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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Module:Citation/CS1 currently places pages in the maintenance Category:CS1 maint: Extra text when a citation parameter contains text that duplicates static text provided by the template itself. The categorization, however, includes talk pages, Wikipedia space pages, process page archives, and related pages on which we would not usually make "corrections" or perform this kind of maintenance. Can/should we adjust the module so that it only finds errors in Main space? I'm assuming this has come up for other maintenance categories but I'm not sure.— TAnthony Talk 22:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Also the hidden categories say there's some [[Category:CS1 maint: Extra text|Extra text]] in some of the references.
{{Talk:Avonmouth railway station/GA1}}
|template-doc-demo=
parameter on discussion pages will preserve the error message (which is sometimes being discussed, so should not be removed or "fixed") while removing the error category from the page. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not really sure what to call this exactly, but we should have some category to flag citations in need of general cleanup.
One such error is having a comma at the end of a parameter, e.g.
|last=Smith,
, |title=Do you eat stuff? ,
|volume=24,
Only |postscript=
should end with a comma. Other similar errors could be found, like |last=
containing non-hyphen punctuation of some type.
This would populate a general Category:CS1 error: verify parameter syntax, although we certainly could have one category per error flagged, e.g. Category:CS1 error: parameter ending with a comma.
This should also give a link to Citation bot so that people can trigger the fix. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
|last=
. I can immediately think of Irish names ("O'Reilly" and so on), and foreign-language names may use what appears to be punctuation as a substitute for diacritics. Quite likely to be other traps as well, names are notoriously tricky to allow for. --
NSH001 (
talk) 17:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Jts - you're correct aabout the aliasing, see the template documentation, so I can understand your confusion. But basically I'm just making the point to Headbomb about the need to be careful with names, in this case, that comma and full stop will correctly occur in |author=
(so we still have to worry about them) instead of incorrectly in |last=
. --
NSH001 (
talk) 21:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|last=
and a couple other parameters) is valid, but if you keep trying to expand the scope, you'll get objections from
WP:CITEVAR types, the whole discussion will spin out of control, "no consensus" will be the result, and you won't get any of what you want. Let's start by limiting the scope to |last=
(and all |last#=
and their aliases) and maybe |volume=
as a test, and limiting the terminal character testing to something like ,?!:;
only. If that works, doesn't create a ton of false positives (always remember, names are hard), and there are enough editors willing to fix the errors that are found, we can discuss expanding the scope of the testing, parameter by parameter, with a different list of tests for each parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)|last=É. Kiss
; I'm sure there are plenty of other instances where there would be punctuation in those fields that would be "fixed" because someone who programmed the bot assumes names to all behave in a certain way.
Umimmak (
talk) 23:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|last=É. Kiss
is fine and valid. It would not be caught by the minimal proposal immediately above, since it does not have invalid terminal punctuation. Commas and periods in |last=
(or its alias, |author=
) are valid in many cases, so it would be a fool's errand to flag them as errors. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Hi, do not know what has happened yesterday but there are a significant number of articles being added to
Category:CS1 errors: dates overnight, I would guess about 200. They all appear to be from a change to the way something outputs the |accessdate=
as 2018-12-04Tnn:nn:nnZ, ie including a time element. You can see this on
this edit.
Keith D (
talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
2018-12-04T17:52:14Z
, which is about two days before the edit was actually saved and one day before the fix was implemented. I suspect that the editor had that paragraph saved in a sandbox or something like that, and pasted it in after it had been sitting around for a couple of days. If you see any date stamps that are after the date stamp of the
Fixed note above, let us know here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Valencian is a language closely related to Catalan and has official status in Spain. But, MediaWiki does not recognize it as a language. There is an IETF language tag, ca-valencia
supported by IANA that describes Valencian as a variant of Catalan.
I have tweaked language_parameter()
in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to accept |language=Valencian
and |language=ca-valencia
. This tweak uses code already in place to override certain MediaWiki supported names / codes that aren't appropriate for use with cs1|2. There are relatively few instances of |language=Valencian
but this change will allow for other similar language codes / names that are, or may be, buried in
Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Valencian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Valencian). |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Valencian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Valencian). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
And another; ISO 639-2 and -3 names for code crh
are Crimean Tatar and Crimean Turkish. crh.wikipedia.org is the
Crimean Tatar Wikipedia. But, MediaWiki thinks that the language code crh
is:
{{#language:crh|en}}
→ Crimean TatarBecause of this I have tweaked the module sandbox to accept Crimean Tatar and render that name when the code is used:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
Sandbox | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
Sandbox | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And more: code cnr
is a relatively new ISO 639-3 code for Montenegrin.
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration accommodated that code/name pair until they were added to MediaWiki. MediaWiki now supports cnr
/ Montenegrin so I have removed the code/name pair from ~/Configuration/sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Montenegrin). |
Sandbox | Title (in Montenegrin). |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Montenegrin). |
Sandbox | Title (in Montenegrin). |
I have created a
documentation page for |lang=
that lists all of the 2- and 3-character codes / language names supported by MediaWiki along with the
IETF language tag-like codes / names. These latter are not supported by |language=
. Creation of this list allowed me to discover a bug in language_parameter()
that caused some cs1|2 templates to be improperly categorized in
Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language. The improper categorization occurs when a language name has more than one assigned code. For example, MediaWiki assigns
Aromanian to the codes rup
and roa-rup
. The former is the correct ISO 639-3 code while the latter is a made-up code from ISO 639-2 / -5 roa
(Romance languages) and ISO 639-3 rup
(Aromanian). This formulation is an invalid IETF tag because rup
is not registered as a language extension (extlang in
IANA language subtag registry). When multiple codes exist for a language in the MediaWiki list, Module:Citation/CS1 may encounter the IETF-like code first, recognize that it isn't a proper code and so place the article in Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language. That has been remedied:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Trã Armânami" (in Aromanian). |
Sandbox | "Trã Armânami" (in Aromanian). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Editor
Ans has added {{
cite web}}
-specific text to the |publication-place=
documentation to wit:
One might expect to see in an editor's contributions an immediate justification of such an edit by use of the parameter in that way but, I don't see one there.
So, Editor Ans, why is this change made? Is it necessary? Does it really serve the purpose that you intend?
