |transcript-url=
is not present. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
|transcript-url=
is populated; |transcript=
is empty. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript |transcript=}}
|transcript-url=
is present and populated; |transcript=
is not present. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript}}
I'm not adept at coding in Lua; I had hoped that someone with more knowledge would springboard off what I had discovered and make any further changes needed to comply with the rest of the template coding. I was trying to help move the process along; I hope this is enough to get the changes made with any additional modifications known to be needed by someone who's adept at this! I'm learning as I go; hopefully, I'll keep getting better at it. (I have experience in other coding languages; Lua/Scribunto is not among them; I've bookmarked the relevant reference manual.) Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 11:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
idcommon
is the correct location of the transcript text. It seems reasonable to assume that the podcast could be archived, could require a subscription (which might make the use of |quote=
desirable) would then make this:{{
cite episode}}
places the transcript after |series=
by using {{
citation/core}}
parameter |Other=
(|others=
). Perhaps something similar should be considered for {{
cite podcast}}
. Here I've used |others=[http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript Episode 123 transcript]
to mimic the positioning used by {{cite episode}}
:|registration=
rather than |subscription=
to ensure that it also falls at the end of the citation:
{{
cite episode}}
; I dislike that the archive information appears after the transcript; it's less clear what is archived, the podcast, or the transcript?See
this discussion. Because of that bug, the missing name detection is currently disabled in
Module:Citation/CS1. I think that I have fixed the problem and at the same time improved, in a minor way, the performance of the missing name detector code. In the previous version, whenever |firstn=
was missing |lastn=
the test stopped at the first 'hole'. Now, the test continues until it fails to find |lastn=
and |lastn+1=
.
CITEREF
ids{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)|last2=
, |last4=
, |last6=
{{
citation}}
: Missing |author2=
(
help); Missing |author4=
(
help); Missing |author6=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Missing |editor2=
(
help); Missing |editor4=
(
help); Missing |editor6=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)|first2=
and |first3=
without |last2=
and |last3=
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor-first2=
missing |editor-last2=
(
help); |editor-first3=
missing |editor-last3=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)What this also does is it creates more complete author/editor lists. Previously, the author/editor list would end at the first 'hole'. Similarly, the CITEREF
id will now use the first four last names in the author/editor list whereas previously it would stop at the 'hole'.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last1, First1; Last4, First4 (eds.). Title. {{
cite book}} : |editor-first2= missing |editor-last2= (
help); |editor-first3= missing |editor-last3= (
help); Invalid |ref=harv (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last1, First1; Last4, First4 (eds.). Title. {{
cite book}} : |editor-first2= missing |editor-last2= (
help); |editor-first3= missing |editor-last3= (
help); Invalid |ref=harv (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The horizontal and vertical full parameter sets use "archive-url" and "archive-date", while everything else on the page, including the TemplateData parameters and examples use "archiveurl" and "archivedate". It's fine if the template accepts both variants, but in my opinion, the page should either only use the variants with hyphen-minus or only those without. Opinions? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 19:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
instead of |access-date=
is that inexperienced editors see a red line under |accessdate=
and "correct" it as a spelling mistake, leading to a citation error (Example edits of this type:
[9]
[10]
[11]). Moving toward hyphenated multi-word parameters as the default choice could help editors avoid this confusion and reduce the number of citation errors that gnomes need to fix. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This section Help:Citation Style 1#et al. currently says: It is used to complete a list of authors of a published work, where the complete list is considered overly long. The term is widely used in English, thus it is not italicized per MOS:FOREIGN. However, MOS:FOREIGN first says: Foreign words should be used sparingly. and then Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English. I suspect that WP:MOS#Foreign words was the intended target, but that says: Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Et al. is not common in everyday English, while is it common in scientific and academic citation. There does seem to be a US/UK split in usage of italics for et al. See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#et al. revisited. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
on 9 March 2011. This change appears to have been made without objection. Since then,
Module:Citation/CS1 continues to render et al. without italics markup.They have an obvious use case when citing a chapter from a book (which has a page range), but also one wants reference a particular page within e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kuroda_normal_form&oldid=621483103 JMP EAX ( talk) 13:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
My workaround insofar for stuff like this was to use {{ rp}} in addition to the citation, but it tends to clutter the page. And I don't really want to use the two-level notes/references system, because it's so unwieldy. JMP EAX ( talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the example in question, I have no clue what is meant by |pages=175–252
and |at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190
.
{{cite book |last1=Mateescu | first1=Alexandru |last2=Salomaa|first2=Arto |editor1-first=Grzegorz| editor1-last=Rozenberg|editor2-first=Arto| editor2-last=Salomaa |title=Handbook of Formal Languages. Volume I: Word, language, grammar |publisher=Springer-Verlag |year=1997 |pages=175–252 |chapter=Chapter 4: Aspects of Classical Language Theory |isbn=3-540-61486-9|at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190}}
-- Gadget850 talk 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|pages=175–252
defines the page range occupied by |chapter=Chapter 4: Aspects of Classical Language Theory
then one or the other of those two parameters is redundant. In this case it would seem that |at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190
concisely identifies the location of the material that supports the claim in the article.|chapter=
parameter is intended treating a chapter in an edited book (which has an overall editor and chapters written by different authors) as a separate publication. But if the entire book is written by one book, and a particular claim is supported by an entire chapter of the book, as well as a few pages from another part of the book, you could use at = Chapter 5, Whatchamacallits | pages = 219–30
but the reader couldn't tell if you are citing Chapter 5 and pages 219–30, or you are indicating that Chapter 5 occupies 219–30. It would better to write at = Chapter 5, Whatchamacallits, also pp. 219–30
. Unless we want to create permanent rules on template developers (fat chance) about how to combine |at=
and |pages=
, the results will be unpredictable and the results may confuse readers, either now, or the next time the template gets changed.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 16:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|chapter=
is intended to hold the chapter heading; not the chapter heading plus some other stuff. Also, adding other stuff to |chapter=
will corrupt the citation's
COinS metadata. How would |chapter-pages=
be used? How would the value assigned to |chapter-pages=
render in a citation?The LCCN syntax guide says "The prefix is optional; if present, it has one to three lowercase alphabetic characters." It looks like our current code does not, but should, display an error message when upper case letters are used in the prefix.
Here's an example of the "same" LCCN that links to the correct book when a lower case prefix is used, but which gives a "LCCN Permalink Error" when an identical LCCN with an upper case prefix is used.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
l54000004. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
l54000004. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
L54000004. {{
cite book}} : Check |lccn= value (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
L54000004. {{
cite book}} : Check |lccn= value (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
I will adjust the documentation for the error message. Can the module sandbox be changed to give error messages for upper case letters in the prefix?
If I am misreading the syntax guide, let me know. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Considering:
Therefore I propose the following change, with new text underlined on the talk page, but there will be no underline when added to the main page:
Prescriptions about date formats only apply when the date is expressed in terms of Julian or Gregorian dates, or which use one of the seasons spring, summer, autumn or fall, winter. Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring-summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source. Although the seasons are not normally capitalized, they are capitalized when used as dates in CS1 templates, and the capitalization of the season stated by the source may be altered to follow this rule.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC), modified to link to WP:SEASON at 20:16 UT.
I'm adding this as a separate topic so I don't muddy the season topic. If an editor uses CS1 citation templates to record a "date in a religious calendar", how would they do so properly so they don't get an error? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
|ignore-date-error=yes
or an equivalent.
TuxLibNit (
talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Full parameter set in horizontal format and Full parameter set in vertical format have different parameters ?
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (
talk) 18:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
Help me}}
I was looking at the description of
Template:Cite web (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) and saw large boxes full of white space and all the parameters are described as "You can explore profiles of current Radio staff in the section of this site and learn more about the type of work we do on . Get the latest BBC Radio news from the and .". Is this just me (I got the same result in Chrome and Firefox) or is something wrong?
BiologicalMe (
talk) 15:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The {{ cite news}} documentation says, correctly, that periodicals usually omit the publisher, and not to include it when it is substantially the same as the work name. But the example of "A news article with a credited author", as well as several other examples, is a newspaper where the publisher is very similar to the work name. In my opinion, the cite news examples and the blanks under "Usage" should not include the publisher. -- JFH ( talk) 01:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Often enough I need to add an original publisher (i.e. different from the present/current edition one). There's no actual field for this and the way this is crammed in the origyear field in the examples makes it look very bad because the whole field is rendered before the title, and you don't normally put the publisher before the title. JMP EAX ( talk) 08:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Austen, Jane. (1813) 2013. Pride and Prejudice. London: T. Egerton. Reprint, New York: Penguin Classics. Citations refer to the Penguin edition.
|orig-location=
, |orig-publisher=
, and in-source locators |orig-page=
, |orig-pages=
, and |orig-at=
. This is a complicating path upon which I think we should not venture.CS1 is not really designed, full stop. The existence of |orig-year=
suggests some desire on the part of template users to be able to provide some information about earlier editions. At present, this could be done by following the citation template with additional text explaining the situation. In any case, Trappist the monk's statement "any citation, not just CS1" just isn't so.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 18:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
[my] statement "any citation, not just CS1" just isn't so, perhaps you could explain why you believe that?
|orig-year=
.The current description could use a bit of amplification:
|origyear=First published 1859
or |origyear=Composed 1904
.Reading Chicago and APA, the intent of 'origyear' is to include the date of original publication for a reprint or modern edition of a work. In my collection, I have:
Here, 'type' seems to work quite well. But again, this would only work for a reprint, not a different edition. -- Gadget850 talk 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In the northern hemisphere, the transition from one year to the next occurs during winter. Not so,for the southern hemisphere. This morning I found an instance of a journal that was dated Summer 2003–2004. The current live version of the module doesn't support dates in that form. So, I've modified Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Winter 2003–04. |
Sandbox | Title. Winter 2003–04. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Summer 2003–04. |
Sandbox | Title. Summer 2003–04. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Winter 2003–2004. |
Sandbox | Title. Winter 2003–2004. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Summer 2003–2004. |
Sandbox | Title. Summer 2003–2004. |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#Placement of ref-related tags, on placement of reference-related inline templates (e.g. {{
verify credibility}} and {{
clarifyref2}}) inside or outside the <ref>...</ref>
element. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully this is an easy one. I would like to cite a Playboy article in which the title is in all caps.
[13] Should I use |title=PLAYBOY INTERVIEW: MARK LANE
OR |title=Playboy Interview: Mark Lane
? Thanks! -
Location (
talk) 04:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a guideline which recommends using the authorlink parameter to refer to the same article that the cite book tag appears in? In this edit summary, Damiens.rf contends, "this parameter IS to be used even in the case of the subject's being the author. It would give an error otherwise." I don't see why this would be the case, as such a usage does not fall within the normal recommendations on self links. Nick Number ( talk) 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
|authorlink=
can be a minor benefit when editors copy CS1 templates from one article to another. I see no other benefit or harm.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)|authormask=
parameter, the citation templates can show a pair of em-dashes instead, see
John Marshall (railway historian)#Selected publications by John Marshall. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)|authormask=
can only be used in bibliographies or shortened footnotes where the order of the list can be controlled. --
Gadget850
talk 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)So, should we use authorlinks for the article subject or avoid it? -- damiens.rf 03:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Question: What about citations that are stored on templates, rather than articles (e.g. {{
cite doi/φ}}
, {{
cite isbn/ψ}}
), and that might be transcluded ({{
cite doi|φ}}
) in multiple articles? Is there a way, at {{
cite doi/φ}}
, of having |authorlink1=
only/not appear if Condition A & Condition B, or whatever?
It Is Me Here
t /
c 10:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)|author1link=Nikolaus Stümpel
and |author2link=Ulrich Joger
, and that it was transcluded on
Nikolaus Stümpel,
Ulrich Joger, and
Viper. Would it be possible for the authorlink to appear in the template's citation IFF the template were not being transcluded in the article that the authorlink pointed to? So,
Nikolaus Stümpel would just show "Stümpel, N." (no links, no bolding), but "
Joger, U."; etc. (I know it's not a perfect example, since the authors' articles don't exist, but imagine they did.)
It Is Me Here
t /
c 12:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|language=
support. I think that we can pass the current page name to listpeople()
where author links are processed and either allow or disallow linking.{{cite book/new | last1 = Harris | first1 = Angela P. |authorlink=Angela P. Harris | last2 = Bartlett | first2 = Katharine | title = Gender and law: theory, doctrine, commentary | publisher = Aspen Law & Business | location = New York | year = 1998 | isbn = 9781567067408 }}
|editorlink=
|authorlink=
links to a redirect (either with this fix or without it). If anyone knows of an author or editor who has redirect pages we can test that. If I set author name and page name to lower case before doing the compare that will account for differences in capitalization.|authorlink=Elwyn Brooks White
caused both the live and sandbox versions of the module to render a non-bold link to
Elwyn Brooks White. This is not surprising and as long as they both act the same way I'm content.|authorlink=
, but also for |authorlinkn=
and |editorlinkn=
.
It Is Me Here
t /
c 11:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
A year ago, we discussed using ORCID in citations, as an identifier for authors. Are we now in a position to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
{{cite web |url=http://birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?a=1490 |title=A salutary lesson in the perils of inflation |last=Mabbett |first=Andy |website=BirdGuides |date=14 November 2008}}
|id=
(NOT recommended because it violates the definition of |id=
), we get this:
Further to Jc3s5h's sensible observation, the functions of ORCID include:
Once those things are possible, it's easier to compare and evaluate statements in different citations (for example, if Jane Doe's 2014 work contradicts Jane Smith's 2013 work, that may be a clash of opinions, or just one author may have changed name and then found new information), find other articles that cite the same work, find works by an author cited in other articles (perhaps under other names), and so on. It also allows editors to easily find other works by a cited author, which may be useful as extra sources, and even perhaps suggest new articles.
Regarding formatting, I envisage a time when the author name will (if it does not link to a Wikipedia article about the author) link to a Wikidata entry or "Special:ORCID" page (like Special:ISBN) listing all the articles where we cite works by that author - but let's not run before we walk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
[Aside: I'd encourage every Wikipedia editor who exposes their real identity to register for an ORCID, and to list their "Special:Contributions" page on their ORCID profile as a work; with the ORCID in the {{ Authority control}} template on their user page) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)]
|authorlink=
and |editorlink=
to provide easy access to a Wikipedia article about an author or editor and that article is the place for an ORCID link.|authorlink=
, |editorlink=
and |url=
are all convenience links and not essential to the identification of the citation; the manner in which the links are created do not overwhelm the citation.|authorlink=
, not add an identifier that does not directly identify the article. --
Gadget850
talk 12:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Abortive attempt at creating subtemplate; now deleted
|
---|
Alternative solution: While Gadget850's observation about convenience links (more generally) is true, I find Trappist's reasoning pretty solid; yet if there's one real use case for this stuff, it's Mabbett's that authors (especially later-married women) can change names, and lead to false assumptions that sources conflict when really a source author revised. If we added ORCID stuff, I would suggest it should be a small-as-possible link attached to the author name, and I've created a template for this at {{
orcid}} . Usage example:Mabbett, Andy In order to make it compatible with
I speedied |
Your example's location [^see collapsed section, above] of the ORCID after the author name rather than at the end of the citation is sensible (even more so when there are multiple authors); but there's no justification for a separate template; the author name is part of the citation template, and so should be the UID that disambiguates that name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
|orcid=
, then it should create a link based on the author name exactly like |authorlink=
. |orcid=
and |authorlink=
should then be exclusive, with one overriding the other, thus you can link to either the ORCID or the author page, but not both. Again, this is a convenience. As to Special:ORCID, it does not exist, so discussion belongs on Bugzilla as a feature request — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gadget850 (
talk •
contribs) 13:25, 14 April 2014
It seems to me that there are five decisions to make, in order:
We were in danger of becoming bogged down in 3 & 4, and possibly 5, before being clear on 1 & 2. I contend that the answer to the first two is "yes" and that we should now decide 3 (which is probably the most easy to resolve), before moving on to 4 and only after that is resolved, then 5. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi people I think we could benefit from adding another parameter a parameter called trans_url. The reason for this is that sometimes websites we might be referencing might be in another language and hence, if this is the case, then it might be nice if we can provide one with a translated form of the doco we're referencing. For instance, I've been translating (with the help of Google Translate) some PDF files of summary of product characteristics for drugs that are only marketed in non English-speaking countries like Germany. These translations I keep in my Google Drive and hence I'd like to be able to give people a link to these translations so that others can use them too so they can expand the drug articles in question. Fuse809 ( talk) 11:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
How should I deal with pipes ("|") in URLs, which cause an error, as can be seen in Stuart Latham. The template documentation doesn't seem to mention this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
and others at url: replace pipes in urls with %7c
Reflinks (and humans too, probably) are using the various icon templates in the |language=
parameters of CS1 templates, which do not display properly. Here's an example from
Saab Automobile bankruptcy:
{{cite web|author=Anna-Karin Nils Gustavsson |url=http://ttela.se/ekonomi/saab/1.1587482-saab-ar-varderat-till-3-6-miljarder |title=Saab är värderat till 3,6 miljarder – Saab |language={{sv icon}} |publisher=www.ttela.se |date= |accessdate=2012-04-11}}
generates:{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)I did not receive any response when I posted on Dispenser's talk page for Reflinks. Is there any interest in updating the CS1 templates to display "(in Swedish)" when the icon templates are misused, or should I submit a bot request to have BattyBot fix these? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
language icon}}
templates, simply removing the braces and 'icon' will get the job done. For three letter language codes a different solution will be required.Can we have a col or column parameter for use with newspaper reports and so on? (And please don't tell me to use at -- that requires me to give up page#.) Especially in older newspapers, it can be really, really hard to find an article on the huge, type-dense pages of the time. Not a priority, but a nice touch. EEng ( talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=p. 1, col. 4
works, but it may be nice to add a specific parameter to do that automatically.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=
, which is to specify where the material being cited is located. This parameter is currently mutually exclusive with the |page=
, and |pages=
parameters. I feel that a better solution to adding additional parameters for this purpose is to make |at=
usable in addition to either |page=
or |pages=
. I know that I initially attempted to use it in this manner, and every once in a while I forget and try it again. To me, using both |page=1
and |at=col. 4
to specify "p. 1, col. 4" feels natural. I think being able to use both |at=
and one of |page=
or |pages=
would better fit the expectations of editors using the templates and would alleviate the need/desire to have additional parameters for more specific situations. Making this change would, of course, be backward compatible with any current usage which is not currently producing a visible error. The logic would be something like: use a "," separator between display of |page=
or |pages=
and |at=
if either of the page parameters exist, if they do not then no "," separator.|at=
value? —
Makyen (
talk) 08:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|page=50
|section=B1
|inset=Western Upper Peninsula
. Conversely, if you specify |at=
in cite map, you get the free form parameter:
|at=p. 50, section B1, Western Upper Peninsula inset; p. 52, Detroit inset
. Other combinations add or subtract:
|col=
parameter and building in the logic that allows it to be combined with |page=
, but |at=
should stay free-form that overrides other parameters.
