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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Following the close above at #Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment, any thoughts about implementing this? I'm not feeling creative or analytical right now. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |trans-periodical=
requires |periodical=
or |script-periodical=
(
help). Is that intentional? --
Izno (
talk) 13:57, 27 August 2019 (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.
Currently if |url=
is not specified, then the title of an article generated by a
CS1 template is linked to the |pmc=
link. Should we continue to include this link or should we remove it?
Boghog (
talk) 05:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The link is very useful because not everybody knows how to navigate the publication IDsDelicious baloney (I actually detest baloney). My expectation, and what I think the more reasonable one is, is that if the user has URLs in the citation, he'll follow each of them (either in turn or separately) until he can access a free source. (And if there is no free source, then he will rarely access any of them as requiring extraordinary effort for anyone but the most-serious researcher.)
PMC link is the best possible because it's official, open access and technically high qualityNone of which we care about for the purposes of a rendered citation. (Well, perhaps open-access, but that's not sufficient to duplicate a link from one place to another.)
what the green link meansThe average reader has a browser which can display the title of the link, which is set to 'free access', when the green is present. He'll figure it out eventually. -- Izno ( talk) 13:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
|arXiv=
or |doi=
with |doi-access=free
. In this way, the discrepancy between PMC and the other identifiers is resolved. As a reader, clicking on the title is more natural than having to click on an id. −
Pintoch (
talk) 09:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)|doi-access=free
/|bibcode-access=free
etc.). This is a huge accessibility boost to readers.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)|url=
parameter? –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 13:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The padlock doesn't display on mobile devicesDo you have evidence to back that up? Here is a contrived
{{
cite journal}}
template:
{{cite journal |title=Title |url=//example.com |url-access=subscription |pmc=12345}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|url=
is explicitly provided is to meet our general audience where they are. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 22:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)|pmc=
link. The pmc link is now followed by a "green/open padlock icon" which makes it clear that the source is free to read. Redundantly linking titles to pmc links creates a counter productive
sea of blue in reference sections.
Boghog (
talk) 05:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)|pmc=
than, say, |jstor=
; confusing.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)not everybody knows how to navigate the publication IDs" a bit ludicrous. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
but this requires the editor to insert this link which is not always done. To make matters worse, citoid often inserts |url=
completely oblivious to whether it is free or not. An open/green padlock always follows the specific PMC link, so it should be obvious to the average reader that the PMC link is free.
Boghog (
talk) 03:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
). If you don't like the word "best", just mentally substitute "most beneficial for the reader". The reasoning remains unchanged and unchallenged. There is never any good reason not to present the reader with a link from the title, unless the source simply doesn't exist online. --
RexxS (
talk) 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)|url=
, but that again is redundant and leads to
WP:SEAOFBLUE, when |doi-access=free
will do.It is inconsistent that PMC is being singled out as the only source that automatically links the title in the absence of |url=
. But if we expanded this feature, determining the priority of sources would be a nightmare. The editor who inserts the template should be able to decide which part of the citation is linked where.
Nardog (
talk) 10:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
parameter. The people commenting that "pubmed is obviously the best link" presumably work in a field covered by pubmed; for many other fields, pubmed coverage is sporadic, random, and unhelpful. In astronomy, maybe ads/abs (bibcode) is the best link; maybe in mathematics it is mathscinet (mr). I don't think we should be in the business of picking and choosing when there are multiple ids like this to link to. I would not be strongly opposed to doi links, because they are almost always authoritative, but even for those I prefer the current system of linking them only through the id. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)The proposal is poorly stated. When |url=
is non-empty it is used to link the title. The proposal appears to be: don't use |pmc=
for that purpose when |url=
is empty. I don't see that any "link" (or link parameter?) is being removed. It's more like a link using pmc is not created in the first place. But this is not quite certain. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
|pmc=
but not |url=
:
{{cite journal |last=Bannen |first=RM |display-authors=etal |date=2008 |title=Optimal design of thermally stable proteins |journal=Bioinformatics |volume=24 |issue=20 |pages=2339–2343 |doi=10.1093/bioinformatics/btn450 |pmc=2562006}}
|pmc=
is created if |url=
is empty. The removal proposal is not to link the title to |pmc=
.
Boghog (
talk) 22:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)I think the concern about duplicate is misplaced. In the case where a URL is supplied and to the official journal article, then the DOI link takes one to the same place. So in fact the title link is nearly always duplicating another link. Both the DOI and PMC ID are, textually, part of a full citation text, so we wouldn't eliminate them. I think the convention of having the title link to freely available editions of the article is a fine one to retain. -- Colin° Talk 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
|auto-url=none
and that would be a pretty simple option to bypass things in the minority cases it doesn't make sense to have the automatic url.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
|url=none
.