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |website=Website |location=Location}}
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |website=Website |publication-place=Publication-place}}
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |website=Website |location=Location |publication-place=Publication-place}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
|location=
and |place=
are synonyms, but it is not explained why still another related parameter, |publication-place=
is needed, or the circumstances where both |publication-place=
and |location=
would be used for the same publication. Example that uses both, but not in a sensible way:
{{cite web| title= Spring Phenomena: 25 BCE to 38 CE | URL = https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/SpringPhenom.php | date = 10 August 2017 | last1 = Astronomical Applications Dept. | publisher = U.S. Naval Observatory | location = the closet under the stairs | publication-place = Washington, DC}}
|publication-place=
seems to be
this edit by
Gadget850 on 6 May 2013. Looking at the edit history of Module:Citation/CS1, there does not seem to be any edit summary around that time that seems relevant. Looking at the archives of this talk page, there does not seem to be any relevant discussion around that time. Unless Gadget850 can explain what it's for, the meaning of that parameter may be lost forever. Maybe we should document it as a mystery parameter.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 15:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, so it's only meant for news stories with a so-called dateline (which really isn't a date). The result is quite grotesque if there isn't an author:
*{{cite news | newspaper = Free Press | publication-place = Granville NY | location = Castleton VT | title = Tree Lighting Wednesday | publication-date = December 7, 2018}}
Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since some local wiki use non-Gregorian calendar, so we need to call function from local module (if exists) to convert date to Gregorian calendar as demonstrated in sandbox Ans ( talk) 09:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
pcall()
each time through the for k, v in pairs()...
loop?This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why not auto generate date_names.local like this? Ans ( talk) 11:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Izno (
talk) 12:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)'1'..long
?Since this appears to to be the default talk page for the {{
cite episode}} template, I am placing my questions here. I am having trouble figuring out exactly how to use this template in order to cite a television program (which is its intended purpose, yes?). The documentation includes instructions such as date: Date of source being referenced
. Does this mean "broadcasting date"? "Air date"? "Date episode was viewed?" "Date episode was written/ published?" Then, what does it mean by "source"? Source of my information? Source of the episode? Source of the date? "Source" is not a parameter! Also: publisher: Name of publisher
followed by The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited
. The example then given is the New York Times, which is not a television program. I have no idea how to complete this parameter, or if I should even try. Next, minutes: Time the event occurs in the source; followed by "minutes in".
I am not even sure what that means. I think it means, "the time signature, given in hours:minutes:seconds (e.g., "2:32:14" for two hours, 32 minutes, 14 seconds) from the beginning of the episode in question where the referenced information is stated", or something similar. Then, page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content.
— how many "episodes" have pages?? Next: season: Season number, usually for US shows.
Should this be provided as "Second" and "First"? "1" and "2"? "Second season"? Will the template automatically add the word "...season" to whatever I DO enter? 2nd? 1st? What if I do not know what my season number is? Will my citation be removed as incomplete? And then there are some more obviously confusing parameters: "title" and "series". The TemplateDate says that I use the title of the program here, and since "title" parameter is usually required (as in {{
cite books}}, will not having this produce an error? is this parameter really optional?? (nowhere does the documentation tell me where to indicate the name of the referenced program... unless "program" means "series"?). Next: there is "url", which is supposed to link to a text version of the episode (which would be its... transcript? Script?)... Where do I place a url to the episode where it can be viewed and verified? Then we have "Transcript", which is a parameter for "Transcript of the original source"... This means I should provide my own verbatim transcript of the entire episode?? There is also a separate "Transcript-url" for the url, so what is supposed to go in "transcript"? And "series-link"— should this include double brackets or not? What about "author-link"? "episode-link"?
As you can see, there seems to be LOTS of opportunity for confusion and inconsistency when using this template. Could we get someone to revise the documentation to clarify these kinds of things and include more examples drawn from actual instances of the template in use in actual articles to actual television or radio episodes for comparison? It would also be great if the TemplateData appeared much earlier in the documentation: it is so much easier to understand than all those dozens of descriptions of parameters that seem to have only very limited application for most editors ("mode", "author-mask", "editors", "quote", "zbl", "eissn", "volume", "page", "publication-place", and a bunch more). Thanks! A loose noose ( talk) 21:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
is a Roman NumeralI've just been fixing up a couple of citations of a journal which likes to number its volumes as Roman Numerals.
This is fine when the result is 4 characters or less, but anything longer than that triggers the condition that removes the bolding from |volume=
: this took me aback as I was unaware and I spent some considerable time double-checking that I had entered everything correctly.
(FWIW the citations were from volumes 96 and 97 i.e. XCVI and XCVII.)
Would it be possible to craft some code which recognises when Roman Numerals are being used and preserve the bolding?
TIA HAND —
Phil |
Talk 15:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
value if it looks like a number written with roman numerals (only letters from the set [MDCLXVI]). Probably should include a similar rule when the |volume=
parameter is written using only the digits in the set [0-9].|volume=
was bizarre. I checked a few style guides:
AIP says volumes should be bold;
APA puts volume numbers for journals in italics and
for encyclopedias in parentheses with "Vol." (
another APA link);
Chicago apparently says to use "Vol." followed by the volume number. This is a brief bit of research, but I did not find any that said "bold unless the volume number is longer than n characters or is not just numbers".|volume=
. I suspect that the current situation is a compromise, since some citations presumably have something like |volume=1940–1946: The World War II Years
, and bolding that whole thing is seen as undesirable by some strawman or other. Perhaps we could request a database analysis from some masochistic SQL junkie that would give us a list of the contents of all volume parameters, or a histogram of all volume parameters by length, or something that might help us make a data-driven decision here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
since some citations presumably have something like |volume=1940–1946: The World War II Years
Surely that would be better in |title=
with what that citation had used as the "title" better placed as the |series=
?