Imzadi 1979
→ 08:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=
, I added examples from citations:
|department=
. --
Gadget850
talk 11:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|department=
, I originally sandboxed it as |column=
until the confusion was pointed out. I'm not adverse to column, and I think previous objections were for performance with the old core where we were being very conservative. But we should also consider other in-source locations. --
Gadget850
talk 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
|at=
and need to sort out how it is going to work, and how the other use will be handled by something else:
|at=Section 28
|page=28.12
|page=28.12
|at=column 2
{{
Cite web}}
where |at=
is relevant to citing sections of a site, and where there are no page numbers, but we might want to independently cite something on the page at the URL, such as a sidebar. This is especially important now that HTML5 is breaking things up into HTML "<article>...</article>
" segments that operating more like independent pages than <div>...</div>
segments do.|at=
in non-paginated works. Maybe |at2=
for simplicity. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)We really need to start a list of bots and tools used with citations. Yesterday I flubbed a URL in a citation and got a very quick notice from ReferenceBot that I had caused a cite error. -- Gadget850 talk 11:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that citations that include |doi=
render the identifier type in lowercase followed by a colon (doi:) but that other identifier types are rendered in uppercase without a trailing colon as can be seen in this citation:
Is there a reason for this difference?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Also ARXIV and Bibcode. All other identifiers use
as a separator between the identifier label and its value.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Had a very quick search of this page and this issue does not seem to have been discussed.
In my experience, autofilling the template with an isbn always populates the "Edition" field with e.g., 2nd Ed., 3rd Ed., etc. However, the "ed." somehow becomes doubled when the citation is created, meaning that the user has to delete the "ed" from the form, somewhat defeating the whole autofill thing. Thoughts? 92.41.84.153 ( talk) 22:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Following
this edit by
Trappist the monk (
talk ·
contribs), {{
Cite AV media notes}}
sets |CitationClass=AV media notes
- this means that the generated HTML is <span class="citation AV media notes">...</span>
. Only two classes (citation album_notes
) were necessary before, and only two (citation book
) are needed for e.g. {{
cite book}}
, so why are four classes necessary now? --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
has |CitationClass=book
, {{
cite journal}}
has |CitationClass=journal
, {{
cite news}}
has |CitationClass=news
, {{
cite web}}
has |CitationClass=web
. Each of the other citation templates that use
Module:Citation/CS1 have their own |CitationClass
parameter that mimics these four. The module uses these parameters for the rendered html and to distinguish between the various citation templates when special handling of parameters is required.class="citation AV media notes"
is applying four separate class names. class="citation AV-media-notes"
is two class names.{{
cite book}}
etc.; if they're all pink, it's CS2, so I mark up my refs with {{
citation}}
. If I see both pink and yellow in the same article, there are two possible reasons: (i) it's got mixed citation styles and should be resolved one way or the other; (ii) I've not set up a rule for one or more of the CS1 templates. If you're curious, see
User:Redrose64/common.css and search for "show refs using citation templates in colour". Note particularly the line span.album_notes, /* cite album-notes */
span.AV media notes, /* cite AV media notes */
<notes>...</notes>
(which doesn't exist) within <media>...</media>
(which also doesn't exist) within <span class="AV">...</span>
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
class="citation cs1"
for all CS1 templates.musicrelease
. We merged that template to {{
cite AV media notes}}. If the class is truly used, then when we merge templates, we should add the class of the old template to the class of the new template. --
Gadget850
talk 14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)|CitationClass=
to determine which template is being used so that it can correctly interpret the meaning of various parameters, I might agree with making them all |CitationClass=citation-CS1
or somesuch.{{
Cite AV media notes}}
to be |CitationClass=AV-media-notes
and {{
Cite DVD notes}}
to |CitationClass=DVD-notes
.Noting previous discussions on the topic of what goes in the "work" parameter and what goes in the "publisher" parameter, is there an expert here that could add their thoughts to the discussion over there (was linked to (User talk:Blethering Scot#Works and Publishers)? - 91.85.48.114 ( talk) 17:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Disable link to a user's talk page to help prevent others from following the link to comment on a no longer existent thread. — Makyen ( talk) 21:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm commenting because of the request at
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Work_or_publisher.3F_Specify_host_name.3F. In the case of the online edition of a newspaper, I would still cite the name of the newspaper as the |work=
. Looking at it from another perspective, the name of the website is The Telegraph in the masthead at the top of the website, and that is the name of the published work. (And given the possibility for confusion, newspaper names/website versions of newspaper names should have a city of publication listed, even when electronic.)
Imzadi 1979
→ 18:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
|work=
and a |publisher=
. A |work=
is an object – which can be virtual – within which the the item was published (made available to numbers of people). For web based sources, this is often the website/domain name (without a preceding "www."). If the domain has a name under which it is called, it can be referred to as that name. In the case where the same name is given to a physical publication it can be helpful to also include the domain name to distinguish it from the physical version, or say something like "(online)". For something which is published in multiple places, you should clearly indicate where
you saw it. In some instances this requires adding the domain name instead of just "(online)". An example of this is the
BBC Online website which is published as both bbc.co.uk and bbc.com. If the content at the two domains was completely identical, then it would not be necessary to be specific. However, in this instance there are differences in what is displayed to the reader between the two domains. Because there are differences, a citation should be specific as to which was viewed by the person citing it either as the domain name alone, or in addition to, "[[
BBC Online]]".|publisher=
is a legal entity. Examples of legal entity types are people or companies. The publisher is the entity responsible for the actual publication. Usually this means they are the entity that pays for the object to be put into a form accessible by large numbers of people. Except in very limited situations (e.g. a tattoo), a publisher (legal entity) can not be a work (object). A work (object) can not be a publisher (legal entity). —
Makyen (
talk) 20:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
|publisher=
WikiMedia Foundation
, no matter what website I found a copy of it on. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)|publisher=
BBC
, not
BBC Online. BBC Online is a website (i.e. |work=
BBC Online
) with two URL schemes, and WP doesn't care which of them we're citing, as long as it works or an archiveurl to it does. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
|via=
, so for a press release from a government agency found online at PRNewsWire, we can do |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation
|via=PRNewsWire
, thus indicating the original publisher along with the republisher for an enhanced
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
Imzadi 1979
→ 00:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Thanks for the various thoughts, but unfortunately the original question got lost somewhere along the way and isn't in this thread. Having finally located where it had been moved to, it is now reproduced just below: -- 91.85.36.175 ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at your recent edit here. My understanding is that 'The Daily Telegraph' is the published work and that 'Telegraph Media Group' are the publishers (and that 'publisher' is usually omitted when citing newspapers).
From the CS1 template documentation, 'work' is an alias of 'newspaper'. Additionally, the 'location' parameter is usually used where the location is not mentioned within the newspaper name and not otherwise obvious. However, for a UK-centric article this is probably not necessary.
Your thoughts? - 91.84.92.16 ( talk) 20:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I am still interested in a definitive answer, though I suspect there will actually be a range of opinions. -- 91.85.36.175 ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the examples from the documentation page for {{
cite newsgroup}}
:
{{cite newsgroup | author = A. S. Tanenbaum | title = LINUX is obsolete | date = 1992-01-29 | newsgroup = comp.os.minix | id = 12595@star.cs.vu.nl | url = http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_thread/thread/c25870d7a41696d2/f447530d082cd95d?tvc=2 | accessdate = 2006-11-27 }}
I'm wondering about the various external links. In this citation, the title links to news:12595@star.cs.vu.nl
, |newsgroup=
is an alias of |publisher=
and links to news:comp.os.minix
, and the parenthetical (Web link) text is linked to http://groups.google.com/...
Is this the correct way to link these parameters? My guess it that most readers haven't bothered to configure their computers for newsgroup access. It would seem that when |url=
has a value, that value should combine with |title=
to form a link that appears first in the rendered citation. Here I've used {{
cite web}}
to mimic how I think {{cite newsgroup}}
should render:
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)Should the message id be displayed as 12595@star.cs.vu.nl
or should it be 'hidden' under some form of text in the same way that |url=
is currently hidden by the text 'Web link'?
Absent |url=
, in
Module:Citation/CS1 the message id value in |id=
would be mapped to |url=
as it does now. If both are missing, CS1 emits the citation-missing-url error message.
Comments and opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|url=
in your first example should be the |archiveurl=
. The actual URL is news:12595@star.cs.vu.nl
. Specifically, the Google page is not canonical, and includes content, such as advertising, which is not part of the original post.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 11:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
requires |archivedate=
. Neither the google link nor this
other archive are dated except for the date of the original post. So where does an editor find that information? I suppose we could elect to except {{
cite newsgroup}}
from the |archivedate=
requirement. I'm not much in favor of that idea because inconsistent rules produce confused editors. Here's the {{
cite web}}
example rewritten to use |archiveurl=
and |deadurl=no
:
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-url=
requires |archive-date=
(
help); External link in |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)|archivedate=
to be the same as the posting date so long as it was after May 11, 1981.
Imzadi 1979
→ 19:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)|date=<post date>
and then setting |archivedate=<post date>
because we don't know the real archive date, seems rather pointless.|title=
with |url=
(when present) rather than make the web-accessible link the third link in the citation. When |url=
is empty or omitted it would seem best to include {{
link note}}
functionality stating that a news reader application is required.{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)comp.os.minix
is the newsgroup and 12595@star.cs.vu.nl
is the article or post id. Perhaps the identifier with label might be:
Usenet
12595@star.cs.vu.nl or
Post id
12595@star.cs.vu.nl or something along those lines?{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) --
Gadget850
talk 15:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Taking a clue from Gadget850's suggestion, I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1:
Wikitext | {{cite newsgroup
|
---|---|
Live | Tanenbaum, A. S. (January 29, 1992). "LINUX is obsolete". Newsgroup: comp.os.minix. 12595@star.cs.vu.nl. |
Sandbox | Tanenbaum, A. S. (January 29, 1992). "LINUX is obsolete". Newsgroup: comp.os.minix. 12595@star.cs.vu.nl. |
Because |id=
is not included in
COinS, when |CitationClass=newsgroup
, |id=
is converted to an internal variable USENETID
which is then added to the list of IDs that are part of COinS:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000045-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFTanenbaum1992" class="citation newsgroup cs1">Tanenbaum, A. S. (January 29, 1992). "LINUX is obsolete". [[Usenet newsgroup|Newsgroup]]: [news:comp.os.minix comp.os.minix]. 12595@star.cs.vu.nl.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=LINUX+is+obsolete&rft.pub=comp.os.minix&rft.date=1992-01-29&rft.aulast=Tanenbaum&rft.aufirst=A.+S.&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+5" class="Z3988"></span>
In amongst all of that is this: &rft_id=info%3Ausenet%2F12595%40star.cs.vu.nl
It seems that we could create a new parameter, |message-id=
or some such as a one-off from |id=
and use that instead of spoofing |id=
and having the special-case code to handle it. I'm inclined toward |message-id=
because that term is used in the usenet post headers and I would rather not create special case code unless it's necessary. So, new parameter |message-id=
?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have read the discussion above about {{ sfn}} and years but I don't know where we are. I have an article MV Alam Pintar and FV Etoile des Ondes collision where I want to use sfn to link to three {{ cite book}} references with the same author and year. In sfn I have 2010, 2010a and 2010d as years. In cite book I originally had "date" in the format Month 2010 and "year" as one of the three strings above. When I saw a CS1 date flag I removed "year" and put "date" as Month 2010a, etc. This (unsurprisingly to me) is also being flagged. In both situations the links resolve correctly. Am I making a silly mistake or is there a problem? Can someone advise before the bots come round? Thincat ( talk) 16:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
PS I think this has nothing to do with RefToolbar because, although I use it, I generally copy edit what it produces, as I have done in this case. Thincat ( talk) 16:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
|format=pdf
because the icon doesn't have an |alt=
description. I also wonder about MAIB. As I understand it,
Marine Accident Investigation Branch is the author and part of
Department for Transport who is the publisher. Making Marine Accident Investigation Branch the author requires changing |ref=harv
to |ref={{sfnref|MAIB|2010a}}
. Also, I wonder if for MAIB2010a you should use |chapter=Annexes
.|ref=harv
but the {{
sfn}}
s change to {{sfn|Meyer|2010}}
. Perhaps like these?:{{
cite web}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)In regards to cite book, probably also cite web: I was just now looking for a way to directly cite a page in a PDF, because with a lot of unlisted page numbers it wasn't obvious, especially if you're only scrolling down instead of across. So I wanted to point out that it's page 186 in the PDF, which maps to page 173 in the book itself. Is there a good way to do this? I don't even know if browser plugins understand any kind of hash-links, but it'd be good info regardless, since I personally couldn't find it for a bit with just the book's page #. I settled on "|page=173 (pdf p.186)", but I figured I'd ask what everyone else thinks of this. (Or if it's just not important at all.) SilverbackNet( talk) 09:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
| url=http://www.example.com/that-file.pdf#page=12 | format=PDF | page=9 |
or| url=http://www.example.com/that-file.pdf#page=12 | format=PDF | pages=9–11 |
|url=
parameter pointing at the correct page as far as the reader software goes (and the user takes pot luck whether their reader actually scrolls to the right place), and the |page=
parameter indicating the page number physically printed on that page. --
79.67.241.223 (
talk) 12:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
#page=12
" is something expected/honored by any PDF user agents? It doesn't make sense from a URL perspective (the #
syntax points to an anchor, but the =
syntax indicates a script variable being supplied, but there is no script here (no &scriptname
before the =
). —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |chapter-url=
value (
help)#page=
number to the end of the |url=
, the user's reader is likely to scroll to the correct place.|page=
parameter in the usual way to record the page number as shown on the rendered page. --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 20:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
parameters are used with the {{
Citation}} and {{
Cite xxx}} templates to display a full citation; those parameters do not take urls. The question here is how to include an additional page number in the citation. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
|url=
is sufficient. However, if it is to be shown in some cases, you are quite right that a "recommended" way should be documented somewhere. --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 20:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)those parameters do not take urls. It is true that including urls in the in-source locator parameters
|page=
, |pages=
and |at=
was discouraged. This because the urls were copied into and corrupted the citation's metadata. Until your post I thought that that had been corrected. I have discovered a couple of minor errors that were removing more than just the url from the in-source locator parameter values. I think that this has been remedied in the sandbox. So, using our example pdf citation, one can write it like this (using the sandbox here):{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
.The discussion of ORCID, above, seems to have stalled. Can we move to #3 of my points in that section, and add an ORCID parameter and the relevant check-digit code, which is already in a subtemplate of {{ Authority control}}? Incidentally, I'm presenting a poster at the ORCID outreach event in Chicago in a couple of weeks, on the use of ORCID in Wikimedia projects, and I'd like to include an update on its use in citations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I am again thinking about ways to autofix many of the invalid parameters in
wp:CS1 Lua-based cites. It has been almost a year since transitioning to the Lua-based cite templates which were designed to autofix 25,000 pages for separators and page numbers (autofixes 'pages=7' as "p. 7" not "pp."), but there are still over 8,000 pages which contain "Unknown parameter" in the
wp:CS1 cites (new invalid values are added to pages almost every day). As discussed last year, it will take years to manually hand-correct so many pages, with the current rate as 100-to-150 pages hand-fixed per month (4 to 7 years). Instead, we should return to the original plan, using the power of Lua to "autofix" many simple invalid parameters and log those pages in autofixed categories, thereby reducing the categories of unfixed pages to list the fewer but severe pages which really need hand-editing to fix. Users who wish to hand-update all pages could still edit the autofixed pages, and there could be hidden error messages which some users could set for view by CSS options.