Nardog (
talk) 06:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
pmc
gets used for the title link in the absence of |url=
by default. If ever, I would like to have this feature enabled only on demand (not by default), and to also have a feature to select the identifier used for this purpose from the list of available ones. This could be easily done if the |url=
parameter would support the number of supported identifiers as selectors: |url=pmc
, |url=doi
, etc. The advantage of having to explicitly activate this feature would also help arguments brought forward above that this should not be forced onto our users by default and that defaulting to pmc
would be arbitrary.|access-date=
, |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters when an |url=
parameter gets deleted because it has been found to be redundant with one of the more specific identifier links like |doi=
. Some editors just remove these parameters, which in my opinion is a very bad idea and not very far-sighted, because even "permanent links" like a doi are not garanteed to be working forever, and by removing archived links and access dates we loose parts of our quality assurance ("the link was checked to be functional and supporting the statement on date xyz") and backup system against link-rot. With something like f.e. |url=doi
, |access-date=
, |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
could stay and would refer to the doi as well.I propose having an |in-title=
form of the title parameter that prefixes an unitalicized "In" before the title. This is currently done for the titles of books (or "works") containing chapters ("contributions") when an editor is specified, but not when an editor is not specified. I have instances of multiple chapters in books where it is preferable to not list the book's editors in each chapter's citation, yet I would like to indicate that the chapter is "in" a larger work. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
{{cite book |contributor-first=A. |contributor-last=Contributor |contribution=Introduction |title=Book |first=A. |last=BookAuthor}}
{{cite book |contributor-first=A. |contributor-last=Contributor |contribution=Chapter |title=Book |first=A. |last=BookAuthor}}
{{cite book |first=A. |last=ChapterAuthor |chapter=Chapter |title=Book}}
{{cite book |first=F. |last=ChapterAuthor |chapter=Chapter |title=Book |editor-first=A.N. |editor-last=Editor}}
{{
cite book}}
: |contributor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |contributor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help) Leaving aside |contributor=
for the present, would
this change do what you want? Examples:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | ChapterAuthor, A. "Chapter". Book. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | ChapterAuthor, A. "Chapter". Book. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | ChapterAuthor, F. "Chapter". In Editor, A.N. (ed.). Book. {{
cite book}} : |editor-last= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | ChapterAuthor, F. "Chapter". In Editor, A.N. (ed.). Book. {{
cite book}} : |editor-last= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Kanguole 14:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that I oppose this change. 'In' ('in' in {{
citation}}
) appears to have a use in that it names the editors who compiled the book and whose names appear on the front cover (it is their book so they are listed in the bibliographic information for the book). Authors of the individual chapters may not be or are not so named. 'In' without editors, to me, seems to be extraneous because |authorn=
(and aliases) identify the author(s) of the entire book so saying explicitly that "Chapter title" is 'In' Book title written by Author(s) is overkill or clutter. The "Chapter title". Book title form of cs1|2 rendering has been in use for a long, long time and, so far as I know, has not caused our readers untoward confusion. That being the case, this proposal seems like a fix for something that isn't broken.
The proposed use case, instances of multiple chapters in books where it is preferable to not list the book's editors in each chapter's citation
, would result in incomplete citations with, consequently, incomplete metadata. Why are multiple less-than-a-full citation templates preferable to full citations? Can this not be handled by a mixture of {{
sfn}}
templates pointing to {{
harvc}}
templates that point to a single full citation template?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.-M. Bréon, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson-Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D. Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and S.-P. Xie, 2013: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Why are multiple less-than-a-full citation templates preferable to full citations?"?
be handled by a mixture of {{ sfn}} templates pointing to {{ harvc}} templates that point to a single full citation template". And what needs fixing is the current inability to get "in" without an editor. But possibly Kangoule has a fix in hand. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@
Kanguole: See reference #20 at
Schlumbergera#References. Is this the effect you want?
More generally, catering for every exceptional case in the citation templates is a mistake, in my view. Some unusual and complex citations are best handled manually.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 15:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
|author=
, |orig-year=
, |date=
(to allow YEARa, YEARb, YEARc for sfns when multiple contributors in the same book have the same author(s)), conceivably |doi=
, |translator=
, but doing |title=''"[chapter title]"''
, while a bit "hacky", produces the desired effect perfectly, so thanks for showing me that method,
Peter coxhead.