Umimmak (
talk) 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
values that start with "The", and the insource search warns me that the results are incomplete. A database dump would be needed to tell us for sure what sort of madness is out there. If it turns out that all of the really long values should actually be put in |series=
or |title=
, then bolding will probably make that happen more quickly, so that is all the more reason to applying bolding to |volume=
in all circumstances. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)As I've advocated, we should match the rendering of |volume=
and |number=
/|issue=
in {{
cite journal}} to the rendering in {{
cite magazine}}. :^) We really should have a knock out RFC on the topic of what to do with the formatting. --
Izno (
talk) 15:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
More-or-less splitting the difference here:
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. MDCLXVI (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. MDCLXVI (2). |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. 12345 (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. 12345 (2). |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. A (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. A (2). |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. Civil (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. Civil (2). |
|volume=
that is wholly digits or wholly uppercase roman numerals is bolded. The last case, is a citation that has |volume=
value longer than 4 characters but not wholly uppercase roman numerals (though it is mixed case roman numerals) so not bolded. Additionally, the last example will be added to a (yet-to-be-created) property category
Category:CS1: long volume value that may provide data for Editor Jonesey95's musings. Recall that property categories do not emit messages and are subject to the same restrictions as all other categories.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's revamp the functionality. In {{ cite arxiv}}, when you have an incomplete citation (missing mandatory parameters), you have (the rather outdated)
{{cite arxiv |title=Article of Foobar |eprint=1507.00123}}
whereas in {{ cite journal}}, you have something like
{{cite journal |title= |arxiv=1507.00123}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Let's streamline the functionality to look like
This would look something like
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) —
Attempt to fix with Citation botThis should be rather straightforward to code, when something mandatory is missing, append —&nbps;[https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&slow=1 Attempt to fix with Citation bot]
. This will also streamline {{
cite arxiv}} rather than make it the exception.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration, it seems the way to go would be something like a botfixable = true
in (for example)
accessdate_missing_url = { message = '<code class="cs1-code">|access-date=</code> requires <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code>', anchor = 'accessdate_missing_url', category = 'Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL', botfixable = true hidden = true },
which would append —&nbps;[https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&slow=1 Attempt to fix with Citation bot]
after (
help)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there any benefit to using both archive-date and access-date when there is an archived url? I have been told in the past to remove the "access-date" field when adding a link to an archived version, which makes logical sense to me, but another editor recently restored all the access-date text. It seems like unnecessary cluttering of the references, but I would like to know if this has been decided already? Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what to do when there is a facsimile reprint-edition and the original edition of the book *and* both are being cited in a single "Cite book" reference? For instance, I have come across a situation where I am trying to correct a referencing situation where another editor cited a 1974 reprint of a book originally published in 1902, but the pages vary on each version...I want to cite both editions in the same cite if I can... Thanks. Shearonink ( talk) 04:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
ref
tag just ends up creating problems for other editors down the line. But on the other hand, it's not really a big issue for a single article to cite two different editions of the same work. It's a bit annoying for readers who have to track down both editions instead of one, but there's nothing really to say you can't choose to do that.Personally, I would probably re-cite all instances to the original, as that is in the public domain and is easily accessible online (e.g. at
Internet Archive). Something like this:
In the description of the template "Cite book" for the parameter "pages" it is written: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source". But how to correctly specify the total number of pages? I want to use this template in the "Sources" indicating the total number of pages, and then in the text to use refs on it with "sfn" template.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
}}
.I've added a few |url-access=subscription parameters to {{ cite news}} references in the George Shaw Wheeler article, and the icon indicating subscription access is not appearing in the reference. The parameters seem to work for {{ cite web}} in the same article. Has the url-access parameter been disabled for this template? Was it inadvertently broken? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
.cs1-lock-subscription a {
background: url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png) no-repeat !important;
background-position: right .1em center !important;
}
div#mw_content ahref*=".PDF?".external
with 1 ID, 2 (pseudo) classes/attributes, and 2 (pseudo) elements. We maybe should see about changing
mediawiki:common.css which has the offending rule. Removing the div#content from the rule would reduce the specificity to 2 classes and 1 element. The specificity on the other is .mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-subscription a
which is 2 classes and 1 element, so that would override the common.css declaration (as it is loaded later). --
Izno (
talk) 15:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC).citation
. I haven't worked on that problem yet to verify if that's the exact solution. --
Izno (
talk) 20:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)It would be nice if I could use the {{date}} template within the date type of fields (access-date, archive-date, ...). Currently, setting date = {{date|2019-02-03|YMD}} results in an error.
Is this possible?
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
date}}
work:
{{cite book |title=Title |date = {{date|2019-02-03|DMY}}}}
|date={{
date}}
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
date}}
because that template is processed before the cs1|2 template; the module only sees the result of the {{date}}
transclusion (a date string).@ Jtmoon: according to Template talk:Date#Shouldn't use 27 April 2024 in articles. Easy cleanup using safesubst: and Template:Date/doc#Description the Date template should only be used internally in templates, not directly in articles. If you have been using it in articles please go back and change the articles to avoid the use of the Date template. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the timely replies @
Trappist the monk:, @
Jonesey95:, @
Headbomb:, @
GreenC:, @
Izno:, @
Jc3s5h:.
When I wrote, " ... results in an error ", this was user error as
Trappist the monk replied (。-_-。).
Jc3s5h, to clarify, I'm using date={{date|2018-01-04}} (a specific date), like
here.
--
JamesThomasMoon1979
11:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to remove |format=PDF
when the URL is evidently ending in .pdf -- the template is able to detect it and add the PDF icon, |format=PDF
is redundant. Or is it used for other purposes also? --
Green
C 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=pdf
is an explicit labelling of content type. Thus, inferring file type by a heuristic inspection of the opaque URL and relying on the explicit labelling in |format=
are not equivalent and replacing explicit labelling with the non-standards-compliant heuristic method would be both incorrect and a worse solution. --
Xover (
talk) 09:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
, then there's no reason for anyone to manually append |format=PDF
in those cases.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
is always added by an editor. --
Xover (
talk) 15:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
, yes that's added by editors (and possibly bot/scripts), that's why I'd want citation bot to remove |format=PDF
when they are automatically added, because it's just pointless clutter to have.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
, and if anything (like Citation Bot) erroneously adds it automatically then the correct course of action is to prevent whatever that automated tool is from doing that in the future. It's possible that VE or Reftoolbar or something tries to be helpful by adding it based on some heuristic, but then it is also always saved by a human editor afterwards. In other words, the set you are describing is nil. --
Xover (
talk) 16:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
is widespread.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
for citations which contain the string ".pdf" in the URL. However, based on your posts in this thread it appears that you are seeking justification for pursuing a course of action that you have already decided you want to pursue; because you're mostly just making assertions and not asking questions. Calling something which you do not understand "redundant" "pointless clutter" does not seem particularly apt to give the impression of someone who is seeking better understanding. --
Xover (
talk) 16:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)|format=PDF
in a citation template reflects an editor's explicit intent to indicate that the resource referenced by the associated URL is a PDF file. That is, it reflects human judgement. Their intent may well be misguided, of course, and their judgement flawed, but there is no reasonable way to determine that absent manual inspection (i.e. another human's judgement). In other words, the two methods to determine file type are not equivalent in function, implementation, or semantics (or, put anoter way, they're only "redundant" with eachother if you squint just right): and the one that is amenable to automated processing is both the worse (inaccurate, error prone) and not standards compliant. --
Xover (
talk) 17:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC){{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com/some_doc.pdf}}
|url=
using rules similar to those used by MediaWiki:Common.css.|format=PDF
is redundant when the file type extension of the value assigned to |url=
indicates a PDF document. Other wikis copy citations from en.wiki and these other wikis may not have current version of the cs1|2 modules (may still be using some version of {{
citation/core}}
). Those wikis, benefit from the existence of our 'redundant' |format=PDF
and we are not harmed by its presence.Not sure if I should be asking here or at MOS but I've noticed recently that a lot of citations are now including |language=en.