In practice, most of the autofixes would occur in 2 spots in the Lua modules; the first spot would be during initial loading of the cite parameters, and the 2nd autofix would occur when preparing to show error messages but instead logging to an autofix category or hidden autofix warning for simple cases. For example, the Lua module could treat invalid "other=" to be autofixed as "others=" or handle invalid "translator=" as "others=__(translator)". An unusual parameter could list the value, such as 'part=B' could show "part: B". Likewise, a missing "url=" could check for an unnamed parameter containing "http:..." and autofix with a warning category. Recall how these autofix plans were discussed about year ago, but several other issues have delayed enhancing the Lua modules to rapidly auto-correct parameters in perhaps 10,000 more pages with simple errors/typos. Unlike Bot updates, the actual page contents would not be altered, and so the autofixes would also rapidly correct cites in hundreds of talk-pages, user-pages, drafts, or archives without inserting "unused_data" or "DUPLICATE" or altering the page histories. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
|pages=
, assuming (incorrectly) that it is what it sounds like! To the lay editor, when describing a work, "pages" is obviously the total number of pages in a work. Except it isn't. I bet I've made this mistake myself. I wonder if confusion over this is the reason we have nopp=y, and if it's misused more often than not. So, let's discuss the |pagetotal=
idea. Pro? Con? Pros: 1)It's useful to know the total number of pages, as if it's off due to a change of format, it'll help the user find the cited material nonetheless. 2)The existence of this parameter will reduce the frequency with which people use |pages=
the total # of pages. (I just made
this related edit to
Template:Cite_book/doc. P.S.: Wow, nice to see all the thought and effort going into these citation improvements. Kudos. Apologies if this has been brought up before. --
Elvey (
talk) 16:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)No printed style guide I know of suggests giving the total number of pages for a large work, like a book.
For journals and magazines, when short footnotes or parenthetical references are combined with a bibliography, the page number(s) that support the point being made go in the short footnote or parenthetical reference, and the range of pages that includes the entire article are included in the bibliography. (This allows a copy request to be made to a distant library, and the librarian there won't have to pay too much attention to where one article begins and another ends; just look at the page numbers.) If only end notes are used, the Chicago Manual of Style indicates only the pages that support the point being made are given.
So even for journals, the total number of pages is never given, although it could be calculated from the page range. I really don't think we should be encouraging editors to clutter articles with information no style manual considers useful just so editors who don't bother to read the instruction will have a better chance of guessing what to do. Jc3s5h ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
|pages=600
to |page=600
. At some later date an editor looked at page 600 of the reference, found that the stated 'fact' was nowhere to be seen on this page, the last page of the document. Their next action was to replace the reference with {{
citation needed}}. Some time very much later the 'fact' was deleted because no-one had added a suitable reference. -
79.67.241.227 (
talk) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
|pages=
is a problem. At a minimum, the documentation should be updated to explicitly state that |pages=
is not to be used for the total pages in the work.|total-pages=
. We do not need to display the information, and, if done, could explicitly state in the documentation that it is not desired, or displayed. However, it would provide a clear, intended location to record the number of pages in the work for those editors inclined to do so. Creating such a parameter might keep a reasonable number of editors from incorrectly putting the total number of pages in |pages=
. I'm only floating the idea; not sure about it myself. I'm looking at this as a user interface issue. Giving the user a specific place to put the information currently erroneously placed in |pages=
would, probably, reduce the erroneous use of that parameter. —
Makyen (
talk) 21:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The autofixes could be tagged with small "[fix cite]" where the various types of auto-corrected parameters would be:
Any non-autofixed issues would still log the current error messages, but the autofixed pages would link to different maintenance categories, such as:
Because one of the goals, of autofixes, is to reduce the clutter of simple typos and help pinpoint serious problems, there would be more categories to list the simple autofixes (such as obvious respelling "auuthor=" as "author="), away from pages with the more-complex cite problems. In a sense, reducing a category of 9,000 various unknown parameters into 5 or 6 categories, where one isolated the "unknown phrases" (as a separate list) could help to pinpoint just a few hundred pages which needed severe updates to fix the garbled cites. As the many simple cases are autofixed, then methods to auto-fix complex problems will become easier to spot. Currently, we have many simple cite typos, from 2 years ago, cluttering the list where the complex cite cases are drowned in an ocean of simple typo pages. Update: New essay " wp:Autofixing cites" describes some methods to autofix cites used by the new version of Lua-based cite templates. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:34, 6 March, 13:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have created a working Lua prototype, to begin comparing the results when a citation has been autofixed for simpler display. Compare the sample results:
|
Note, in the above autofixed example, the missing "url=" is set with the " http://z" text, and linked to title "Test1" while the double-hyphen in pages "3--4" is filtered as a dash 3–4. Next, the 'Guardian' is shown, followed by "office: London" as extra text. By comparison, the current cite is awash in a sea of alarming red-error messages which overpower the text but demand attention to the simple details which have been quietly autofixed in the first case. - Wikid77 ( talk) 10:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
A major benefit of
wp:autofixing cites will be the echoing of the extra, unknown parameters (such as "paragraph: 6" when a user has inserted invalid "paragraph=6"), and hence, the autofixed cite tends to show more data, more details to help pinpoint the text to verify, such as "note: 3rd line from bottom". By contrast, the red-error message had shown "Unknown parameter |note=
ignored" to show only the name "note" but no mention of the "3rd line". Of course the main benefit of autofixing will be to reconstruct an unnamed or split URL with a rebuilt title, plus autofixing to show the author names. The strategy is to completely autofix the title/url plus first author or editor, but echoing extra parameters is another major benefit. -
Wikid77 11:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
|note=This is a really good book
pinpoints the in-source location? What is the plan to auto-validate good and useless comments? How many citations currently have notes? --
Gadget850
talk 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)When analyzing thousands of pages with invalid parameters, to look for common problems, a major issue has been users putting "comment=" or "note=" or other parameters to insert notes. Of course, autofixing will show any named parameter, such as "note:__" or "comment:__" (or "figure: 2b"), but it would be better to make "note=" and "comment=" as valid parameters, unlike "postscript=" replacing the final dot. Also, a few others should be added, such as "author_note=(members of ABC committee)" and "title_note=(written as the prequel to Book)" to further explain a book/magazine title where people have forced such comments into "format=" or "publisher=" as if being substitutes for missing "title_note". - Wikid77 17:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
By mid-April 2014, all remaining 3,500 articles with "Unknown parameter" had been hand-edited to correct the CS1 cite parameters. By 19-21 April, another dozen pages each day contained recent cite errors, such as: some (15%-20%) misspelled "accessdate=" (or 2 words), extra bar "|url|=", one "publishe=" misspelling, ten capital "Publisher=" in one page, "pags=" for page, and 3 uses of {{ cita_web}} in one page with 7 Spanish parameters (título, obra, fecha, formato, idioma, etc.). A variety of long-term upgrades can be used: similar to accepting capital "Author=" then capital "Publisher" should be among the common parameter names allowed; the Template:Cita_web should be changed to handle any Spanish parameters as switched into English parameters; and autofixing should handle a bar within "url|=http" in order to auto-correct and link the url data. Per the 80/20 Rule, perhaps allowing just 20 aliases of 100 common typos (such as "other=" or "note=" as postscript) would reduce ~80% of invalid cite parameters. For example 2-word "access date=" was used 11 times in article " University of Central Florida College of Medicine" (26 April 2014). - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:17, 19 April 2014, 15:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have been expanding the interwiki cite templates to handle other-language parameters, as wp:wrapper templates for {cite web}, plus auto-translate date formats and month names. For example, the 2008 Template:Kilde_www (for Norwegian interwiki cites) has been expanded to allow Danish or English parameters and translate date format or month names to English. Some users have suggested the other interwiki cite templates should allow wp:subst'ing to become {cite_web} markup, once the equivalent wp:CS1 parameters have been analyzed for each language. Template:Cita_web will be re-expanded to handle Spanish or Italian parameters, and Template:Lien_web will allow French parameters and dates. These interwiki cite templates provide the auto-fixing to show other-language cite data, as copied from the other wikipedias. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
As fast as I am sorting out issues, someone else is deconstructing |last1=
|first1=
|last2=
|first2=
author lists and
jamming everything into a single parameter as well as turning plain-English journal names into utterly indecipherable Int. J. Ph. Con. Phar. Sci. Ref. Clin. Soci. Chem. Res. Let. gibberish.
To me, both of these appear to be backwards steps. -- 79.67.241.222 ( talk) 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
defer to the style used by the first major contributor. My edits restored that predominate style.
|journal=Journal of addictive diseases
and |journal=The American journal on addictions
into |journal=J Addict Dis
and |journal=Am J Addict
seems to be going in the wrong direction. --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 19:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, Vancouver system and Bluebook.
Vancouver system citations are not helpful on WP and are not WP style; they're as "save paper at all costs" measure that emphatically does not apply here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|authorformat=
, |author-separator=
, and |author-name-separator=
demonstrates that variations in citation style, even in the CS1 era is allowed.
Boghog (
talk) 21:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)|initials=
from |first=
.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 21:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
As long as the information... helps readers to find the cited sourceis one of the key issues here. J. Am. Phys. Anth. and "Chin YP, Hall PJ, Marks EI" don't cut it, and neither does dropping quotation marks from article titles and italics from publication titles, replacing "vol." with just boldfacing of volume number, and various other style "sins" of some extra-super-geeky citation style WP has no business foisting on its readers. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Convert given (first) names and middle names to initials, for a maximum of two initials following each surname. Boghog ( talk) 23:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|vanc=
parameter, although it is defective. Furthermore the vcite templates are no longer actively maintained nor are they widely used (the {{
vcite journal}} template for example is trancluded into fewer than 300 pages). The main reason for the vcite template was not the rendered format but rather the
speed in rendering. The new lua based CS1 templates are much more efficient so that the main justification for using vcite templates has disappeared. As I have stated elsewhere, the best long term solution may be a template like the CS1 based {{
vcite2 journal}} template that would enforce display of the Vancouver system author style and could be modified to parse single author parameters to produced clean author meta data.
Boghog (
talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)I just added the following citation to Middle C (novel)#Further reading:
Perhaps there's a better way?
A similar question exists regarding the date of on-line and in-print publication, but I've never felt it to be a problem. I presume the default is to give the in-print date, simply because that's the date you need to know when looking for a hardcopy, as opposed to on-line which rarely needs to know the actual date. For example, NYT book reviews are filed on-line under the in-print date, regardless of the actual date any given article is posted. This is no different than the fact that the physical in-print is normally not the nominal in-print date. To continue the NYT example, the Book Review comes with a Sunday date, but to subscribers, it is part of the Saturday delivery.
But this logic doesn't seem to apply to the title. I have no idea what the right thing to do is. Choor monster ( talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
|via=
set up so that the two could be combine "—available online as "<title>" via <republisher>." The word "online" in my example may be superfluous and could be dropped, but I think the idea is worth investigating. The NYT also will periodically alter the headline on an article between the print and online editions even if the body of the article is essentially the same. If the body text has been altered though, the two should not be conflated.
Imzadi 1979
→ 17:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)|trans_title=
and the other using |page=
.{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)Use "page/at=" or else "format=" for online link: Setting parameter "at=[print]" seems ok for the print version, but also try "format=" for the online version of a chapter in {cite_book}, as below using:
That tactic allows "format=" to contain an online link, while the cite is mainly about the printed book title & chapter. We need a general parameter "title_note" (shown after title) to avoid overloading "format=" with extra data. - Wikid77 ( talk) 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I have tested the authorformat=vanc
parameter, and found that it removes all but the first letter of first1, first2,
etc. But according to our article
Vancouver system and
one of the sources, at least two initials are allowed (I don't know what that style does if the author has several middle names).
Jc3s5h (
talk) 21:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
authorformat=vanc
is not implemented correctly and it should be fixed. If there is a middle name (e.g., first1 = John Jacob), what should be displayed is "JJ".
Boghog (
talk) 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)authorformat=vanc
actually displays the Vancouver system author format. The relevant guideline is: Patrias K (2007). Wendling D (ed.).
Citing Medicine: The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers [Internet] (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine (US). Convert given (first) names and middle names to initials, for a maximum of two initials following each surname. Boghog ( talk) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|display-authors=
value, most of the authors in this example would not be displayed at all. Furthermore CS1 does allow variation in how citations are displayed. Otherwise, why do we have CS1 |authorformat=
, |author-separator=
, and |author-name-separator=
parameters? Finally there is no guideline that advises against author abbreviations. Quite to the contrary
WP:CITESTYLE, by listing the
Vancouver system as one style that is used in Wikipedia articles, specifically would allow it.
Boghog (
talk) 08:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)There's no point using a manual archiveurl in cite-web when there's {{ wayback}}. How about providing a proper way for something {{cite web| archiveurl={{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/*/... |date=* }}}}? - 79.180.38.91 ( talk) 19:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
| deadurl=yes | archivedate=1999-12-31 | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/19991231235959/http://www.example.com/some-page-that-is-now-404 |
here? However, I have long thought that |archivedate=
could be optional where |archiveurl=
points to a date stamped archive at the Wayback Machine (and hence has the date within the archive URL). --
79.67.241.222 (
talk) 21:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
A portion of the documentation in the Examples section for this template is incorrect:
Whereas if the url had not been specified, then the title is linked to PubMed Central's copy of the article and no duplicate PMC link is shown for compactness: (Emphasis added.)
{{cite journal |last=Viollet |first=Benoît |last2=Andreelli |first2=Fabrizio |last3=Jørgensen |first3=Sebastian B. |last4=Perrin |first4=Christophe |last5=Geloen |first5=Alain |last6=Flamez |first6=Daisy |last7=Mu |first7=James |last8=Lenzner |first8=Claudia |last9=Baud |first9=Olivier |last10=Bennoun |first10=Myriam |last11=Gomas |first11=Emmanuel |last12=Nicolas |first12=Gaël |last13=Wojtaszewski |first13=Jørgen F.P. |last14=Kahn1 |first14=Axel |last15=Carling |first15=David |last16=Schuit |first16=Frans C. |last17=Birnbaum |first17=Morris J. |last18=Richter |first18=Erik A. |last19=Burcelin |first19=Rémy |last20=Vaulont |first20=Sophie |display-authors=5 |date=January 2003 |title=The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity |journal=The Journal of Clinical Investigation |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=91–8 |doi=10.1172/JCI16567 |pmc=151837 |pmid=12511592}}
- Displays as:
- Viollet, Benoît; Andreelli, Fabrizio; Jørgensen, Sebastian B.; Perrin, Christophe; Geloen, Alain; et al. (January 2003). "The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity". The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 111 (1): 91–8. doi: 10.1172/JCI16567. PMC 151837. PMID 12511592.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)
Note that the citation is still linking the article title to the PMC
and displaying the PMC
link. While I support eliminating the latter, in the case where this is true, should the PMC
number be given in parentheses after the article title as part of the link? Example:
I think it might be important to still include the PMC
number as part of the reference. Is there a way to just de-link it if there is no |url=
present? That would still maintain the proper order in the citation without having a double link:
Additionally, I stumbled across the discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#PMC error check needed while looking for something entirely different. I think the change that was made might need to be reverted; I found the following at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Sample References:
Apparently we're not doing it correctly; perhaps the editors who are typing PMC
before the number are trying to get the citation to match this style. The full format includes PubMed Central PMCID:
followed by a space and then PMC
is inserted before the number with no space between. The format we're using for PMID
is apparently incorrect, as well; note that PubMed
precedes PMID:
followed by a space and the number. While we might be able to eliminate the PubMed
and PubMed Central
notations, apparently including PMC
before the number is standard. The template will need to be updated and the instructions made clear that the template will add the PMC before the number, all the editor needs to do is supply the number. More examples may be found here that eliminate PubMed
:
(List of other PMC
articles citing the referenced article) The
article at pubmed.gov lists the following at the end of the article: PMID: 19204236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC2653214
. I think we may safely drop [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
. There is also a PDF
article from the Perdue University Biological Sciences department that specifically states that PMC
is to be included before the number, read the
Citation examples section on page 2.
Additionally, I note that the style does not put the title of the article in quotation marks, the author names are given with just initials, and there is no italicization or bolding; I'm assuming we're doing this to be more in sync with other citation styles and adapting the Vancouver style (I think), but should we? It seems that these examples come from a higher authority. Sorry if I've opened a can of worms; let me know if there's something I can do to help. Thanks.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 22:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Specify the DOI to provide a permanent link. Also give the PMID abstract for medical articles, and the URL if the article is free. PubMed Central free full-text repository links may also be supplied and will link the title if URL not specified, else as additional linked PMC value at the end of the citation
{{cite journal |last=Viollet |first=Benoît |last2=Andreelli |first2=Fabrizio |last3=Jørgensen |first3=Sebastian B. |last4=Perrin |first4=Christophe |last5=Geloen |first5=Alain |last6=Flamez |first6=Daisy |last7=Mu |first7=James |last8=Lenzner |first8=Claudia |last9=Baud |first9=Olivier |last10=Bennoun |first10=Myriam |last11=Gomas |first11=Emmanuel |last12=Nicolas |first12=Gaël |last13=Wojtaszewski |first13=Jørgen F.P. |last14=Kahn1 |first14=Axel |last15=Carling |first15=David |last16=Schuit |first16=Frans C. |last17=Birnbaum |first17=Morris J. |last18=Richter |first18=Erik A. |last19=Burcelin |first19=Rémy |last20=Vaulont |first20=Sophie |display-authors=5 |date=January 2003 |title=The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity |url=http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16567 |journal=The Journal of Clinical Investigation |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=91–8 |doi=10.1172/JCI16567 |pmc=151837 |pmid=12511592 |accessdate=2012-11-17}}
- Displays as:
- Viollet, Benoît; Andreelli, Fabrizio; Jørgensen, Sebastian B.; Perrin, Christophe; Geloen, Alain; et al. (January 2003). "The AMP-activated protein kinase α2 catalytic subunit controls whole-body insulin sensitivity". The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 111 (1): 91–8. doi: 10.1172/JCI16567. PMC 151837. PMID 12511592. Retrieved 2012-11-17.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)
- Specify the DOI to provide a permanent link. Also give the PMID abstract for medical articles, and the URL if the article is free. PubMed Central free full-text repository links may also be supplied and will link the title if the URL is not specified, else as an additional linked PMC value.