Is this some change in guidance/policy or it is perhaps the result of people using a particular gadget that adds the thing? I can understand the need to specify the language if it is not in English but this is the English language Wikipedia and it seems to me just to be more clutter in the edit window to announce what should be the expectation anyway. - Sitush ( talk) 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
|language=
is 'their' language, it is not rendered there. The exception is (for all wikis) when the local language is one of several languages listed in |language=
.|language=en
at other-language-wikis tell readers of those wikis that this particular source is written in English so that is as useful to them as citations here with |language=fr
.I intend to update the live modules over the weekend of 19–20 January 2019
changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|isbn=
; <bdi>...</bdi>
around ISBN to prevent reversal at right-to-left wikis; see
discussion;changes to Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
<q>
styling for consistency; see
discussion— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like Template:Cite book to include a vertical version of commonly used parameters. -- 77.173.90.33 ( talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The documentation says this for |author=
: Title of existing Wikipedia article about the author; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors
- what exactly should be added here? The directer? Teleplays writers? Story writers? Showrunners? Seems this (and |first=
and |last=
) should either be removed for this template or have a different name. --
Gonnym (
talk) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
|author-link=
.|author-first=
(or one of the other aliases) that says: Given or first name, middle names, or initials of the author; don't wikilink, use 'authorlink'; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
can suffix with a numeral to add additional authorsso is your question about that?
|last=Lincoln
and |first=Abraham
, set |author-link=Abraham Lincoln
so that the rendered citation gives:
{{cite book |last=Lincoln |first=Abraham |author-link=Abraham Lincoln |title=Title}}
{{
cite episode}}
-specific |authorn=
aliases:
|director=
– once supported for {{
cite DVD notes}}
; removed long since|writer=
|screenwriter=
|teleplay-writer=
|showrunner=
|executive-producer=
|authorn=
along with its attendant aliases and related parameters from {{
cite episode}}
because episodes don't have authors? I dispute that last notion; someone or some set of someones must author an episode because fully-formed episodes don't simply appear as if by magic.So asking again, should this parameter be available in {{ Cite episode}} and if so, what value is the correct one and if it is kept, wouldn't a more correct parameter name be advisable as episodes don't have authors?The situation now where "author"(or "first"/"last") should be used but not explained in any way what person should be added to it, does not add any value to articles. I personally wouldn't mind seeing it removed, as an author does not exist for an episode, that is, the audio-visual finished product. Unlike a book were it is mostly written by one person with an editor, the episode has many moving parts. An episode script does have an author, but not all scripts have the visual style written in them, which comes from the director (or even Director of Photography). So if you wanted to cite an episode for a reference to something visual or even a sound design, that isn't the writer. That said, if we do continue on keeping it, the parameter should be changed so a consistent use and visual style will show up when used. For example, when I saw it used today, the editor who added the template, added the roles in parenthesis "Marc Guggenheim & Keto Shimizu (writers) & Glenn Winter (director)", which I'll take a wild guess and assume is not how everyone who used it does. Also, to make things a bit more complicated, in the US there is a difference between "Writer A and Writer B" and "Writer A & Writer B" ( WGA screenwriting credit system). -- Gonnym ( talk) 20:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
author does not exist for an episodein some sort of a strict noun-form definition. I rather see author as a more generic term that can and should be applied as a parameter that names one who has created something that is being cited;
|authorn=
exists for all cs1|2 templates, it is not likely to go away.{{
cite episode}}
inadequate is a common condemnation of all cs1|2 template documentation. If you can see how the documentation can be made better, please do so. I don't use the template so I am not qualified, and no, I did not write the template, I just implemented it in
Module:Citation/CS1.|people=
write citations that do not include the names of those people in the citation metadata because |people=
is an alias of |authors=
which, because of its free-form nature and the diversity of human naming constructs, is not included in citation metadata. cs1|2 is not bound by writer's guild rules just as it is not bound by Chicago, APA, or whatever other style guides are out there.{{cite episode}}
and with them develop a set of |authorn=
aliases and the rules for their use and rendering. Give us links to those discussions.The templates currently complain when given |accessdate=
but no |url=
. Shouldn't they do the same when given |registration=
but no |url=
? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
|registration=
and |subscription=
Common usage section (should include |archive-url=| and |archive-date=| even though if usage isn't as common as it should be and a lot of pages are NOT saved and protected from Link rot as a result, the way it automatically pulls usage data from all the language wikis and shows the most common is very technically impressive but not the most reasonable thing to do when setting guidelines for usage as it simply encourages people to carry on with the way things are instead of encouraging to do them better (since the way to do a cite is presented as a line for people to copypaste into the wiki, it sets bad habits from the start and doesn't encourage people to make a copy at all).
(separate issue but I don't want to make a new section to encourage skipping over this more important one, is that
Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters has no guideline on what to do when the title of a PDF document is on multiple lines, if there's any symbol we should use to indicate a line break since Wikipedia does not support titles with line breaks in between - using a comma isn't always appropriate as in the case of
Public Health Assessment Final Release Vapor Intrusion and Off-Site Irrigation Well CONTINENTAL CLEANERS MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA EPA FACILITY ID: FLD982130098
becomes Public Health, Assessment, Final Release, Vapor Intrusion and Off-Site Irrigation Well, CONTINENTAL CLEANERS, MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, EPA FACILITY ID: FLD982130098 (the first case making showing the line break not as important, the second red comma making it clear that using comma to indicate a line break would create serious problems for titles that use commas in their actual title already like the example) -- Archive everything do it now ( talk) 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
|dead-url=
from no to yes if a preemptive archive was added, thus switching the linked title from the original link over to the archive when a link has gone dead and an editor has already supplied an archive link.To oversimplify, we generally use quotation marks for the title of shorter published works (a journal or newspaper or magazine article, a chapter in a book, a song, a poem) and italic for title of longer works (a journal, newspaper, magazine, book, recording album, or anthology of poems). However, {{Template:Cite conference}}
(1) uses italic for the title of a paper, which is comparable to a journal article; and (2) uses roman for the collection of papers presented at the conference, which is comparable to a journal or book. Why this inconsistency? Chicago style uses quotation marks for the title of the paper and italic for the published proceedings of the conference.—
Finell 03:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
{{cite conference |last=Smith |first=J. |year=2006 |title=Title of paper |book-title=Proceedings of Foo |volume=40 |pages=24-49 |publisher=Foo Society }}
gives{{cite conference |title=Paper Title |conference=Conference Title }}
: Paper Title. Conference Title.. |book-title=
is not the obvious title for the proceedings, at least in
Template:Cite conference#Usage, and the Examples just below indicate the incorrect use, if indeed |book-title=
is meant to be used to hold the name of the proceedings.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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Module:Citation/CS1 currently places pages in the maintenance Category:CS1 maint: Extra text when a citation parameter contains text that duplicates static text provided by the template itself. The categorization, however, includes talk pages, Wikipedia space pages, process page archives, and related pages on which we would not usually make "corrections" or perform this kind of maintenance. Can/should we adjust the module so that it only finds errors in Main space? I'm assuming this has come up for other maintenance categories but I'm not sure.— TAnthony Talk 22:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Also the hidden categories say there's some [[Category:CS1 maint: Extra text|Extra text]] in some of the references.
{{Talk:Avonmouth railway station/GA1}}
|template-doc-demo=
parameter on discussion pages will preserve the error message (which is sometimes being discussed, so should not be removed or "fixed") while removing the error category from the page. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not really sure what to call this exactly, but we should have some category to flag citations in need of general cleanup.
One such error is having a comma at the end of a parameter, e.g.
|last=Smith,
, |title=Do you eat stuff? ,
|volume=24,
Only |postscript=
should end with a comma. Other similar errors could be found, like |last=
containing non-hyphen punctuation of some type.
This would populate a general Category:CS1 error: verify parameter syntax, although we certainly could have one category per error flagged, e.g. Category:CS1 error: parameter ending with a comma.
This should also give a link to Citation bot so that people can trigger the fix. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
|last=
. I can immediately think of Irish names ("O'Reilly" and so on), and foreign-language names may use what appears to be punctuation as a substitute for diacritics. Quite likely to be other traps as well, names are notoriously tricky to allow for. --
NSH001 (
talk) 17:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Jts - you're correct aabout the aliasing, see the template documentation, so I can understand your confusion. But basically I'm just making the point to Headbomb about the need to be careful with names, in this case, that comma and full stop will correctly occur in |author=
(so we still have to worry about them) instead of incorrectly in |last=
. --
NSH001 (
talk) 21:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|last=
and a couple other parameters) is valid, but if you keep trying to expand the scope, you'll get objections from
WP:CITEVAR types, the whole discussion will spin out of control, "no consensus" will be the result, and you won't get any of what you want. Let's start by limiting the scope to |last=
(and all |last#=
and their aliases) and maybe |volume=
as a test, and limiting the terminal character testing to something like ,?!:;
only. If that works, doesn't create a ton of false positives (always remember, names are hard), and there are enough editors willing to fix the errors that are found, we can discuss expanding the scope of the testing, parameter by parameter, with a different list of tests for each parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)|last=É. Kiss
; I'm sure there are plenty of other instances where there would be punctuation in those fields that would be "fixed" because someone who programmed the bot assumes names to all behave in a certain way.
Umimmak (
talk) 23:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
|last=É. Kiss
is fine and valid. It would not be caught by the minimal proposal immediately above, since it does not have invalid terminal punctuation. Commas and periods in |last=
(or its alias, |author=
) are valid in many cases, so it would be a fool's errand to flag them as errors. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Hi, do not know what has happened yesterday but there are a significant number of articles being added to
Category:CS1 errors: dates overnight, I would guess about 200. They all appear to be from a change to the way something outputs the |accessdate=
as 2018-12-04Tnn:nn:nnZ, ie including a time element. You can see this on
this edit.
Keith D (
talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
2018-12-04T17:52:14Z
, which is about two days before the edit was actually saved and one day before the fix was implemented. I suspect that the editor had that paragraph saved in a sandbox or something like that, and pasted it in after it had been sitting around for a couple of days. If you see any date stamps that are after the date stamp of the
Fixed note above, let us know here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Valencian is a language closely related to Catalan and has official status in Spain. But, MediaWiki does not recognize it as a language. There is an IETF language tag, ca-valencia
supported by IANA that describes Valencian as a variant of Catalan.
I have tweaked language_parameter()
in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to accept |language=Valencian
and |language=ca-valencia
. This tweak uses code already in place to override certain MediaWiki supported names / codes that aren't appropriate for use with cs1|2. There are relatively few instances of |language=Valencian
but this change will allow for other similar language codes / names that are, or may be, buried in
Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Valencian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Valencian). |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Valencian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Valencian). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
And another; ISO 639-2 and -3 names for code crh
are Crimean Tatar and Crimean Turkish. crh.wikipedia.org is the
Crimean Tatar Wikipedia. But, MediaWiki thinks that the language code crh
is:
{{#language:crh|en}}
→ Crimean TatarBecause of this I have tweaked the module sandbox to accept Crimean Tatar and render that name when the code is used:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
Sandbox | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
Sandbox | Title (in Crimean Tatar). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And more: code cnr
is a relatively new ISO 639-3 code for Montenegrin.
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration accommodated that code/name pair until they were added to MediaWiki. MediaWiki now supports cnr
/ Montenegrin so I have removed the code/name pair from ~/Configuration/sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Montenegrin). |
Sandbox | Title (in Montenegrin). |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Montenegrin). |
Sandbox | Title (in Montenegrin). |
I have created a
documentation page for |lang=
that lists all of the 2- and 3-character codes / language names supported by MediaWiki along with the
IETF language tag-like codes / names. These latter are not supported by |language=
. Creation of this list allowed me to discover a bug in language_parameter()
that caused some cs1|2 templates to be improperly categorized in
Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language. The improper categorization occurs when a language name has more than one assigned code. For example, MediaWiki assigns
Aromanian to the codes rup
and roa-rup
. The former is the correct ISO 639-3 code while the latter is a made-up code from ISO 639-2 / -5 roa
(Romance languages) and ISO 639-3 rup
(Aromanian). This formulation is an invalid IETF tag because rup
is not registered as a language extension (extlang in
IANA language subtag registry). When multiple codes exist for a language in the MediaWiki list, Module:Citation/CS1 may encounter the IETF-like code first, recognize that it isn't a proper code and so place the article in Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language. That has been remedied:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Trã Armânami" (in Aromanian). |
Sandbox | "Trã Armânami" (in Aromanian). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Editor
Ans has added {{
cite web}}
-specific text to the |publication-place=
documentation to wit:
One might expect to see in an editor's contributions an immediate justification of such an edit by use of the parameter in that way but, I don't see one there.
So, Editor Ans, why is this change made? Is it necessary? Does it really serve the purpose that you intend?