- Whereas if the URL has not been specified, the title will link to the PMC link, which is repeated:
|url=
parameter) and the "Displays as:" sections remain the same.{{U|D'Ranged 1}}
.)
In the feedback about the VisualEditor citation dialog it's been suggested that some of the TemplateData field names be changed to be more descriptive. Hopefully that feedback will be of use to the maintainers of this template. Trevor Parscal ( talk) 21:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
As recommended, I am moving this post from Category talk:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters for discussion here. — D'Ranged 1 talk 07:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to suppress additional types of pages being added to this category? Reading through all the ones that shouldn't be here to find the ones that should is a waste of time, there were 173 pages that didn't require attention and about 6 that did. Suggested additions:
|
|
|
Alternatively/in addition, could a tag template be developed to add to pages to exclude them from the category?— D'Ranged 1 talk 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Why is the "chapter=" picked as anchor for the general url parameter? trespassers william ( talk) 23:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a bookmarklet script that can help you to generate references using {{ cite web}} in just one click. Say you want to generate a reference for the following page: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
You just have to push the bookmarklet button in your bookmarks toolbar and you get this:
The script can do the job for some of the most known news websites like: BBC, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph, Huffington Post, Huffington Post Canada, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Times of India, Financial Times, The Economist, Business Week, Ars Technica, TG Daily
The script is named RefScript and you can find it here. It can save hundreds of hours for those editors who introduce lots of references, helping them to focus on editing Wikipedia, instead of painstakingly create references with lots of parameters. — Ark25 ( talk) 22:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
|last=
should only include the author's last name, with the first name/initial placed in |first=
, to produce:
|last2=
and |first2=
, etc. would need to be populated. Using the script as written will just create problems for bots to have to clean up later. See
Help:Citation Style 1#Authors,
Template:Cite#Authors, and
Template:Cite#COinS. Putting multiple values in the |last=
field screws up retrieval of the metadata.<ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-10c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |title=Whale Advocates Gain Victory |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=David A. Fahrenthold |accessdate=May 10, 2014}}</ref>
<ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-10c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/19/AR2008071900540.html |title=Iran Nuclear Talks End Without Agreement |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=Glenn Kessler |accessdate=May 10, 2014}}</ref>
<ref name="washingtonpost.20080719">{{cite ...
or <ref name="washingtonpost.AR2008071900540">{{cite ...
<ref name="wp.AR2008071900540">{{cite ...
.<ref name="pmc.37272821">{{cite ...
. Likewise the final chunk of a DOI can be used as a reference name. For newspapers, many have a unique (to that publication) article ID within the URL. This is often only 5 to 8 characters long. Suggested usage<ref name="dailymail.2620556">{{cite news | url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2620556/How-travel-Europa-cheap-Nasa-calls-cut-price-mission-ideas-explore-Jupiters-icy-moon.html | title= ...
.|archiveurl=
and related parameters (which don't work on The Washington Post), but it's good practice to include this information where availalbe to avoid
WP:ROT.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)|archiveurl=
. Although it adds the today's date for |archivedate=
, not when it was actually archived. The script can be configured to add the archive link or not to add it, depending on the line var Archive = "Yes";. Now the reference looks like this:<ref name="MyUser_The_Washington_Post_2014-05-11c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |title=Whale Advocates Gain Victory |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=David A. Fahrenthold |archiveurl=http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |archivedate=May 11, 2014 |accessdate=May 11, 2014}}</ref>
|last=
parameter. For example this link has two authors:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-for-bigspending-whales-07072011.html<ref name="MyUser_BusinessWeek_2014-05-11c">{{cite web |url=http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-for-bigspending-whales-07072011.html |title=Zynga’s Quest for Big-Spending Whales |newspaper=BusinessWeek |date= July 6, 2011 |last=Douglas Macmillan, Brad Stone |accessdate=May 11, 2014}}</ref>
, which produces the following:<ref name="Ark25_TWP_July_19_2008c">{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html |title=Whale Advocates Gain Victory |newspaper=The Washington Post |date= July 19, 2008 |last=David A. Fahrenthold |accessdate=May 11, 2014}}</ref>
|authors=
and not one of the other aliases. --
79.67.241.234 (
talk) 19:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
|authors=
is deprecated in favor of |author=
, AWB is making the change.|authors=
is not deprecated. Perhaps you're thinking of |coauthor=
and |coauthors=
which are deprecated.’
to '
and convert pipes to, perhaps, hyphens. These are both mainly found in article titles. --
79.67.241.233 (
talk) 09:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
%7c
. However, in titles, that's often not useful because the additional information after the first pipe has nothing to do with the title. It may be the publication date or the publication name or something else. --
79.67.241.233 (
talk) 14:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
79.67.241.234 Ark25 On the topic of named references, there is actually a prohibition of adding named references to articles that don't use them. See:
Adding names to every reference in every article adds extraneous text that makes it more difficult to edit the article. It also increases storage requirements by increasing the length of articles unnecessarily. Failing consensus that this should be done, which I doubt is likely forthcoming, |refname=
should only be used: a) in articles that already employ named references, so as not to violate the strictures against changing referencing styles in an article, and b) where multiple references to the same citation exist. Any other use is more damaging than helpful, and outside their intended use. In addition, the naming scheme you propose doesn't seem very helpful to editors. I would much rather use <ref name="Fahrenthold Whales">
than <ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-11c">
. If you insist on using something that includes a date, please don't use yyyy-mm-dd
; mmm dd, yyyy
or dd mmm yyyy
is much preferable and easier to read while editing. Also, the |date=
, |accessdate=
, and |archivedate=
values need to follow the established usage for the individual article, regardless of the usage by the publication. So if you're editing an article that was created by someone using dd mmm yyyy
for dates in citations, that usage needs to be followed.
Listing multiple authors in the same |author=
parameter is more than a "minor cosmetic difference", it breaks another part of Wikipedia that is collecting and sorting data on its articles using
Wikipedia:COinS. This is not trivial; it ensures access to references over time. I can't support using a script that creates more works for bots; the citation should be properly formatted from the start.
As for archives, not all publications allow their pages to be listed on web archive sites; The Washington Post is a prime example. Due to this, trying to automate the process may be futile, and while your latest script example added
http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
to the citation, that page doesn't exist, so would create a broken link in the article. It is also important that the |archivedate=
be correct, rather than the current date, as some articles are archived multiple times and the citation should use the archive that specifically reflects the article at the time of its citation in the article. In some cases, the |archiveurl=
is incredibly important, as some web sites are updated over time to reflect current information, while the article cites a previous version of the site with information that was current at the time of the citation. U.S. News and World Report, for example, issues an annual ranking of "Best Schools"; however, they use the same url
each year for the results. Therefore, if an article is citing the results for 2010, it would need to include |archiveurl=
http://web.archive.org/web/20110211210723/http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/quantum-physics-rankings
rather than just using |url=
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/quantum-physics-rankings
, which gives the results for 2014.
Part of being a good editor at Wikipedia includes including citations in articles that are properly formatted. While I appreciate that this is time-consuming at times, and support making the process faster, the speed factor shouldn't supercede the accuracy factor. Good editing takes time, some of which is spent ensuring that citations "follow the rules". A script that doesn't isn't much help.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 00:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Conversions:
Now the script converts ’
into '
. It also transforms automatically the pipes into %7c in the url. I tried on
this link. But it will also convert pipes into |
if it's found in the title of the article.
Reference names:
<ref name="Fahrenthold Whales">
than <ref name="The_Washington_Post_2014-05-11c">
.|date=
, |accessdate=
, and |archivedate=
values need to follow the established usage for the individual article, regardless of the usage by the publication. So if you're editing an article that was created by someone using dd mmm yyyy
for dates in citations, that usage needs to be followed.|author=
parameter is more than a "minor cosmetic difference", it breaks another part of Wikipedia that is collecting and sorting data on its articles using
Wikipedia:COinS. This is not trivial; it ensures access to references over time. I can't support using a script that creates more works for bots; the citation should be properly formatted from the start.
http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
to the citation, that page doesn't exist, so would create a broken link in the article.|archivedate=
be correct, rather than the current date, as some articles are archived multiple times and the citation should use the archive that specifically reflects the article at the time of its citation in the article.
|archivedate=
, since the link to
http://archive.is/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
will send you to a page where you can choose from different snapshots of the given page (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071803258.html
), taken at various moments of time - check for example
http://archive.today/www.nytimes.com/ - it has tens of snapshots of the front page of The New York Times, the first one being from March 19, 1999. Of course, some snapshots might have the quoted data, and some not, and then it's important to link to the right snapshot and to provide the data of that snapshot, but that's more likely needed for annual lists than to individual newspaper articles which, after a maximum of a few days when they can be updated, will stay the same forever.This script should not provide links to archive.is. Linking to archive.is is currently banned from enwiki and blacklisted (edit filtered) ( a current discussion at WP:AN). — Makyen ( talk) 21:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've compiled a list of ISBN errors based on Category:Pages with ISBN errors and the ISBN errors detected by WikiProject Check Wikipedia, grouped by incorrect ISBN. It's currently available here and can be updated with WPCleaner. I'm using the same kind of list on frwiki, it helps being more efficient to fix ISBN errors. -- NicoV ( Talk on frwiki) 06:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This list is helpful. I have been fixing some of the ISBNs with 12 or fewer occurrences, focusing on the CS1 citation errors, and expect to fix more over the next few days. NicoV, would you mind posting a new list in a couple of days? Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 21:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I just got a notice that there was an error in a |date=
field because I was using "ca." as an abbreviation instead of "c.". Please change the templates to allow either; they're both valid abbreviations and we shouldn't be dictating abbreviation choice here. Thanks—
D'Ranged 1
talk 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
When |authors=
is populated with multiple authors as designed, then the COiNS metadata is polluted. For example:
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |authors=Smith, John; Johnson, Joe; Green, Ethan |title=Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7}} |
"Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors. Book Publishers. January 1, 2001. pp. 100–110.
ISBN
978-1-234-56789-7. |
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000088-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">"Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". ''Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors''. Book Publishers. January 1, 2001. pp. 100–110. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/978-1-234-56789-7|<bdi>978-1-234-56789-7</bdi>]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Chapter+2%3A+The+History+of+the+Bloggs+Family&rft.btitle=Big+Compilation+Book+with+Many+Chapters+and+Distinct+Chapter+Authors&rft.pages=100-110&rft.pub=Book+Publishers&rft.date=2001-01-01&rft.isbn=978-1-234-56789-7&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+5" 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">Cite uses deprecated parameter <code class="cs1-code">|authors=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#deprecated_params|help]])</span>
Key | Data |
---|---|
rft.au | Smith, John; Johnson, Joe; Green, Ethan |
rft.aufirst | not used |
rft.aulast | Smith, John; Johnson, Joe; Green, Ethan |
Possible solutions:
-- Gadget850 talk 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|author=
, |authorn=
, |last=
, or |lastn=
. Option 1 fixes none of those situations. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|author=
or |authors=
, and if detected, easily parse that parameter to produce clean metadata. Hence option 2 is viable.
Boghog (
talk) 19:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|authors=
parameter (or any other) is a problem with every system of templates; it is not Vancouver/vcite specific. But some editors deem this a feature, not a problem, and any kind of bot-fixing is likely to be displeasing. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)|coauthors=
would be relevant here. Anyone know where that happened? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)|coauthor=
and |coauthors=
is likely in the
Module talk:Citation/CS1 archives. I don't think it all that relevant because content of those parameters was never included in the
COinS metadata and, with the migration to Lua, no longer required as a hack to display additional authors when a work had more than the nine authors supported by {{
citation/core}}
.|coauthor=
with |authorn=
. There are four because that covers the most common of name formats and the attendant variety of separator punctuation but certainly not all. While Lua is a much more capable language than an AWB regex script, writing code to reliably parse names out of |authors=
will not be easy.|authors=
(and |authorsn=
– why do we have that?) in favor of |lastn=
and |authorn=
and prohibit multiple names in those two parameters. I suspect that it's easier to detect multiple names in a single parameter than it is to extract multiple names.Help:Citation Style 1 contains the statement
Editors should use an
|author=
organizational citation when the cited source, such as a committee report, specifically names an official body or a sub-unit of the publisher as the collective author of the work, e.g.|author=Commission on Headphone Safety
or|author=Rules Sub-committee
.
This statement has several important consequences. Trying to parse |author=
or |authors=
for names of natural persons is unsafe because they may contain the name of institutions. For example, G. W. Savage might refer to a person, or it might refer to a
business with a website that could potentially be used as a source. (I chose this example because in my area, everyone always calls the business G. W. Savage, no one ever mentions the "Corp." part of the official name.) If the name referred to a person, it would be displayed in the article as "Savage, G. W." (or maybe "Savage GW"). But if it referred to the business, it would be displayed in the article as "G. W. Savage".
{{ Citation}} does not say anything about organizational authors. {{ vcite book}} documentation contains these valid examples: Smith RC Jr, Jones B III, Barney MR Jr; American College of Academics and Smith, Robert C. Jr; Jones, Bertram III; Barney, Max R. Jr; American College of Academics. Therefore, vcite authors are not necessarily natural persons, and there is no statement as to whether Citation authors are natural persons. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
{{vcite}}
templates are not CS1 templates; that which applies to {{vcite}}
has no relevance to CS1.|authors=
will not likely rely on lists of all possible human or corporate names. More likely, parsing will have to rely on patterns of letters, spaces, punctuation that typically reflect how names, both human and corporate, are rendered in the Latin alphabet – and of course, on the hope that editors are consistent in how they separate individual names (I'm not so optimistic that editors will ever be infallibly consistent). This sort of parsing will completely fail when citations contain |authors=
parameters with multiple names rendered in non-Latin alphabets (Cyrillic, Greek) or in ideograms (Chinese, Japanese, etc). Like it or not, these types of citations exist in the English Wikipedia.|author=
or |authors=
. It is, I think, too difficult to get right even in cases like the Vancouver System where the format is clearly and unambiguously defined. This because, Wikipedia editors are sometimes lazy, sometimes overlook things, sometimes all too human. This, I think, is why we have CS1 templates in the first place: getting all of the details right in all of the citations in an article is difficult; templating the citations relieves editors of that burden.{{vcite}}
templates. At invocation, each template identifies itself to the module so that the module can take appropriate actions. This is how among other things {{
citation}}
gets its default |separator=,
and |ref=harv
; how the module knows to set the various title types, etc. The {{vcite}}
templates would need to provide similar unique identifiers.the warnings built into Module:Citation/CS1 can't tell if an article is a medical-related hybrid system described by User:Boghog. I interpreted Editor Boghog's hybrid to be some subset of
{{vcite}}
modified to use Module:Citation/CS1 or {{mcite}}
templates which I understand would have certain Vancouver-like characteristics as well as certain CS1-like characteristics. Without doubt, Module:Citation/CS1 can be coded to distinguish between a {{vcite}}
/ {{mcite}}
and any of the CS1 templates.|authors=
and disallow the use of multiple names (human or corporate or institutional) as a value for |author=
. |author=
and |authorn=
should contain only single values.|author=
or |authors=
could be used to produce correct COinS data.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 00:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
{{vcite}}
? Because right here, right now there are two adjacent discussions that are sort-of discussing different aspects of the same topic? Because in that other discussion you referred to {{
vcite2 journal}}
?Shortening of parameter names addresses one of the reasons editors stuff "authors=", but in order to keep this unentangled from other sub-topics I have broken it out into a subsection. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Current | Possible alternative |
---|---|
|author1= , |author2= , |author3= |
|a1= , |a2= , |a3=
|
|first1= , |first2= , |first3= |
|f1= , |f2= , |f3=
|
|last1= , |last2= , |last3= |
|l1= , |l2= , |l3=
|
|editor1= , |editor2= , |editor3= |
|e1= , |e2= , |e3=
|
|editor1-first= , |editor-first2= , |editor-first3= |
|e1f= , |e2f= , |e3f=
|
|editor-last1= , |editor-last2= , |editor-last3= |
|e1l= , |e2l= , |e3l=
|
I would support something similar to this, but just a bit longer; single-letter abbreviations can be confusing. How about:
Current | Possible alternative |
---|---|
|first1= , |first2= , |first3= |
|fn= , |fn2= , |fn3=
|
|last1= , |last2= , |last3= |
|ln= , |ln2= , |ln3=
|
|editor1-first= , |editor-first2= , |editor-first3= |
|edfn= , |ed2fn= , |ed3fn= and/or |edfn= , |edfn2= , |edfn3=
|
|editor-last1= , |editor-last2= , |editor-last3= |
|edln= , |ed2ln= , |ed3ln= and/or |edln= , |edln2= , |edln3=
|
I see no reason to have 1
as a part of any parameter; leaving it out would further shorten the text required. I've left out |author=
and |editor=
altogether; continuing to use these, rather than the first/last parameters, just increases the headaches involved in parsing names; however, I could see their use being restricted to institutional authors/editors and the parameters renamed accordingly, perhaps |orgau=
/|orged=
(I'm assuming that |fn=
and |ln=
would extract to rft.aufirst
and rft.aulast
, respectively, and |orgau=
would extract to rft.au
.) Since COinS metadata doesn't currently include anything for editors, I'm less worried about those parameters. On the topic of metadata, I think the decision needs to be made at a much higher level as to whether or not all citations will support COinS metadata. Is it acceptable that some don't/won't?—
D'Ranged 1
talk 09:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
{{{af|{{{af1|{{{first|{{{first1|}}}}}}}}}}}}
. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that shortened parameter names do anything to help clutter. Does this really help:
-- Gadget850 talk 11:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The {{ vcite}} template is being used incorrectly here. It is a typing aid and should not be escaped with {{ tl}}. {{ vcite}} = Citation Style Vancouver. More at Help:Citation tools#Documentation. -- Gadget850 talk 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
One error that I see repeatedly is |access date=
instead of |accessdate=
. Could/should we add |access date=
as an alias to the templates?—
D'Ranged 1
talk 23:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas Dagbok ( WorldCat search) is used as a reference on about 55 pages ( wikipedia search). Until recently, most of these pages had ISBN errors due to use of Unknown non-ISBN IDs in the ISBN. It looks like all the ISBN errors have now been fixed, either by moving the unknown IDs to the ID field ( example1 or example2) or by deleting the ID ( example3, example4). Examples 2 and 4 also added an OCLC - 14111333.