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |website=Website |location=Location}}
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |website=Website |publication-place=Publication-place}}
{{cite web |url=//example.com |title=Title |website=Website |location=Location |publication-place=Publication-place}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
|location=
and |place=
are synonyms, but it is not explained why still another related parameter, |publication-place=
is needed, or the circumstances where both |publication-place=
and |location=
would be used for the same publication. Example that uses both, but not in a sensible way:
{{cite web| title= Spring Phenomena: 25 BCE to 38 CE | URL = https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/SpringPhenom.php | date = 10 August 2017 | last1 = Astronomical Applications Dept. | publisher = U.S. Naval Observatory | location = the closet under the stairs | publication-place = Washington, DC}}
|publication-place=
seems to be
this edit by
Gadget850 on 6 May 2013. Looking at the edit history of Module:Citation/CS1, there does not seem to be any edit summary around that time that seems relevant. Looking at the archives of this talk page, there does not seem to be any relevant discussion around that time. Unless Gadget850 can explain what it's for, the meaning of that parameter may be lost forever. Maybe we should document it as a mystery parameter.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 15:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, so it's only meant for news stories with a so-called dateline (which really isn't a date). The result is quite grotesque if there isn't an author:
*{{cite news | newspaper = Free Press | publication-place = Granville NY | location = Castleton VT | title = Tree Lighting Wednesday | publication-date = December 7, 2018}}
Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since some local wiki use non-Gregorian calendar, so we need to call function from local module (if exists) to convert date to Gregorian calendar as demonstrated in sandbox Ans ( talk) 09:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
pcall()
each time through the for k, v in pairs()...
loop?This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why not auto generate date_names.local like this? Ans ( talk) 11:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Izno (
talk) 12:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)'1'..long
?Since this appears to to be the default talk page for the {{
cite episode}} template, I am placing my questions here. I am having trouble figuring out exactly how to use this template in order to cite a television program (which is its intended purpose, yes?). The documentation includes instructions such as date: Date of source being referenced
. Does this mean "broadcasting date"? "Air date"? "Date episode was viewed?" "Date episode was written/ published?" Then, what does it mean by "source"? Source of my information? Source of the episode? Source of the date? "Source" is not a parameter! Also: publisher: Name of publisher
followed by The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited
. The example then given is the New York Times, which is not a television program. I have no idea how to complete this parameter, or if I should even try. Next, minutes: Time the event occurs in the source; followed by "minutes in".
I am not even sure what that means. I think it means, "the time signature, given in hours:minutes:seconds (e.g., "2:32:14" for two hours, 32 minutes, 14 seconds) from the beginning of the episode in question where the referenced information is stated", or something similar. Then, page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content.
— how many "episodes" have pages?? Next: season: Season number, usually for US shows.
Should this be provided as "Second" and "First"? "1" and "2"? "Second season"? Will the template automatically add the word "...season" to whatever I DO enter? 2nd? 1st? What if I do not know what my season number is? Will my citation be removed as incomplete? And then there are some more obviously confusing parameters: "title" and "series". The TemplateDate says that I use the title of the program here, and since "title" parameter is usually required (as in {{
cite books}}, will not having this produce an error? is this parameter really optional?? (nowhere does the documentation tell me where to indicate the name of the referenced program... unless "program" means "series"?). Next: there is "url", which is supposed to link to a text version of the episode (which would be its... transcript? Script?)... Where do I place a url to the episode where it can be viewed and verified? Then we have "Transcript", which is a parameter for "Transcript of the original source"... This means I should provide my own verbatim transcript of the entire episode?? There is also a separate "Transcript-url" for the url, so what is supposed to go in "transcript"? And "series-link"— should this include double brackets or not? What about "author-link"? "episode-link"?
As you can see, there seems to be LOTS of opportunity for confusion and inconsistency when using this template. Could we get someone to revise the documentation to clarify these kinds of things and include more examples drawn from actual instances of the template in use in actual articles to actual television or radio episodes for comparison? It would also be great if the TemplateData appeared much earlier in the documentation: it is so much easier to understand than all those dozens of descriptions of parameters that seem to have only very limited application for most editors ("mode", "author-mask", "editors", "quote", "zbl", "eissn", "volume", "page", "publication-place", and a bunch more). Thanks! A loose noose ( talk) 21:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
is a Roman NumeralI've just been fixing up a couple of citations of a journal which likes to number its volumes as Roman Numerals.
This is fine when the result is 4 characters or less, but anything longer than that triggers the condition that removes the bolding from |volume=
: this took me aback as I was unaware and I spent some considerable time double-checking that I had entered everything correctly.
(FWIW the citations were from volumes 96 and 97 i.e. XCVI and XCVII.)
Would it be possible to craft some code which recognises when Roman Numerals are being used and preserve the bolding?
TIA HAND —
Phil |
Talk 15:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
value if it looks like a number written with roman numerals (only letters from the set [MDCLXVI]). Probably should include a similar rule when the |volume=
parameter is written using only the digits in the set [0-9].|volume=
was bizarre. I checked a few style guides:
AIP says volumes should be bold;
APA puts volume numbers for journals in italics and
for encyclopedias in parentheses with "Vol." (
another APA link);
Chicago apparently says to use "Vol." followed by the volume number. This is a brief bit of research, but I did not find any that said "bold unless the volume number is longer than n characters or is not just numbers".|volume=
. I suspect that the current situation is a compromise, since some citations presumably have something like |volume=1940–1946: The World War II Years
, and bolding that whole thing is seen as undesirable by some strawman or other. Perhaps we could request a database analysis from some masochistic SQL junkie that would give us a list of the contents of all volume parameters, or a histogram of all volume parameters by length, or something that might help us make a data-driven decision here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
since some citations presumably have something like |volume=1940–1946: The World War II Years
Surely that would be better in |title=
with what that citation had used as the "title" better placed as the |series=
?
Umimmak (
talk) 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
|volume=
values that start with "The", and the insource search warns me that the results are incomplete. A database dump would be needed to tell us for sure what sort of madness is out there. If it turns out that all of the really long values should actually be put in |series=
or |title=
, then bolding will probably make that happen more quickly, so that is all the more reason to applying bolding to |volume=
in all circumstances. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 03:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)As I've advocated, we should match the rendering of |volume=
and |number=
/|issue=
in {{
cite journal}} to the rendering in {{
cite magazine}}. :^) We really should have a knock out RFC on the topic of what to do with the formatting. --
Izno (
talk) 15:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
More-or-less splitting the difference here:
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. MDCLXVI (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. MDCLXVI (2). |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. 12345 (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. 12345 (2). |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. A (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. A (2). |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal. Civil (2). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal. Civil (2). |
|volume=
that is wholly digits or wholly uppercase roman numerals is bolded. The last case, is a citation that has |volume=
value longer than 4 characters but not wholly uppercase roman numerals (though it is mixed case roman numerals) so not bolded. Additionally, the last example will be added to a (yet-to-be-created) property category
Category:CS1: long volume value that may provide data for Editor Jonesey95's musings. Recall that property categories do not emit messages and are subject to the same restrictions as all other categories.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's revamp the functionality. In {{ cite arxiv}}, when you have an incomplete citation (missing mandatory parameters), you have (the rather outdated)
{{cite arxiv |title=Article of Foobar |eprint=1507.00123}}
whereas in {{ cite journal}}, you have something like
{{cite journal |title= |arxiv=1507.00123}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Let's streamline the functionality to look like
This would look something like
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) —
Attempt to fix with Citation botThis should be rather straightforward to code, when something mandatory is missing, append —&nbps;[https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&slow=1 Attempt to fix with Citation bot]
. This will also streamline {{
cite arxiv}} rather than make it the exception.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration, it seems the way to go would be something like a botfixable = true
in (for example)
accessdate_missing_url = { message = '<code class="cs1-code">|access-date=</code> requires <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code>', anchor = 'accessdate_missing_url', category = 'Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL', botfixable = true hidden = true },
which would append —&nbps;[https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/process_page.php?edit=toolbar&page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&slow=1 Attempt to fix with Citation bot]
after (
help)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there any benefit to using both archive-date and access-date when there is an archived url? I have been told in the past to remove the "access-date" field when adding a link to an archived version, which makes logical sense to me, but another editor recently restored all the access-date text. It seems like unnecessary cluttering of the references, but I would like to know if this has been decided already? Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what to do when there is a facsimile reprint-edition and the original edition of the book *and* both are being cited in a single "Cite book" reference? For instance, I have come across a situation where I am trying to correct a referencing situation where another editor cited a 1974 reprint of a book originally published in 1902, but the pages vary on each version...I want to cite both editions in the same cite if I can... Thanks. Shearonink ( talk) 04:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
ref
tag just ends up creating problems for other editors down the line. But on the other hand, it's not really a big issue for a single article to cite two different editions of the same work. It's a bit annoying for readers who have to track down both editions instead of one, but there's nothing really to say you can't choose to do that.Personally, I would probably re-cite all instances to the original, as that is in the public domain and is easily accessible online (e.g. at
Internet Archive). Something like this:
In the description of the template "Cite book" for the parameter "pages" it is written: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source". But how to correctly specify the total number of pages? I want to use this template in the "Sources" indicating the total number of pages, and then in the text to use refs on it with "sfn" template.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 08:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
}}
.I've added a few |url-access=subscription parameters to {{ cite news}} references in the George Shaw Wheeler article, and the icon indicating subscription access is not appearing in the reference. The parameters seem to work for {{ cite web}} in the same article. Has the url-access parameter been disabled for this template? Was it inadvertently broken? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
.cs1-lock-subscription a {
background: url(//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png) no-repeat !important;
background-position: right .1em center !important;
}
div#mw_content ahref*=".PDF?".external
with 1 ID, 2 (pseudo) classes/attributes, and 2 (pseudo) elements. We maybe should see about changing
mediawiki:common.css which has the offending rule. Removing the div#content from the rule would reduce the specificity to 2 classes and 1 element. The specificity on the other is .mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-subscription a
which is 2 classes and 1 element, so that would override the common.css declaration (as it is loaded later). --
Izno (
talk) 15:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC).citation
. I haven't worked on that problem yet to verify if that's the exact solution. --
Izno (
talk) 20:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)It would be nice if I could use the {{date}} template within the date type of fields (access-date, archive-date, ...). Currently, setting date = {{date|2019-02-03|YMD}} results in an error.
Is this possible?
JamesThomasMoon1979
08:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
date}}
work:
{{cite book |title=Title |date = {{date|2019-02-03|DMY}}}}
|date={{
date}}
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
date}}
because that template is processed before the cs1|2 template; the module only sees the result of the {{date}}
transclusion (a date string).@ Jtmoon: according to Template talk:Date#Shouldn't use 27 April 2024 in articles. Easy cleanup using safesubst: and Template:Date/doc#Description the Date template should only be used internally in templates, not directly in articles. If you have been using it in articles please go back and change the articles to avoid the use of the Date template. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the timely replies @
Trappist the monk:, @
Jonesey95:, @
Headbomb:, @
GreenC:, @
Izno:, @
Jc3s5h:.
When I wrote, " ... results in an error ", this was user error as
Trappist the monk replied (。-_-。).
Jc3s5h, to clarify, I'm using date={{date|2018-01-04}} (a specific date), like
here.
--
JamesThomasMoon1979
11:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to remove |format=PDF
when the URL is evidently ending in .pdf -- the template is able to detect it and add the PDF icon, |format=PDF
is redundant. Or is it used for other purposes also? --
Green
C 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=pdf
is an explicit labelling of content type. Thus, inferring file type by a heuristic inspection of the opaque URL and relying on the explicit labelling in |format=
are not equivalent and replacing explicit labelling with the non-standards-compliant heuristic method would be both incorrect and a worse solution. --
Xover (
talk) 09:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
, then there's no reason for anyone to manually append |format=PDF
in those cases.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
is always added by an editor. --
Xover (
talk) 15:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
, yes that's added by editors (and possibly bot/scripts), that's why I'd want citation bot to remove |format=PDF
when they are automatically added, because it's just pointless clutter to have.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
, and if anything (like Citation Bot) erroneously adds it automatically then the correct course of action is to prevent whatever that automated tool is from doing that in the future. It's possible that VE or Reftoolbar or something tries to be helpful by adding it based on some heuristic, but then it is also always saved by a human editor afterwards. In other words, the set you are describing is nil. --
Xover (
talk) 16:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
is widespread.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
|format=PDF
for citations which contain the string ".pdf" in the URL. However, based on your posts in this thread it appears that you are seeking justification for pursuing a course of action that you have already decided you want to pursue; because you're mostly just making assertions and not asking questions. Calling something which you do not understand "redundant" "pointless clutter" does not seem particularly apt to give the impression of someone who is seeking better understanding. --
Xover (
talk) 16:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)|format=PDF
in a citation template reflects an editor's explicit intent to indicate that the resource referenced by the associated URL is a PDF file. That is, it reflects human judgement. Their intent may well be misguided, of course, and their judgement flawed, but there is no reasonable way to determine that absent manual inspection (i.e. another human's judgement). In other words, the two methods to determine file type are not equivalent in function, implementation, or semantics (or, put anoter way, they're only "redundant" with eachother if you squint just right): and the one that is amenable to automated processing is both the worse (inaccurate, error prone) and not standards compliant. --
Xover (
talk) 17:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC){{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com/some_doc.pdf}}
|url=
using rules similar to those used by MediaWiki:Common.css.|format=PDF
is redundant when the file type extension of the value assigned to |url=
indicates a PDF document. Other wikis copy citations from en.wiki and these other wikis may not have current version of the cs1|2 modules (may still be using some version of {{
citation/core}}
). Those wikis, benefit from the existence of our 'redundant' |format=PDF
and we are not harmed by its presence.Not sure if I should be asking here or at MOS but I've noticed recently that a lot of citations are now including |language=en.