I think these IDs are taken from signature marks in the documents, although some of them (especially 412070) may have been garbled or misapplied. Searching gso.gbv.de for "charlottas dagbok" and following eg "Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas ... ; 5 ; 1795 - 1796" leads to a scanned pdf table of contents (Inhaltsverzeichnis in the default german) eg like this. In this case the number 231845 is part of the mark at the bottom of page ix, the last page. In other cases the mark is at the bottom of page xvii:
Note that for the books with no mark, either page ix or page xvii is absent from the toc, so the marks are probably present, they just happen not to coincide with the scanned section. Note that although the commonly occurring id 412070 is not on this list it is an adjacent-key typo for 412970, which is.
I'm not sure whether this implies the ids should be removed or preserved or documented further or left as-is but I thought it was relevant. Or should I have posted somewhere else? Should I put some links on the talk pages of some of the articles citing these books (eg the 4 examples above) to try to bring in anyone with a specific interest in these books? TuxLibNit ( talk) 22:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC); added direct links to all table of contents PDFs, and Google Book where available. — Makyen ( talk) 07:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
|id=
or (more common) |isbn=
parameters. In all cases, I provided the OCLC number for the entire series. The choice to use the OCLC for the entire series rather than the individual OCLC was because the majority of libraries listed their collections of these books under the series OCLC rather than the OCLC for each individual volume (usually only one or two libraries for each volume). I felt that this would make it easier for interested readers to find the book. Because I used the OCLC for the entire book, I also included a link to a search on WorldCat showing all matches for "Hedvig Elisabeth Charlottas dagbok".|title=
.|volume=
, embedding the volume with the title and translated title in a single |title=
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
on WorldCat|editor-first=Cecilia
and |editor-last=af Klercker, född Lewenhaupt
)|editor-first=Cecilia af
and |editor-last=Klercker
|editor-first=Cecilia
and |editor-last=af Lewenhaupt Klercker
)|editor=Cecilia af Klercker, född Lewenhaupt
|editor-first=Cecilia
, |editor-last=af Klercker född Lewenhaupt
, and |others=Translation by Cecilia af Klercker född Lewenhaupt
|id=
" variety. It was obvious, given the publication date and clearly incorrect format, that it could not be an ISBN. I only started to look more in depth into these citations as a group when I noticed that I was encountering multiple citations with them and the IDs were not matching across citations of the same volume sometimes even when the citations were in the same article.If you check the example at Template:Cite_interview#Examples, the first example is coming up with an error message: "Missing or empty |title=". I'm not sure how this should be fixed, since the title and the name of the program seem to be synonymous in this instance. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
|title=
is required and should be used in place of the name of the program when no separate title is available. Even better would be to get the template to do this automatically. The current example is this:
{{cite interview |last= Blackmun |first= Harry |subjectlink= Harry Blackmun |interviewer= [[Ted Koppel]] |program= ''[[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]]'' |callsign= [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |city= New York |date= April 5, 1994 }}
, which displays with the error:
{{
cite interview}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |callsign=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink=
ignored (|subject-link=
suggested) (
help)|title=
instead:
{{cite interview |last= Blackmun |first= Harry |subjectlink= Harry Blackmun |interviewer= [[Ted Koppel]] |title= [[Nightline (US news program)|Nightline]] |callsign= [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] |city= New York |date= April 5, 1994 }}
, which displays without the error:
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |callsign=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink=
ignored (|subject-link=
suggested) (
help)|title=
eliminates the need to manually add italics to the name of the program. The template should definitely be updated to automatically italicize the |program=
field, in keeping with
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics#Titles: "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, ...." I would also propose that when both title and program are used, the program is italicized and the title is enclosed in double quotation marks.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 00:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Pursuant to someone else's comment, I went to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to review the list of parameters used in CS1 templates. As a possible first step in creating some sort of naming convention for CS1 templates, I would propose that we start by:
This isn't radical—it's nearly true now. If we added some aliases, and stressed using the lower-case, hyphenated forms of parameter names in documentation (a project I am willing to take on), we might eventually get to deprecate a few others.
What I propose:
Add the following aliases to comply with lower-case, hyphenated parameter names:
|
|
|
Add the following in lieu of upper-case names:
Eventually, deprecate upper-case names that are not acronyms:
|
|
|
Note that the additions are in keeping with existing aliases for other parameters and I am not advocating adding aliases for run-on words for parameters that already are hyphenated (|transtitle=
, authorfirst=
, |authorlast=
come to mind as examples of aliases that should not be created). Additionally, the only url parameters in the list that are not hyphenated currently are |deadurl=
and |eventurl=
. I realize that |deadurl=
is a different animal than the url parameters that are links, but I think for less confusion it would be helpful to always hyphenate parameters that are composed of two (or more) words. It is quite frustrating when tweaking citation information by hand (due to the RefToolBar still using deprecated parameters, and no way to customize it for individual use, contrary to documentation) to have to go back and correct the parameter name because I forgot whether it used an underscore, hyphen, space, or nothing at all. Establishing some conventions would go a long way toward making editing faster and more intuitive.—
D'Ranged 1
talk 14:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
|subjectlink#=
that doesn't currently have aliases parallelling those of the other numbered arguments, which seem to have every possible permutation regarding where the number goes in the name, as in |author-link#=
,|author#link=
, |author#-link=
, and |authorlink#=
; currently, only |subjectlink#=
exists. Which of these conventions should be adopted as preferred is probably a lengthy discussion that can wait for now.)|deadurl=
, for example, is "one of the short ones that doesn't need a hyphen" just continues the problem.
Jonesey95 didn't think my suggestion of adding |access date=
as an alias was a good one; upon more thought, he's right. We don't need aliases for every conceivable misspelling, but standardizing the spelling/naming conventions might go a long way toward reducing the errors. However, the documentation at
Template:Cite interview states that |access-date=
was deprecated in favor of |accessdate=
so perhaps there is opposition to using hyphens. (I might also question the need for the CamelCase |EditorGiven=
and |EditorSurname=
or alises thereof, at all, but that's another discussion.|authors#=
and |editors#=
to the list of parameters to be deprecated.|news=
alias be added with all of this? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
|newspaper=
exists; in which template(s) would |news=
be used, and what information would it contain? What is being used in its place now? Are you proposing that it be an alias of an existing parameter, or a completely new one?|authors#=
and |editors#=
, and would also propose that |authors=
and |editors=
be deprecated as well. I think if we obtain consensus on the naming convention we can use the consensus as validation of creation of any aliases that don't meet the convention, and subsequently put forth arguments for deprecation; in a separate RFC if that is needed. So I would limit the RFC to the naming convention proposed. Does that seem best?—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 20:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Is there some way we could get formal consensus to make the changes I've proposed (if formal consensus is needed; general consensus seems to be supportive) and then have them actually carried out?The answer to the 'formal' part of that is WP:RFC.
|authors#=
and |editors#=
and Editor J. Johnson's suggestion to add |news=
should not be part of your RFC because that will distract from your intended change.An easy mistake, at least for me, is to write doi= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03191222 rather than doi=10.1007/BF03191222. Would it be possible and desirable to silently suppress an initial http://dx.doi.org/ or https://dx.doi.org/ in the doi field? Deltahedron ( talk) 06:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
So I bought the ePub of Ed vs. Yummy Fur to fix up Ed the Happy Clown, and discovered it's not paginated (the print version is, but I'm not buying it twice). How should I cite such a book (using, say, {{ sfn}})? Curly Turkey ⚞ ¡gobble!⚟ 11:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
|at=loc. 33
to cite the location given by the Kindle app. In {{sfn}}
you'd have the option of |loc=loc. 33
to accomplish the same thing. Of course, this assumes your ePub edition has some sort of numbering scheme to reference.
Imzadi 1979
→ 11:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
{{sfn|Evenson|Kaczynski|2014|loc=chpt. 3}}
which will render as ^Evenson & Kaczynski 2014, chpt. 3. If what you're citing isn't in a chapter, but in a named section, use that for |loc=
; I would enclose it in double quotes, however: {{sfn|Evenson|Kaczynski|2014|loc="distinction & meaning"}}
, rendering as ^Evenson & Kaczynski 2014, "distinction & meaning". It would seem that the {{
sfn}} format for footnotes isn't well-suited for e-books.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
See this . I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing. Template:Cite journal#Date is not helpful about both types of abbreviations. Besides fixing/improving the page I edited, I'm more concerned if anyone can "fix" the help here. comp.arch ( talk)
I have noticed that when editors cite a newspaper they tend to find |newspaper=
okay. But when they have a source that is obviously news (such as a television network) but not a paper, they balk (quite rightly, as it is not a newspaper), then get confused as to what alternate to use. Which would hardly matter, as |work=
, etc., are just aliases, except that names do carry meaning. So I wonder if, to avoid semantic conflict, |news=
could be added as an alias? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
|network=
or |station=
as aliases to |publisher=
, not |work=
because a TV network or TV station is a publisher not a publication.
Imzadi 1979
→ 00:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)news=''Guardian''
" if needed, but suppressing italics (prepend "</i>") would be a challenge for most users. For the rare case of "news=" plus "agency=" then I would append them both with a separator, and store in the
COinS metadata as the agency parameter. What we really want to avoid is people (or Bots) rushing to fix "news=xx.com" and put "work=xx.com" to show italic "xx.com" which just makes Wikipedia look ill-formatted. Meanwhile, I will update "
wp:autofixing cites" to fold "news=" into "agency=" where autofixing would provide better (non-italic) results, compared to human/Bot fixes very likely forcing italics (see:
dif289), because there is a limit to what people can rapidly hand-fix, while autofixing is now handling hundreds of tedious issues instantly. -
Wikid77 (
talk) 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)|news=nreionline.com
being changed to |work=nreionline.com
. For that citation "nreionline.com" is the work in which the news report is contained. |work=
is correct. You imply that it should be |agency=
which it should not in that case. In that citation, there should be no |agency=
as there is no agency credited and a author is named. You appear to be advocating significantly changing how we display citations.|news=
parameters.|agency=
should be higher than it is, I highly doubt that the correct alias, if we establish one, for "news" would be |agency=
. I believe that it is far more likely that "news" be mistakenly used for |work=
than for |agency=
.We've had an interesting romp across the landscape of possible complications, but I wonder if we might return to the original request: Could we have a new parameter, |news=
, aliased to |work=
in the same manner as |newspaper=
? This would alleviate the confusion some editors seem to have in citing a news source that is not a paper, and avoid the kludge of using the non-intuitive and more general |work=
. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion having waned without any definite objection, could |news=
be implemented as an alias to |newspaper=
? If not, what else is required? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
This
edit request to
Template:Cite interview has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update {{
cite interview}} to automatically italicize |program=
, in keeping with
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics#Titles: "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, ...."—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 23:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Per
MOS:TITLEQUOTES, Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this"). It particularly applies to works that exist as a smaller part of a larger work. Examples of titles which are quoted but not italicized... — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)I ran across this and wondered if there's a way to avoid it:
{{Cite journal |author=Rabie, Mohamed |date=Summer 1992 |title=The U.S.–PLO Dialogue: The Swedish Connection |journal=[[Journal of Palestine Studies]] |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=54–66 |accessdate=1 July 2007 |doi=10.1525/jps.1992.21.4.00p0140g |ref=harv |jstor=2537663}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I fixed it by putting the retrieval date outside the template but still within the <ref>
tags:
<ref>{{Cite journal |author=Rabie, Mohamed |date=Summer 1992 |title=The U.S.–PLO Dialogue: The Swedish Connection |journal=[[Journal of Palestine Studies]] |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=54–66 |doi=10.1525/jps.1992.21.4.00p0140g |ref=harv |jstor=2537663}} Retrieved 1 July 2007.</ref>
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Retrieved 1 July 2007.Both the doi and jstor parameters link to the same website (the doi link redirects to the jstor link); could the template be modified to ignore the error if one or both is present?— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 03:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
url:http://www.example.com
appears between two pipes), the access date error goes away.|accessdate=
error messages are hidden by default.In the documentation under Display options, the following statement is incorrect:
(.)
; for no terminating punctuation, specify |postscript=none
– leaving |postscript=
empty has the same effect but is ambiguous. Ignored if quote is defined.In testing, I find that if you leave the parameter empty, it defaults to a period. In order to suppress the closing punctuation, the value must be set to |postscript=none
:
{{cite web|first1=First|last1=Last|title=Sample Title|date=June 9, 2014|accessdate=June 9, 2014|url=http://www.example.com|postscript=}}
{{cite web|first1=First|last1=Last|title=Sample Title|date=June 9, 2014|accessdate=June 9, 2014|url=http://www.example.com|postscript=none}}
The statement about the parameter being ignored if
is defined is correct:
|quote=
{{cite web|first1=First|last1=Last|title=Sample Title|date=June 9, 2014|accessdate=June 9, 2014|url=http://www.example.com|quote=Pithy statement.|postscript=none}}
Pithy statement.
I haven't been able to figure out how to test this on non-lua templates; I don't know if the language there needs to be updated as well. The subtemplate {{
Citation Style documentation/display}} uses #if
statements to control what's displayed if the template is lua-based; I'm not comfortable in editing the documentation. Could someone more savvy do so? I think just deleting – leaving would be sufficient. Thanks!—[[User:D'Ranged 1D'Ranged 1]]
VTalk 04:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
|postscript=
empty has the same effect but is ambiguous
|postscript=
empty is the same as omitting it, but is ambiguous." Does that work? That text will display only in Lua citations (e.g. cite journal, cite book), the ones that use the CS1 module. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
This parameter is mentioned in the documentation for {{
cite encyclopedia}}
, but is not recognized (leaves an error message) when used there or in {{
citation}}
. The documentation is suggestive that it is intended to be an alternate (synonym) for publisher, but when publisher is absent and distributor is present, the error says distributor is unknown (and suggests publisher instead). When both are present, another error also says both cannot be specified. What's the story? Documentation bug, or template bug, or old deprecated (nonfunctional) parameter?
Evensteven (
talk) 22:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
|distributor=
is not listed at
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist but is defined as an alias of |publisher=
in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration. The {{
citation/core}}
version of {{
cite encyclopedia}}
did not use |distributor=
; the mention of |distributor=
is in a section of the common documentation referring to parameters that produce the
COinS metadata.|distributor=
is {{
cite sign}}
(currently transcluded into 161 pages). Because |distributor=
isn't included in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist but is listed in
Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, it would appear that the intent was to deprecate and remove |distributor=
in favor of |publisher=
.|distributor=
, then to complete the task we need to edit
Template:cite sign/doc to remove mention of |distributor=
as an alias of |publisher=
; edit
Template:Citation_Style_documentation/coins to remove mention of |distributor=
; edit
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to remove |distributor=
as an alias of |publisher=
.|distributor=
does not appear in the
Whitelist of valid parameters. It was added to the Whitelist on
31 August 2013, but it was not added to Whitelist/Sandbox at the same time. The next time the Sandbox was synced to the main Whitelist file, distributor was removed, probably inadvertently.|distributor=
appears in the
Module Configuration code as an alias for |publisher=
.|distributor=
to the Suggestions list on
13 December 2013, probably after noticing that it was marked as unsupported in a citation.{{
cite encyclopedia}}
and {{
citation}}
, as noted above, as well as {{
Cite sign}}
and probably others.|distributor=
was inadvertently removed from the Whitelist, and that re-adding it to the Whitelist and removing it from Suggestions will fix the problem.
Trappist the monk has been making most of the changes to the CS1 module lately, but is on a wikibreak. I'm willing to make this small change and will document it accordingly. Any objections?|others=
for niche cases such as this. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Could a parameter be added for a thesis' BLDSC number? See e.g. [2] (linked to at Timothy Gowers). It Is Me Here t / c 14:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
|id=
could not be utilised? BTW the abbreviation
e.g. is not italicised, see
MOS:TEXT#Foreign terms. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
|index-name=
, |index-number=
, |index-link=
? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. This parameter can have text describing the id, the ID number and a link to the appropriate location. Is there a reason this is not sufficient? —
Makyen (
talk) 06:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The table in this documentation contains a parameter called "websitework", but that doesn't actually seem to exist? Derboo ( talk) 08:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Derboo, can you please provide a link to the page that displays this erroneous text? Thanks. It looks like you may be seeing the same thing that an editor saw at this discussion. The resolution is not given there, but it looks like the specific web browser version was the cause. What web browser are you using? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 12:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the edit requested above, I propose the following:
|interviewer=
a numbered parameter, |interviewer#=
|cointerviewers=
has been deprecated; there are still programs that use more than one interviewer. |subject#=
is an alias of |author#=
; so utilizing |author#=
would put the interviewer in the wrong place.|interviewer-link=
and |interviewer#-link=
|interviewer=
[[Ted Koppel{{!}}Koppel, Ted]]
Does this need an RFC? Or will discussion/support/oppose here suffice? Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 23:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite interview}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|title=
, "|" should be replaced with |
as is described at
Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters. In |url=
, "|" should be replaced with %7C
as is described at
Help:Citation Style 1#Special characters.|interviewer=
documentation describes that multiple interviewers should be listed in the single parameter with the names separated by a semicolon. It is unclear to me if it is desirable to handle this as a situation where the names should be split into multiple parameters. As I understand it, one of the main reasons why authors and editors are split in that manner is to facilitate creating the COinS data. I don't believe the interviewer is included in that data.|author-link=
and |editor-link=
. —
Makyen (
talk) 04:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
|ref=harv
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Technical 13, I am not asking to change any parameter names; rather to expand the |interviewer=
parameter to an incrementable parameter that would function the same way |author=
and |editor=
do. I also am proposing adding a new parameter, |interviewer#-link=
, to easily insert a link to the interviewer(s)' article(s) on Wikipedia into the citation. No one would need to learn different syntax unless they chose to use the incremental form of the parameter (by adding a number to the parameter); they could easily continue to use the present method of listing multiple interviewers in |interviewer=
and manually wikilinking the interviewer name(s). I'm proposing an enhancement, not a replacement. As for the use of {{
!}}, I mistakenly believed that use of it was necessary when wikilinking names within a citation template.
Makyen, thank you for the clarification regarding the use of {{
!}}; I was sure I had seen one of the reference tools automatically replace the pipe in a wikilink with {{
!}}; I was mistaken. I went back and reviewed the citation, {{
!}} was used to insert a pipe in the |work=
parameter; your information on a better way to do that is duly noted.
Makyen,
Redrose64,
Jc3s5h, and
Gadget850—my proposal isn't prompted by considerations of COinS data or shortened footnotes. As has been pointed out, the |interviewer=
parameter isn't included in COinS metadata and this change would have no impact on shortened footnotes.
The primary purpose of the proposal is to help make editing methods across these templates more consistent. To my knowledge, there are currently four parameters (and their aliases) in the CS1 templates to capture names of people: |author=
, |editor=
, |interviewer=
, and |others=
. Both |author=
and |editor=
are incrementable via attaching a number to the parameter. Like |interviewer=
, an editor still has the option of listing all the authors in |author=
and all the editors in |editor=
, separated by semicolons and wikilinked if desired. However, in my opinion, it is much easier, especially with tools such as RefToolbar, to enter names in separate parameters and let the tool take care of the punctuation. My goal, about which Technical 13 inquired, is to cut down on the exceptions that an editor has to remember when using the CS1 templates. Just as an editor shouldn't have to remember that this parameter name takes a hyphen, but that one needs an underscore, and that other one mushes the words together, an editor shouldn't have to remember to structure his citation differently when dealing with similar data.
(As a side note: I am much less concerned that this methodology be applied to |others=
; its use seems infrequent and I would imagine that its inclusion is rarely required in order to provide an accurate, identifiable reference to a specific source. If we wanted to be completely consistent, |others=
would be incrementable and there would be parallel, incrementable |role=
) and |others-link=
to make data entry easier and, again, let the template add the proper punctuation and formatting. I don't see a real need to do any of that.)
I'm also not proposing that the parameter be further divided with |first=
and |last=
names; those exist for the reasons stated above; their use is not required (nor desirable) here. So it still wouldn't be a perfectly consistent method, but it would be more so than it is now. I hope this clarifies things; thank you for your patience. (My Talk page posts are probably in need of a good copyeditor for length.)—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 02:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
, it would seem that the effort required to implement this proposal would far outweigh the benefit.|lastn=
and the like arbitrarily scaleable (instead of having to explicitly make a bespoke |last19=
, |last20=
, and so forth). It would therefore be in keeping with this thinking to have |interviewern=
, |interviewern-last=
, |interviewern-link=
, |subjectn-link=
, ..., work in the same way.
It Is Me Here
t /
c 11:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)perhaps we should add a section parameter to template:cite book, not all books that will be referenced are separated by "chapters". I feel a little awkward constantly using the chapter parameter when its not really a chapter. Lucia Black ( talk) 11:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
|at=
parameter, but bear in mind that it can't be used with |page=
, so you could use |at=section 3.2.1, p. 123
--
Redrose64 (
talk) 12:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
First time i'm asking for one i believe, anyways, why shouldn't there be a section parameter? it'll make things much easier. Lucia Black ( talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
permits use of either |chapter= or |section=, just not both at the same time. They are treated as synonyms, and produce the same textual output, so the difference is really just a matter of internal record. You won't see it unless you look at the wiki source code.
Evensteven (
talk) 07:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
to use sections, which is important for DVD/Blu-ray releases several sections such as commentary and production notes.
Lucia Black (
talk) 07:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
also permits |section= in place of |chapter=. Yes, the documentation is inadequate. Many of these "cite" templates permit the full range of parameter choices equally - anything that {{
citation}}
allows. You can pretty much select which of them you want to employ in any individual citation.
Evensteven (
talk) 10:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, "the {{ vcite journal}} template [has] fallen into disuse". It has only 285 transclusions. It seems that it and the related templates ({{ vcite book}} (208 transclusions), {{ vcite news}} (100), {{ vcite web}} (168)) were forked from their more commons equivalents due to performance issues, which have since been solved. They also lack COinS metadata. Is there any need to keep them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
templates: you can't pass something to a template unless the template is preconfigured to receive it.{{vcite}}
templates. I'm sure that there are other peculiarities I haven't discovered.{{
vcite journal}}
does have quite a few unique parameters that aren't supported by CS1, for example the dot versions of several parameter names, the |xxxphrase=
parameters, etc. Are these necessary? Are they used in current {{vcite}}
templates? What is the list of all things where the {{vcite}}
templates differ from CS1 templates? Are all of these differences required?The vcite templates do not have strict naming conventions because institutional authors are allowed. seem my post to the #Authors and COinS thread at 15:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC). Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
...
which in turn refers to:Only use initials in a personal name if the name is commonly written that way.
— MOS:ABBR
Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or initials, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format.
— Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_initials
Imzadi: What do you mean by "if you want to use Vancouver style, you use vcite * templates"?
It seems to me the only reason people use vcite is because they are in love with the "initials condensed together" of the Vancouver system. But this can be done with the other templates, so why are vcite templates necessary? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Imzadi1979: or anyone else: what do the {{ vcite}} templates do that can't be done with any other citation template?
[display] a semicolon as a punctuation mark to separate authors and editors.Setting
| authorformat = vanc | author-separator=, | author-name-separator =  
will cause the template to display the authors in Vancouver style. This is neither prohibited nor goes against the documentation (or why would these documented parameters exist in the first place?).
Boghog (
talk) 05:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Should the question of whether there is any need for the vcite templates be raised in an RfC? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This subject was brought up previously, but was abandoned. Now it's been archived. The problem occurs when using RefToolbar's auto-fill ISBN feature on {{ cite book}}:
{{cite book |first1=Ian H. |last1=Witten |first2=David |last2=Bainbridge |first3=David M. |last3=Nichols |title=How to build a digital library |date=2010 |isbn=978-0-12-374857-7 |publisher=Morgan Kaufmann Publishers |location=Amsterdam |edition=2nd ed.}}
:{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)RefToolbar extracts the data, which includes the " ed." text, and inserts it into the template. When parsed, the template adds another " ed." to the end of |edition=
. What is the best way to proceed to fix the problem? Should we ask Mr.Z-man to alter the RefToolbar gadget? Is there a way to programmatically have the template replace an instance of " ed. ed." with " ed."? Or should we just rely on editors to remove the " ed." from the gadget before inserting it into the article? Since many will miss it, this should be on the replacement list for many bots, I would think; it may already be. Any ideas for next steps to fix this?—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I originally thought this was a simple fix; upon further investigation and testing, it's more complicated than what was in my protected edit request above.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles states:
Use italics for the titles of ... television series .... The titles of ... television episodes ... are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks.
Here is how the current {{
cite interview}}
template formats a citation including both
and |program=
data:
|title=
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |title=The Secretary of State |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley|Pelley, Scott]] |program=60 Minutes |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink1=
ignored (|subject-link1=
suggested) (
help)Here is the additional formatting needed within the current template to make it display properly:
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |title=''"The Secretary of State"'' |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley|Pelley, Scott]] |program=''60 Minutes'' |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink1=
ignored (|subject-link1=
suggested) (
help)Here is how the current {{
cite interview}}
template formats a citation which only has
data:
|program=
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley |Pelley, Scott]] |program=60 Minutes |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
{{
cite interview}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |subjectlink1=
ignored (|subject-link1=
suggested) (
help)Note that in addition to the error message, data in
is rendered as a raw URL. I have updated the template documentation to indicate that |url=
is required; however, ideally, this is how the template would function:
|title=
|title=
or |program=
; eliminate the error message when |program=
is populated but |title=
is not.|program=
and |title=
are populated, italicize |program=
and wrap |title=
in quotation marks; if |url=
is populated, map it to |title=
.|title=
is populated, assume it is the name of the show/series, not the episode, and italicize it; if |url=
is populated, map it to |title=
.|program=
is populated, italicize it; if |url=
is populated, map it to |program=
.Can this be done?— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 04:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
|title=
or |program=
is necessary unless |url=
is present. In that case, one or the other should be required.|title=
as an alias of |program=
in some cases; we have other cite templates like this (encyclopedia comes to mind), and they are very confusing. I'd rather see |title=
in quotation marks always and just let editors change |title=
to |program=
if it makes sense to do so. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)|title=
and |program=
are empty but |url=
is supplied, that it map to "Interview with", which the template automatically generates unless |type=
is supplied; in that case, the URL could map to the value in |type=
. This would avoid another error message.
{{cite interview |first1=John |last1=Kerry |subjectlink1=John Kerry |first2=Hillary |last2=Clinton |subjectlink1=Hillary Clinton |type=Round-table discussion |date=September 29, 2013 |interviewer=[[Scott Pelley|Pelley, Scott]]; [[Morley Safer|Safer, Morley]] |accessdate=June 6, 2014 |url=http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/O4kO1ksZbGQoGMPNL_8BQ_PoNNrL5EQD/the-secretary-of-state-imminent-danger-killing-jesus/ |publisher=CBS}}
could display as:{{
cite interview}}
(perhaps |source=
?) than to fold additional parameters into {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
?—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 00:01, 7 June 2014To summarize, here's what seems to need consensus:
|program=
is populated but |title=
is not.|program=
and |title=
are populated, italicize |program=
and wrap |title=
in quotation marks; if |url=
is populated, map it to |title=
.|program=
or |title=
are populated and |url=
is populated, map it to the populated parameter.|program=
or |title=
only if |url=
is populated (error message generated)|program=
nor |title=
is populated and |url=
is populated, map |url=
to the default text "Interview with" or the value of |type=
(no error message).Further comments? This seems to have stalled; I'd like to get it resolved and implement whatever conclusion is reached. Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 23:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that in 2011 CrossRef began encouraging the display of DOIs as URLs, why is {{ cite journal}} still rendering them as URNs, even if the namespace-specific strings are hyperlinked to the resolver? I believe that we should be following their guidance for best practice, and rendering the DOIs as URLs, which will facilitate research using printed copies of our articles.
Looking at
this discussion from 2011, it may be due to the desire to present the string "doi" as an explanatory hyperlink, as with the rendering of
PMCs,
PMIDs, etc. There are good arguments made in that discussion for the current link-next-to-a-link behavior as being harmful (
Kaldari wrote: I often click the wrong one by mistake.
), but also the valid point is made that readers may not know what a DOI is. I believe the issue should be reconsidered in the light of CrossRef's guidance. —
Scott •
talk 14:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
doi:10.3389/gene.2013.00151
and links to http://dx.doi.org/10.3389%2Ffgene.2013.00151
, a URL.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)DOI 10.3389/gene.2013.00151
? The brief, unconcluded discussion at
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5 may be relevant. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/gene.2013.00151
within the reference citation. --
79.67.248.252 (
talk) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
doi:10.3389/gene.2013.00151
" and "http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/gene.2013.00151
" is not significant. You selectively quote the least important part of the CrossRef statement, as opposed to This change will allow users to copy permanent CrossRef DOI links from HTML pages to emails, blogs, reference management software and other applications. It's applications other than web browsers where linkification may need to happen, or even simply places where humans enter URLs by hand, such as from print, an issue which I raised and you do not address in your comment. Also, "which many consider ugly" is weasel words and "I don't like it" in one. You'll also notice that virtually all of
WP:BAREURLs is about the problem of link rot, which is irrelevant to the DOI resolver system for obvious reasons. —
Scott •
talk 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment – Looks to me like we are already in compliance with the CrossRef guideline. To wit, Option 6 which reads:
That same citation using {{
cite journal}}
is:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)Here we are complying with the 'something similar [the identifier] with the permanent DOI link behind the text.' The permanent link is available with a right-click > Save link as ... or similar functionality in every browser I have to hand.
As I read the guidelines, there doesn't appear to be any requirement for print versions of articles to use the full URL. In fact, were that a requirement, then none of Options 4, 5, or 6 would make any sense.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
We should bring DOI display into consistency with other identifiers. I.e., going from
to
The URN formulation is not particularly useful - in fact, it's not even valid. URN syntax requires them to begin with urn:
, meaning that doi
would be a namespace; the DOI Foundation has deliberately not registered a DOI namespace for URNs. See
Uniform resource name#Absence of DOI namespace. —
Scott •
talk 10:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
doi
was because the output was a URI, and that URI schemes are required to be in lowercase. However, the output is not a proper URI, because doi
is
not a URI scheme (permanent or provisional). And as mentioned above, even if it were to be prefixed with urn:
, there's no DOI namespace for URNs either - so the output in its current state is malformed, being neither a URN or URI. —
Scott •
talk 12:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)doi:
should be replaced with DOI
. —
Scott •
talk 12:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)It is not a bug. It is displayed that way because the DOI specification explicitly calls for lowercase "doi:". (see 2.6.1 Screen and print presentation) — Makyen ( talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I just added templatedata for cite book for the editor2 parameters. Now opening a cite book template in VE brings up the new parameters but without the descriptive name I provided. Did I screw something up? I checked the VE archives and found mention of a null edit to the template being necessary after an edit to templatedata; is that the issue here? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The current state of TemplateData is:
Template | Number of parameters |
---|---|
Citation | 248 |
Cite AV media | none |
Cite AV media notes | none |
Cite DVD notes | none |
Cite arXiv | none |
Cite book | 116 |
Cite conference | none |
Cite doi | none |
Cite encyclopedia | 66 |
Cite episode | none |
Cite hdl | none |
Cite interview | none |
Cite journal | 92 |
Cite mailing list | none |
Cite map | none |
Cite music release notes | none |
Cite news | 93 |
Cite newsgroup | none |
Cite pmid | none |
Cite podcast | none |
Cite press release | 25 |
Cite serial | none |
Cite sign | 93 |
Cite speech | none |
Cite techreport | none |
Cite thesis | none |
Cite web | 91 |
I have been considering harmonizing the TemplateData for CS1 templates for some time. Such has also been suggested over at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Templatedata for cite book. I would think that it would be a good idea to have TemplateData in all of the CS1 templates. We should probably organize it such that the text is in templates containing the commonly used parameters. — Makyen ( talk) 13:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All parameter names in Citation Style 1 templates shall include at least an alias which is in lowercase that has separations with hyphens between English words, between (not within) acronyms, or between English words and acronyms. The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for "normal use". This is to establish a parameter name format that is uniformly available for all CS1 templates. Establishing this uniform parameter name convention does not preclude the existence of any other alias for a parameter, merely that a lowercase, hyphenated version will exist for each parameter.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 22:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC); Reworded to make it more clear that this proposal is not to eliminate any current version of a parameter. — Makyen ( talk) 22:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(Please only indicate Support or Oppose here, with discussion in the section below.)