Is this some change in guidance/policy or it is perhaps the result of people using a particular gadget that adds the thing? I can understand the need to specify the language if it is not in English but this is the English language Wikipedia and it seems to me just to be more clutter in the edit window to announce what should be the expectation anyway. - Sitush ( talk) 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
|language=
is 'their' language, it is not rendered there. The exception is (for all wikis) when the local language is one of several languages listed in |language=
.|language=en
at other-language-wikis tell readers of those wikis that this particular source is written in English so that is as useful to them as citations here with |language=fr
.I intend to update the live modules over the weekend of 19–20 January 2019
changes to Module:Citation/CS1:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|isbn=
; <bdi>...</bdi>
around ISBN to prevent reversal at right-to-left wikis; see
discussion;changes to Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
<q>
styling for consistency; see
discussion— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I would like Template:Cite book to include a vertical version of commonly used parameters. -- 77.173.90.33 ( talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The documentation says this for |author=
: Title of existing Wikipedia article about the author; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors
- what exactly should be added here? The directer? Teleplays writers? Story writers? Showrunners? Seems this (and |first=
and |last=
) should either be removed for this template or have a different name. --
Gonnym (
talk) 08:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
|author-link=
.|author-first=
(or one of the other aliases) that says: Given or first name, middle names, or initials of the author; don't wikilink, use 'authorlink'; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
can suffix with a numeral to add additional authorsso is your question about that?
|last=Lincoln
and |first=Abraham
, set |author-link=Abraham Lincoln
so that the rendered citation gives:
{{cite book |last=Lincoln |first=Abraham |author-link=Abraham Lincoln |title=Title}}
{{
cite episode}}
-specific |authorn=
aliases:
|director=
– once supported for {{
cite DVD notes}}
; removed long since|writer=
|screenwriter=
|teleplay-writer=
|showrunner=
|executive-producer=
|authorn=
along with its attendant aliases and related parameters from {{
cite episode}}
because episodes don't have authors? I dispute that last notion; someone or some set of someones must author an episode because fully-formed episodes don't simply appear as if by magic.So asking again, should this parameter be available in {{ Cite episode}} and if so, what value is the correct one and if it is kept, wouldn't a more correct parameter name be advisable as episodes don't have authors?The situation now where "author"(or "first"/"last") should be used but not explained in any way what person should be added to it, does not add any value to articles. I personally wouldn't mind seeing it removed, as an author does not exist for an episode, that is, the audio-visual finished product. Unlike a book were it is mostly written by one person with an editor, the episode has many moving parts. An episode script does have an author, but not all scripts have the visual style written in them, which comes from the director (or even Director of Photography). So if you wanted to cite an episode for a reference to something visual or even a sound design, that isn't the writer. That said, if we do continue on keeping it, the parameter should be changed so a consistent use and visual style will show up when used. For example, when I saw it used today, the editor who added the template, added the roles in parenthesis "Marc Guggenheim & Keto Shimizu (writers) & Glenn Winter (director)", which I'll take a wild guess and assume is not how everyone who used it does. Also, to make things a bit more complicated, in the US there is a difference between "Writer A and Writer B" and "Writer A & Writer B" ( WGA screenwriting credit system). -- Gonnym ( talk) 20:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
author does not exist for an episodein some sort of a strict noun-form definition. I rather see author as a more generic term that can and should be applied as a parameter that names one who has created something that is being cited;
|authorn=
exists for all cs1|2 templates, it is not likely to go away.{{
cite episode}}
inadequate is a common condemnation of all cs1|2 template documentation. If you can see how the documentation can be made better, please do so. I don't use the template so I am not qualified, and no, I did not write the template, I just implemented it in
Module:Citation/CS1.|people=
write citations that do not include the names of those people in the citation metadata because |people=
is an alias of |authors=
which, because of its free-form nature and the diversity of human naming constructs, is not included in citation metadata. cs1|2 is not bound by writer's guild rules just as it is not bound by Chicago, APA, or whatever other style guides are out there.{{cite episode}}
and with them develop a set of |authorn=
aliases and the rules for their use and rendering. Give us links to those discussions.The templates currently complain when given |accessdate=
but no |url=
. Shouldn't they do the same when given |registration=
but no |url=
? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
|registration=
and |subscription=
Common usage section (should include |archive-url=| and |archive-date=| even though if usage isn't as common as it should be and a lot of pages are NOT saved and protected from Link rot as a result, the way it automatically pulls usage data from all the language wikis and shows the most common is very technically impressive but not the most reasonable thing to do when setting guidelines for usage as it simply encourages people to carry on with the way things are instead of encouraging to do them better (since the way to do a cite is presented as a line for people to copypaste into the wiki, it sets bad habits from the start and doesn't encourage people to make a copy at all).
(separate issue but I don't want to make a new section to encourage skipping over this more important one, is that
Help:Citation_Style_1#Titles_and_chapters has no guideline on what to do when the title of a PDF document is on multiple lines, if there's any symbol we should use to indicate a line break since Wikipedia does not support titles with line breaks in between - using a comma isn't always appropriate as in the case of
Public Health Assessment Final Release Vapor Intrusion and Off-Site Irrigation Well CONTINENTAL CLEANERS MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA EPA FACILITY ID: FLD982130098
becomes Public Health, Assessment, Final Release, Vapor Intrusion and Off-Site Irrigation Well, CONTINENTAL CLEANERS, MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, EPA FACILITY ID: FLD982130098 (the first case making showing the line break not as important, the second red comma making it clear that using comma to indicate a line break would create serious problems for titles that use commas in their actual title already like the example) -- Archive everything do it now ( talk) 18:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
|dead-url=
from no to yes if a preemptive archive was added, thus switching the linked title from the original link over to the archive when a link has gone dead and an editor has already supplied an archive link.To oversimplify, we generally use quotation marks for the title of shorter published works (a journal or newspaper or magazine article, a chapter in a book, a song, a poem) and italic for title of longer works (a journal, newspaper, magazine, book, recording album, or anthology of poems). However, {{Template:Cite conference}}
(1) uses italic for the title of a paper, which is comparable to a journal article; and (2) uses roman for the collection of papers presented at the conference, which is comparable to a journal or book. Why this inconsistency? Chicago style uses quotation marks for the title of the paper and italic for the published proceedings of the conference.—
Finell 03:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
{{cite conference |last=Smith |first=J. |year=2006 |title=Title of paper |book-title=Proceedings of Foo |volume=40 |pages=24-49 |publisher=Foo Society }}
gives{{cite conference |title=Paper Title |conference=Conference Title }}
: Paper Title. Conference Title.. |book-title=
is not the obvious title for the proceedings, at least in
Template:Cite conference#Usage, and the Examples just below indicate the incorrect use, if indeed |book-title=
is meant to be used to hold the name of the proceedings.