Citation Style 1 parameter names are now a mix of CamelCase, mergedwords, and words separated by spaces, hyphens, or underscores. Remembering which style applies to what parameter name is frustrating; all parameter names should follow the same style so that an editor intuitively knows how to enter the parameter name. Most names are lower-case, hyphenated names, or have an alias that is, but not all. Adopting a naming convention will ensure that all current and future parameter names create less confusion and easier editing for editors.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 22:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't object to this concept, but I think it should be reworded to forbid bots from changing from the hyphenated version of a parameter name to an earlier version of the name, and the RFC be advertised at appropriate bot-related talk pages. Otherwise we will have warring bots. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
|TrANs__tITle=
for |trans-title=
that is not excluded by this RfC. I hope that it is not done, but it is not excluded. The goal of the RfC is to have at least one consistent style of parameter names across all of CS1 so that editors of enwiki do not have to guess at what parameter name style happens to be used in a particular template, or for a specific parameter within a template.|coauthors=
, etc. are being changed due to those parameters being deprecated, but I don't recall any bot going through and specifically changing other parameters. —
Makyen (
talk) 01:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
|date=
to |year=
here on May 17. I seem to recall that this was discussed and that AWB users were to stop doing it, but I don't remember when that took effect.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 15:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
|trans-title=
over to |trans_title=
for a long time. That process was recently halted. --
79.67.241.215 (
talk) 14:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)date = 2011
is perfectly valid, then
consensus has changed. I will read the discussion.
Mr Stephen (
talk) 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus to implement this. In order to do so, the following parameter names need to be added to the Whitelist and recognized as valid aliases by the templates:
|
|
|
And numbered_arguments:
|
Once this is done, I will notify the AWB users of the additions so that valid parameter names aren't mistakenly "corrected". I will then undertake updating the documentation on the templates.
Would someone with the ability to make the necessary changes please do so? Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
So there's a trans_title
parameter... might there also be a need for a trans_work
(or trans_journal
, trans_newspaper
, etc.) parameter? —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 01:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
|title=
italicizes all titles— italics are not appropriate for Asian languages. The fix has been to use {{
asiantitle}}, but this pollutes the metadata with markup. --
Gadget850
talk 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Cite_web#Examples includes the following (highlighting added):
{{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=Honi soit qui mal y pense |last=Joliet |first=François |date=30 April 2005 |accessdate=10 July 2014 |language=French |trans_title=Shame on those who think evil }}
How does the template transform the translated title (trans_title=
)
Shame on those who think evil
to
??
There's obviously something going on behind the scenes in this example that goes way beyond the parameters. Whatever it is, it's distracting and needs to be explained, or the example replaced by something straightforward. I can't see the actual code because
Template:Cite_web's "View source" tab says "You do not have permission to edit this page…" (I don't want to edit it, just view it) and shows the entire code as
<includeonly>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</includeonly><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>
which is no help at all. {{ping}} me if you want to discuss it. -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Should the non-English, official publisher name be included, or only the English translation of it? Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 11:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
|publisher=Le Chat Rouge [The Red Cat]
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)This obituary in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette appears to have been originally published in the Dallas Morning News. Should I cite it like this...
...or is there some way to credit the original paper? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
|agency=
, but that just added the "agency" with out comment. Perhaps just add text after the template, something like "Syndicated from the Dallas Morning News". ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help), crediting Smith, John (November 9, 2000). "More on JFK assassination". Daily Bugle. p. 2. {{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)|postscript=none
This comes from Elmo Hope, best seen in an earlier version [7]... Using {{sfn}} if the author field is blank (e.g., citation 2), then it is the newspaper name that pops up when the numbered citation is hovered over, but clicking on that name has no effect (it should jump to and highlight the relevant work in Bibliography). There is a similar problem with citation 4, I assume because the publication date is "2002" in the sfn but "2012 [2002]" in the Bibliography. {{rp}} has been used as a way around this, but that has introduced a second referencing system and removed the functionality of {{sfn}}. Is there a solution to these two problems, using {{sfn}} or another system? EddieHugh ( talk) 12:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
|ref={{sfnref|New York Amsterdam News|1940}}
to the citation under §Bibliography.|year=2012 [2002]
is not valid syntax in the complicated world of the citation templates. I changed it to |year=2012
|origyear=2002
, which works fine. I also changed the year in the {{
sfn}}
references to 2012; since the bibliography lists only the 2012 version, that's what needs to be cited. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose to add parameters |transcript=
, |audio=
, |video=
and |slides=
to
template:cite conference, so that readers could verify citation in a format according to their preference. I am planning to implement this in sandbox of corresponding module, but I wanted to gather some feedback on this idea before I spend too much time on implementing it. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track) 01:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The Cite web documentation states:
Thus, url should not be required, if title is wikilinked. However, this is not reflected in the
TemplateData which shows both of these parameters as required, always. If you try to use a wikilinked title without a URL, you get errors: Missing or empty |url= (help); |accessdate= requires |url= (help)
I think it should be possible to use a wikilinked title without a URL; if you use URL for an internal link, it will be followed by an external link icon. –
Wdchk (
talk) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
requires a URL, since you are citing a web page. Therefore, the title cannot be wikilinked in a {{
cite web}}
citation. I have corrected the documentation. Thanks for notifying us about this inconsistency. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The Cite web documentation states:
Thus, url should not be required, if title is wikilinked. However, this is not reflected in the
TemplateData which shows both of these parameters as required, always. If you try to use a wikilinked title without a URL, you get errors: Missing or empty |url= (help); |accessdate= requires |url= (help)
I think it should be possible to use a wikilinked title without a URL; if you use URL for an internal link, it will be followed by an external link icon. –
Wdchk (
talk) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
requires a URL, since you are citing a web page. Therefore, the title cannot be wikilinked in a {{
cite web}}
citation. I have corrected the documentation. Thanks for notifying us about this inconsistency. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I have come to the wrong place to ask a question, /slash add a "comment" (to suggest an idea). Any help / advice would be welcome, in that case.
While reading the article Von Neumann architecture, I noticed that the first footnote (footnote number [1]) was a " dead link" ("See also" dead link.) I was able to find an "archived" copy of the dearly departed "deceased" web page (which was previously at the URL http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf ). The "archived" copy was found at https://web.archive.org/web/20130314123032/http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf .
Then, while I was updating the "<ref>...</ref>" tag, for footnote number "[1]", to add some fields such as "archiveurl" and "archivedate" (and "deadurl = yes"), I tried adding a field called "archiveurl_added_date"; but that did not work. (I got some error messages...)! I later decided that maybe "archiveurl-added-date" would be better (minus sign "-" characters, instead of underscore "_" characters), but way before that, I started snooping around, and somehow found my way to Help:Citation_Style_1 ... and I saw that it has an " Elements_not_included" section.
"Great!" [I thought]. I started to an an item to the list there. The existing list says:
and I was about to edit that list, there, and add a new item, saying something like:
...but I quickly realized that (a) it was getting too long; and (b) it was starting to contain some material that is more appropriate for a "Talk:" page, than for a NON-"Talk:" page. (Is there a correct name for a NON-"Talk:" page? Maybe in this case, it is just [called] a "Help:" page? Sorry...).
So, I tentatively decided to add this question, /slash "comment" (to suggest an idea) here on this "Talk:" page.
But meanwhile, I went back, and modified my revisions to footnote number "[1]" of the article about Von Neumann architecture. The details of my "edit" can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Von_Neumann_architecture&diff=618928560&oldid=616552075 .
As you can see from my edit, the newly updated "<ref>...</ref>" tag, has an "| archivedate = March 14, 2013" -- because that is the creation date, of the "archived" copy of the "deceased" web page (which was previously at the URL http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf ).
I did not change the "| accessdate = August 24, 2011", because I thought I was supposed to leave that, as the last known date when the URL shown in the "url" field was used (and worked OK).
Is that my mistake? Should I maybe have changed "| accessdate = [...]", to reflect the date when the "archiveurl" field was added? I could be wrong, but I didn't think so.
Or MAYBE ... no one cares about the date when the "archiveurl" field was added? If so, then kindly disregard this entire comment [section]!
Or MAYBE ... the "temporary" solution I used, should just be used permanently? (That is, the "solution" of documenting the date when the "archiveurl" field was added, but just doing so outside of the "{{citation}}" tag). (See the LINK to the edit I made [also shown above].) If so, then Case Closed. However, I would be surprised.
Any comments would be welcomed. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 07:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
was added, there is always the page history. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 09:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
|citation-added=
or |title-added=
or |url-added=
. The article history suffices if people are sufficiently interested in determining when a specific piece of text was added to an article or its references.|accessdate=
for citations I "
wikt:resurrect" by |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
, as these two already provide enough information about the measures of link rot prevention. —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I see that in a recent use I made of the "via" parameter in {{ Cite news}} that there is no exposed information when the template is rendered; see the diff leading to this version of the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak article. This is contrary to documentation and I'm wondering if the parameter is broken or it is excluded from display due to the presence of another parameter. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 09:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
|publisher=
field. I changed it to |via=
and it displays properly now.—
D'Ranged 1
VTalk 15:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)I was pointed here from the
Help Desk. I've started using the "Cite" form in the GUI editor more and more, in lieu of manually typing {{cite web|blablabla}}. I understand that clicking "Show/Hide Extra Fields" will show probably more fields than most people would use anyway, but there are still some fields that I wish it included. One is subscription=yes/no
. I also wish that the format
field in the GUI was a dropdown instead of free text, which included some of the most popular formats, such as PDF, DOC or XLS. First, is this the place I should be discussing this? If so, what is the process for making a request and discussing and then making the change?
The article
John Roselli states that Roselli testified before the
Church Committee on June 24, 1975, however, the statement is unsourced. I am interested in using a primary source document,
[8], as a citation for that material. The document is essentially a transcript typed up by the shorthand reporting company Ward & Paul and I imagine it was obtained via the FOIA. I am unsure as to which citation template to use, and I don't know what to put as |publisher=
or if I need to use |archiveurl=
and |archivedate=
. Any help on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
Location (
talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web |title=Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli |url=https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1446&relPageId=3 |website=Mary Ferrell Foundation |publisher=United States Senate |accessdate=August 6, 2014 |date=June 24, 1975}}</ref>
|website=
parameter because it's the name of a website published by the U.S. Senate. Rather, I would put it in the |via=
parameter to indicate that it's it the entity republishing the report. Actually, the Senate committee should be listed as the author of the report, and the actual publisher (Ward & Paul in Washington, DC) should be listed, and {{
cite report}} would be a better option (although it currently doesn't support |via=
). That would give something like:
The primary purpose of citations is to direct the reader to the source of the information. Since the source is at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, that information needs to be included; however, it works to put it in the |via=
parameter:
<ref>{{cite web |title=Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli |url=https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1446&relPageId=3 |via=Mary Ferrell Foundation |publisher=United States Senate |accessdate=August 6, 2014 |date=June 24, 1975}}</ref>
Which displays as:
To me, it is less clear that the source is a website in either example I have given; you might want to use "www.maryferrell.org" instead of the name of the foundation. While the report is being cited, the source is the website, not the report, so the {{ cite web}} is the correct template. If whoever cited the report did so from a hard copy of it, then you would use {{ cite report}}. (I make this same distinction between {{ cite web}} and {{ cite news}}; I only use the latter if I'm citing from an actual physical copy of an article. If I'm citing something I found on the internet, I use {{ cite web}}. Other editors use them interchangeably when citing newspaper articles.) Arguably, you could list the committee name as the author, but the citation as above is sufficient to direct the reader to the source. The publisher is the U.S. Senate, regardless of who transcribed the proceedings—they would have had to release the tape recording from which the transcription was made. While I agree with the comments about primary sources; it would seem in this instance that the source is an actual photocopy or microfiche of the transcription that has been approved for release by the CIA; I wouldn't think that it would fail a reliable sources test.— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
|url=
which it not applicable to a hard copy that I might possess. Thanks to all for the feedback!
Location (
talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|via=
parameter. This is useful for saying you got the copy of the source through Google Books, Google News,
Highbeam Research, etc. and not the original publisher. The U.S. Senate, or the specific publishing company/office, is the original publisher, and they made the original document publicly available. Mary Ferrell Foundation is just mechanically republishing it online. We would never say that a "Microfilm Archival Corporation" is the publisher of an article from The New York Times that I consulted in the library on microfilm, but if for some reason we should credit them, they'd go in the |via=
parameter. (The terms of the collaborations with various news archive sources say that we're supposed to credit them.)|url=
and related parameters for online copies. {{Cite web}}
is really for any type of online source where there isn't a more specific template. An online map is still a map, and {{cite web}}
does not support the parameters to indicate the cartographer, the scale, etc, which are still items that should be cited for any map, even if you consulted a copy of the map online. How do you properly indicate the wire agency behind a newspaper article in {{cite web}}
when |agency=
is only found in {{cite news}}
? How do you indicate the volume/issue/page for a journal article mechanically reproduced online when {{cite web}}
lacks those parameters?
Imzadi 1979
→ 02:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|url=
in {{
cite news}}. I reserve use of {{
cite news}} for printed works. You'll find, also, that the documentation for the Citation Style 1 templates is woefully inadequate and sometimes inaccurate—using |agency=
with {{
cite web}} works perfectly well:
{{cite web |title=World Gold |date=December 31, 1980 |accessdate=August 8, 2014 |website=nytimes.com |url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D01E1DF133EE532A25752C3A9649D94619FD6CF |agency=The Associated Press}}
{{cite news |title=World Gold |date=December 31, 1980 |publisher=The New York Times |page=72 |agency=The Associated Press}}
|publisher=The New York Times
is incorrect. It may be |work=The New York Times
or |newspaper=The New York Times
as you see fit; but according to
Contacts and Services - The New York Times, the publisher is Arthur Sulzberger Jr. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|newspaper=The New York Times
, in my view. --
Alarics (
talk) 16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the templatedata for {{ Cite news}}, the phrase "forth author", which occurs in three parameters, should be "fourth author". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This
change to the css styling for the <code>...</code>
tag has, in my opinion, buggered up the error messages emitted by
Module:Citation/CS1. The new css is at
skins/common/commonElements.css.
Before the change, CS1 error messages had this look:
After the change, the same error message looks like this:
|accessdate=
requires |url=
With a small modification to override the text color (<code style="color: #cc0000;">...</code>
), we could get this:
|accessdate=
requires |url=
I think that we should return to the previous styling. There is no need to draw little boxes around the parameters displayed in error messages. To do that, I will replace <code>...</code>
in error messages with <kbd>...</kbd>
which seems to be the most appropriate tag; see
The kbd Element.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
para}}
which is oft used here.<kbd>...</kbd>
is for examples of user input (i.e. the values of parameters), not the parameter=
code! It's semantically incorrect to use kbd this way. Use Jonesey95's CSS fix, above. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
<kbd>...</kbd>
is documented at
w3c.code
element;
4.5.13 The var
element
4.5.14 The samp
element
4.5.15 The kbd
element. If you examine the source for that page, you'll see just how often the <code>...</code>
element is used. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is italic, while this is bold
is source code (we call it wikisource and source-view editing for a reason), and definitely not within the intended uses of <kbd>...</kbd>
, except in quite peculiar circumstances. E.g., perhaps if I were explaining on Simple Wikipedia, "How to make text italic: First type '' (two single-quote characters in a row)), then the word or words you want to make italic, then finish by typing '' again". Even then purists would say to use <code>...</code>
because the input in question is the input of source code, and kbd does not mark up source code.<code>...</code>
at all in this particular case. I'm in favor of doing so, because the boogering of this template's error message output is an unintended consequence of CSS changes to the element. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)In
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have overridden the default commonElements.css definition for <code>...</code>
to <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">...</code>
.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : |access-date= requires |url= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(noticing that I have been redirected to this talk page via the talk page of Template:Cite journal, the following refers to articles in academic journals)
A number of bibliographic databases have introduced the parameters "print year" and "online year", due to the increasing problem of articles being originally published electronically one year and then published in print one or two years later. A journal article is considered published in the year it was first published (usually electronically these days), but that year might be a different year than the year the print issue appears. I suggest we add at least "print year", to be used with volume, issue, pages etc, when the electronic version that the doi usually refers to was published in a different year.
Example: If I published the article "The reliability of Wikipedia articles" in the Journal of Wikipedia Studies, that started publication with Volume 1 in 2014, it would usually first appear only electronically, and be cited as:
But then, a year later, in 2015, the editors would finally manage to squeeze the article into the print issue Vol. 2, Issue 1, and then we have, according to the current template:
Here we would need a parameter to indicate that the print version (Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 50–65) appeared in 2015, not in 2014. Changing the "year" parameter from 2014 to 2015 would not be acceptable, because the work originally appeared in 2014 and may be cited as such by other literature. Bjerrebæk ( talk) 11:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|date=2015
and possibly |origyear=2014
:
|origyear=
(and |doi=
or other online links) may not be appropriate if there were editorial changes made to facilitate the hardcopy format. You can also use |type=
to distinguish between versions|type=
in a case this "delicate", and then just move on. Any time spent agonizing over this kind of source massaging is time not spent on adding more sources. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|publication-date=
might be applicable in some instances.Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |last=White |first=T. H |title=[[The Book of Merlyn]] |year=1941 |publication-date=1977 |publisher=University of Texas Press}} |
White, T. H (1941). The Book of Merlyn. University of Texas Press (published 1977). |
|publication-date=
should not be used because it is not mentioned in
Help:Citation Style 1. Thus, no one knows what it means or when it should be used. Maybe it is only intended for internal communications between templates. Maybe it is deprecated and is only supported to keep from breaking old citations that have not been updated yet.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 16:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)|publication-date=
is documented on most, if not all, CS1 template documentation pages which, I think, should be the first place editors should go for template parameter information.Can a parameter for linking to a transcript be added to Template:Cite podcast?-- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
|transcript-url=
in the CS1 module, but it appears that it is not currently used in any citations that use the CS1 module for rendering (I could be wrong). It is used in {{
cite serial}} and {{
cite episode}}, but those still use the old citation/core code. Adding it to cite podcast should be straightforward but would take some new code. Let's see if it works already:Wikitext | {{cite podcast
|
---|---|
Live | Jack Handey.
"Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Jack Handey.
"Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
First request with errors and no error-checking
| ||
---|---|---|
I played around in a sandbox and got it to work. Two parts of Module:Citation/CS1 need to be edited:
Currently:
Proposed edit:
Currently:
Proposed edit:
These changes result in the citation rendering as:
Could someone with editing access please make these (or more refined) changes? Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC) |
local TranscriptAssemble
?|transcript-url=
is missing or empty?This
edit request to
Template:Cite podcast has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've tried again; I've corrected the needed modifications and included testcases below. The test citation template is {{
cite podcast/sandbox2}}
, which invokes the modified
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4
, which calls the modified
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3
. The only change in the configuration module not documented below is that
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4 calls
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3
under function z.citation(frame)
rather than
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox
. (I was loathe to edit existing sandboxes for fear of disrupting other testcases; I don't know what standard practice is with regard to the sandboxes.)
Two parts of Module:Citation/CS1 need to be modified:
Currently:
if is_set(Transcript) then
if is_set(TranscriptURL) then Transcript = externallink( TranscriptURL, Transcript ); end
elseif is_set(TranscriptURL) then
Transcript = externallink( TranscriptURL, nil, TranscriptURLorigin );
end
Proposed modification: (I added some additional line breaks to make the code more readable.)
if is_set(Transcript) then
if is_set(TranscriptURL) then
Transcript = sepc .. " " .. externallink( TranscriptURL, Transcript );
else
Transcript = sepc .. " " .. seterror('transcript_missing_url');
end
elseif is_set(TranscriptURL) then
Transcript = sepc .. " " .. seterror('transcripturl_missing_transcript');
else
Transcript = "";
end
Currently:
local idcommon = safejoin( { ID_list, URL, Archived, AccessDate, Via, SubscriptionRequired, Lay, Quote }, sepc );
Proposed modification:
local idcommon = safejoin( { ID_list, URL, Archived, AccessDate, Via, Lay, Transcript, Quote, SubscriptionRequired }, sepc );
Additionally,
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration will need two new error messages in the citation_config.error_conditions
section. I don't know what determines whether an error message is hidden or not; I would think these should always show, but I could be mistaken. Note that the category called by the errors doesn't currently exist; if it shouldn't be created, please comment out the category name. (I personally see no harm in having a new error category; it is not likely to ever have very many pages in it, but would be useful in tracking this particular error.) Please let me know if I need to create the category.
transcript_missing_url = {
message = '<code>|transcript=</code> requires <code>|transcript-url=</code>',
anchor = 'transcript_missing_url',
category = 'Pages with transcripturl citation errors',
hidden = false },
transcripturl_missing_transcript = { message = '<code>|transcript-url=</code> requires <code>|transcript=</code>',
anchor = 'transcripturl_missing_transcript',
category = 'Pages with transcripturl citation errors',
hidden = false },
To answer the questions above:
local TranscriptAssemble
; it was present in the sandbox I edited; it is no longer part of the proposed modifications.|transcript-url=
and |transcript=
with data in both:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
|transcript-url=
and |transcript=
:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123}}
|transcript-url=
and |transcript=
are present but empty:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url= |transcript=}}
|transcript=
is present, but empty:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript=}}
|transcript-url=
is present, but empty:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=}}
|transcript=
is populated; |transcript-url=
is empty. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url= |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
|transcript=
is present and populated; |transcript-url=
is not present. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
|transcript-url=
is populated; |transcript=
is empty. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript |transcript=}}
|transcript-url=
is present and populated; |transcript=
is not present. This now emits an error message:
{{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript}}
I'm not adept at coding in Lua; I had hoped that someone with more knowledge would springboard off what I had discovered and make any further changes needed to comply with the rest of the template coding. I was trying to help move the process along; I hope this is enough to get the changes made with any additional modifications known to be needed by someone who's adept at this! I'm learning as I go; hopefully, I'll keep getting better at it. (I have experience in other coding languages; Lua/Scribunto is not among them; I've bookmarked the relevant reference manual.) Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 VTalk 11:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
idcommon
is the correct location of the transcript text. It seems reasonable to assume that the podcast could be archived, could require a subscription (which might make the use of |quote=
desirable) would then make this:{{
cite episode}}
places the transcript after |series=
by using {{
citation/core}}
parameter |Other=
(|others=
). Perhaps something similar should be considered for {{
cite podcast}}
. Here I've used |others=[http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript Episode 123 transcript]
to mimic the positioning used by {{cite episode}}
:|registration=
rather than |subscription=
to ensure that it also falls at the end of the citation:
{{
cite episode}}
; I dislike that the archive information appears after the transcript; it's less clear what is archived, the podcast, or the transcript?See
this discussion. Because of that bug, the missing name detection is currently disabled in
Module:Citation/CS1. I think that I have fixed the problem and at the same time improved, in a minor way, the performance of the missing name detector code. In the previous version, whenever |firstn=
was missing |lastn=
the test stopped at the first 'hole'. Now, the test continues until it fails to find |lastn=
and |lastn+1=
.
CITEREF
ids{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)|last2=
, |last4=
, |last6=
{{
citation}}
: Missing |author2=
(
help); Missing |author4=
(
help); Missing |author6=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Missing |editor2=
(
help); Missing |editor4=
(
help); Missing |editor6=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)|first2=
and |first3=
without |last2=
and |last3=
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); |first3=
missing |last3=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: |editor-first2=
missing |editor-last2=
(
help); |editor-first3=
missing |editor-last3=
(
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)What this also does is it creates more complete author/editor lists. Previously, the author/editor list would end at the first 'hole'. Similarly, the CITEREF
id will now use the first four last names in the author/editor list whereas previously it would stop at the 'hole'.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Last1, First1; Last4, First4 (eds.). Title. {{
cite book}} : |editor-first2= missing |editor-last2= (
help); |editor-first3= missing |editor-last3= (
help); Invalid |ref=harv (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Last1, First1; Last4, First4 (eds.). Title. {{
cite book}} : |editor-first2= missing |editor-last2= (
help); |editor-first3= missing |editor-last3= (
help); Invalid |ref=harv (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The horizontal and vertical full parameter sets use "archive-url" and "archive-date", while everything else on the page, including the TemplateData parameters and examples use "archiveurl" and "archivedate". It's fine if the template accepts both variants, but in my opinion, the page should either only use the variants with hyphen-minus or only those without. Opinions? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 19:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
|accessdate=
instead of |access-date=
is that inexperienced editors see a red line under |accessdate=
and "correct" it as a spelling mistake, leading to a citation error (Example edits of this type:
[9]
[10]
[11]). Moving toward hyphenated multi-word parameters as the default choice could help editors avoid this confusion and reduce the number of citation errors that gnomes need to fix. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This section Help:Citation Style 1#et al. currently says: It is used to complete a list of authors of a published work, where the complete list is considered overly long. The term is widely used in English, thus it is not italicized per MOS:FOREIGN. However, MOS:FOREIGN first says: Foreign words should be used sparingly. and then Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English. I suspect that WP:MOS#Foreign words was the intended target, but that says: Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Et al. is not common in everyday English, while is it common in scientific and academic citation. There does seem to be a US/UK split in usage of italics for et al. See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#et al. revisited. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
on 9 March 2011. This change appears to have been made without objection. Since then,
Module:Citation/CS1 continues to render et al. without italics markup.They have an obvious use case when citing a chapter from a book (which has a page range), but also one wants reference a particular page within e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kuroda_normal_form&oldid=621483103 JMP EAX ( talk) 13:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
My workaround insofar for stuff like this was to use {{ rp}} in addition to the citation, but it tends to clutter the page. And I don't really want to use the two-level notes/references system, because it's so unwieldy. JMP EAX ( talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the example in question, I have no clue what is meant by |pages=175–252
and |at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190
.
{{cite book |last1=Mateescu | first1=Alexandru |last2=Salomaa|first2=Arto |editor1-first=Grzegorz| editor1-last=Rozenberg|editor2-first=Arto| editor2-last=Salomaa |title=Handbook of Formal Languages. Volume I: Word, language, grammar |publisher=Springer-Verlag |year=1997 |pages=175–252 |chapter=Chapter 4: Aspects of Classical Language Theory |isbn=3-540-61486-9|at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190}}
-- Gadget850 talk 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|pages=175–252
defines the page range occupied by |chapter=Chapter 4: Aspects of Classical Language Theory
then one or the other of those two parameters is redundant. In this case it would seem that |at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190
concisely identifies the location of the material that supports the claim in the article.|chapter=
parameter is intended treating a chapter in an edited book (which has an overall editor and chapters written by different authors) as a separate publication. But if the entire book is written by one book, and a particular claim is supported by an entire chapter of the book, as well as a few pages from another part of the book, you could use at = Chapter 5, Whatchamacallits | pages = 219–30
but the reader couldn't tell if you are citing Chapter 5 and pages 219–30, or you are indicating that Chapter 5 occupies 219–30. It would better to write at = Chapter 5, Whatchamacallits, also pp. 219–30
. Unless we want to create permanent rules on template developers (fat chance) about how to combine |at=
and |pages=
, the results will be unpredictable and the results may confuse readers, either now, or the next time the template gets changed.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 16:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|chapter=
is intended to hold the chapter heading; not the chapter heading plus some other stuff. Also, adding other stuff to |chapter=
will corrupt the citation's
COinS metadata. How would |chapter-pages=
be used? How would the value assigned to |chapter-pages=
render in a citation?The LCCN syntax guide says "The prefix is optional; if present, it has one to three lowercase alphabetic characters." It looks like our current code does not, but should, display an error message when upper case letters are used in the prefix.
Here's an example of the "same" LCCN that links to the correct book when a lower case prefix is used, but which gives a "LCCN Permalink Error" when an identical LCCN with an upper case prefix is used.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
l54000004. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
l54000004. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
L54000004. {{
cite book}} : Check |lccn= value (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office.
LCCN
L54000004. {{
cite book}} : Check |lccn= value (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
I will adjust the documentation for the error message. Can the module sandbox be changed to give error messages for upper case letters in the prefix?
If I am misreading the syntax guide, let me know. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Considering:
Therefore I propose the following change, with new text underlined on the talk page, but there will be no underline when added to the main page:
Prescriptions about date formats only apply when the date is expressed in terms of Julian or Gregorian dates, or which use one of the seasons spring, summer, autumn or fall, winter. Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring-summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source. Although the seasons are not normally capitalized, they are capitalized when used as dates in CS1 templates, and the capitalization of the season stated by the source may be altered to follow this rule.
Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC), modified to link to WP:SEASON at 20:16 UT.
I'm adding this as a separate topic so I don't muddy the season topic. If an editor uses CS1 citation templates to record a "date in a religious calendar", how would they do so properly so they don't get an error? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
|ignore-date-error=yes
or an equivalent.
TuxLibNit (
talk) 20:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Full parameter set in horizontal format and Full parameter set in vertical format have different parameters ?
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (
talk) 18:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
Help me}}
I was looking at the description of
Template:Cite web (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) and saw large boxes full of white space and all the parameters are described as "You can explore profiles of current Radio staff in the section of this site and learn more about the type of work we do on . Get the latest BBC Radio news from the and .". Is this just me (I got the same result in Chrome and Firefox) or is something wrong?
BiologicalMe (
talk) 15:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The {{ cite news}} documentation says, correctly, that periodicals usually omit the publisher, and not to include it when it is substantially the same as the work name. But the example of "A news article with a credited author", as well as several other examples, is a newspaper where the publisher is very similar to the work name. In my opinion, the cite news examples and the blanks under "Usage" should not include the publisher. -- JFH ( talk) 01:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Often enough I need to add an original publisher (i.e. different from the present/current edition one). There's no actual field for this and the way this is crammed in the origyear field in the examples makes it look very bad because the whole field is rendered before the title, and you don't normally put the publisher before the title. JMP EAX ( talk) 08:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Austen, Jane. (1813) 2013. Pride and Prejudice. London: T. Egerton. Reprint, New York: Penguin Classics. Citations refer to the Penguin edition.
|orig-location=
, |orig-publisher=
, and in-source locators |orig-page=
, |orig-pages=
, and |orig-at=
. This is a complicating path upon which I think we should not venture.CS1 is not really designed, full stop. The existence of |orig-year=
suggests some desire on the part of template users to be able to provide some information about earlier editions. At present, this could be done by following the citation template with additional text explaining the situation. In any case, Trappist the monk's statement "any citation, not just CS1" just isn't so.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 18:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
[my] statement "any citation, not just CS1" just isn't so, perhaps you could explain why you believe that?
|orig-year=
.The current description could use a bit of amplification:
|origyear=First published 1859
or |origyear=Composed 1904
.Reading Chicago and APA, the intent of 'origyear' is to include the date of original publication for a reprint or modern edition of a work. In my collection, I have:
Here, 'type' seems to work quite well. But again, this would only work for a reprint, not a different edition. -- Gadget850 talk 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In the northern hemisphere, the transition from one year to the next occurs during winter. Not so,for the southern hemisphere. This morning I found an instance of a journal that was dated Summer 2003–2004. The current live version of the module doesn't support dates in that form. So, I've modified Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Winter 2003–04. |
Sandbox | Title. Winter 2003–04. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Summer 2003–04. |
Sandbox | Title. Summer 2003–04. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Winter 2003–2004. |
Sandbox | Title. Winter 2003–2004. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. Summer 2003–2004. |
Sandbox | Title. Summer 2003–2004. |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#Placement of ref-related tags, on placement of reference-related inline templates (e.g. {{
verify credibility}} and {{
clarifyref2}}) inside or outside the <ref>...</ref>
element. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully this is an easy one. I would like to cite a Playboy article in which the title is in all caps.
[13] Should I use |title=PLAYBOY INTERVIEW: MARK LANE
OR |title=Playboy Interview: Mark Lane
? Thanks! -
Location (
talk) 04:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a guideline which recommends using the authorlink parameter to refer to the same article that the cite book tag appears in? In this edit summary, Damiens.rf contends, "this parameter IS to be used even in the case of the subject's being the author. It would give an error otherwise." I don't see why this would be the case, as such a usage does not fall within the normal recommendations on self links. Nick Number ( talk) 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
|authorlink=
can be a minor benefit when editors copy CS1 templates from one article to another. I see no other benefit or harm.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)|authormask=
parameter, the citation templates can show a pair of em-dashes instead, see
John Marshall (railway historian)#Selected publications by John Marshall. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 18:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)|authormask=
can only be used in bibliographies or shortened footnotes where the order of the list can be controlled. --
Gadget850
talk 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)So, should we use authorlinks for the article subject or avoid it? -- damiens.rf 03:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Question: What about citations that are stored on templates, rather than articles (e.g. {{
cite doi/φ}}
, {{
cite isbn/ψ}}
), and that might be transcluded ({{
cite doi|φ}}
) in multiple articles? Is there a way, at {{
cite doi/φ}}
, of having |authorlink1=
only/not appear if Condition A & Condition B, or whatever?
It Is Me Here
t /
c 10:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)|author1link=Nikolaus Stümpel
and |author2link=Ulrich Joger
, and that it was transcluded on
Nikolaus Stümpel,
Ulrich Joger, and
Viper. Would it be possible for the authorlink to appear in the template's citation IFF the template were not being transcluded in the article that the authorlink pointed to? So,
Nikolaus Stümpel would just show "Stümpel, N." (no links, no bolding), but "
Joger, U."; etc. (I know it's not a perfect example, since the authors' articles don't exist, but imagine they did.)
It Is Me Here
t /
c 12:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)|language=
support. I think that we can pass the current page name to listpeople()
where author links are processed and either allow or disallow linking.{{cite book/new | last1 = Harris | first1 = Angela P. |authorlink=Angela P. Harris | last2 = Bartlett | first2 = Katharine | title = Gender and law: theory, doctrine, commentary | publisher = Aspen Law & Business | location = New York | year = 1998 | isbn = 9781567067408 }}
|editorlink=
|authorlink=
links to a redirect (either with this fix or without it). If anyone knows of an author or editor who has redirect pages we can test that. If I set author name and page name to lower case before doing the compare that will account for differences in capitalization.|authorlink=Elwyn Brooks White
caused both the live and sandbox versions of the module to render a non-bold link to
Elwyn Brooks White. This is not surprising and as long as they both act the same way I'm content.|authorlink=
, but also for |authorlinkn=
and |editorlinkn=
.
It Is Me Here
t /
c 11:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)