Umimmak (
talk) 02:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Citation |last=Hunt |first=David |title=''"Appendix III Excerpts from a Brazilian diary"''}}, in {{Harvnb|McMillan|Horobin|1995|pp=82–88}}
{{
citation}}
portion of that is this:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000003C-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFHunt" class="citation cs2">Hunt, David, ''<span></span>''"Appendix III Excerpts from a Brazilian diary"''<span></span>''</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=%22Appendix+III+Excerpts+from+a+Brazilian+diary%22&rft.aulast=Hunt&rft.aufirst=David&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+59" class="Z3988"></span>
{{
harvnb}}
templates for the appendix authors that link to appropriate {{
harvc}}
templates that in turn link to the single citation template:
{{harvnb}}
templates (in the text)
{{harvnb |Hunt |1995a}}
→
Hunt 1995a{{harvnb |Hunt |1995b}}
→
Hunt 1995b{{harvnb |McMillan |Horobin |Hunt |1995}}
→
McMillan, Horobin & Hunt 1995{{harvc}}
templates:
{{harvc/sandbox |in=McMillan |in2=Horobin |last=Hunt |first=David |c=Appendix I Names and synonyms of the species, subspecies and interspecific hybrids |year=1995 |anchor-year=1995a |mode=cs2 |nb=yes}}
{{harvc/sandbox |in=McMillan |in2=Horobin |last=Hunt |first=David |c=Appendix III Excerpts from a Brazilian diary |year=1995 |anchor-year=1995b |mode=cs2 |nb=yes}}
{{harvc/sandbox |in=McMillan |in2=Horobin |last1=McMillan |first1=A.J.S. |last2=Horobin |first2=J.F. |last3=Hunt |first3=David |c=Appendix IV Checklists of historic varieties and modern cultivars |year=1995 |mode=cs2 |nb=yes}}
{{citation}}
template:
{{Citation |last=McMillan |first=A. J. S. |last2=Horobin |first2=J. F. |year=1995 |title=Christmas Cacti: The Genus ''Schlumbergera'' and Its Hybrids |edition=p/b |publication-place=Sherbourne, Dorset, UK |publisher=David Hunt |isbn=978-0-9517234-6-3}}
|date=
has never been supported by {{harvc}}
because CITEREFs produced by the {{harv}}
family and {{
sfn}}
only use the year portion of a date; similarly, |author=
, |orig-year=
, and |translator=
are not supported just as they are not supported by {{harv}}
and {{sfn}}
(there is a three-year-old request for |translator=
though I do not recall having seen that request before); there may be some sense in supporting |doi=
in {{harvc}}
because dois are often assigned to book chapters; though, to date, no one has requested such support.|author=
would have been used in the CS1 family, the whole name should go in |last=
?
Umimmak (
talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
|anchor-year=
in {{
harvc}}
would solve that. If that parameter has a disambiguated year (year portion must match |year=
) then {{harvc}}
would use that in its CITEREF anchor and render the value parenthetically after the author names; |year=
would continue to be used in the CITEREF link to the cs1|2 template. Doing this would mean that {{
sfnref}}
templates in my examples above would not be required.{{
harvc}}
examples to {{
harvc/sandbox}}
which uses
Module:Harvc/sandbox. The sandboxen now support |anchor-year=
and |nb=
. In the renderings, when |anchor-year=
is used, and is the same 'year' as |year=
, and has a required disambiguator, the value of |anchor-year=
is used in the CITEREF identifier and is rendered after the author name-list. When |nb=yes
, link to the cs1|2 template is rendered the same as a {{
harvnb}}
rendering.|author=
(etc.). Universal bibilographic practice is to sort and search by surname (family name, "last" in Western usage); links to citations are (e.g.) in the form of "Smith and Jones, 2001", not "Smith, Larry, and Jones, William, 2001". ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
|author=
is more apt than |last=
, |first=
.
Template:Harvc only has the latter which doesn’t work for, say, collective authors credited under an organizational name or whatever, and it’s also less than ideal for names with non-Western word orders as an incorrect comma gets added.
Umimmak (
talk) 00:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)harvc ... seems to be morphing into a full citation. Hardly.
{{
harvc}}
has not been touched since December 2015. There is some sense to adding |authorn=
support so that corporate authors are placed into semantically meaningful parameters; this is simply the addition of alias support (it would be the same as cs1|2 in which |lastn=
and |authorn=
are aliases). It is unlikely that {{harvc}}
will ever be a full citation because the bibliographic detail required by a full citation is not required and not supported by {{harvc}}
and would be redundant to bibliographic detail in the associated cs1|2 template. {{harvc}}
supports |firstn=
because the visual rendering should show all of the chapter / section / article author's name. The comma separator inserted in non-western names has been an unsolved problem in cs1|2 forever and it's no different in {{harvc}}
. Find a solution for this with either of cs1|2 or {{harvc}}
and you've solved the problem in both.{{harvc}}
would be some sort of mechanism to control parentheses in the rendering to allow {{harvc}}
to match parentheses rendered by the article's chosen short-form templates.@ Kanguole: I think what you demonstrated would be a satisfactory resolution. Is there any chance it might be implmented soon? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
In collections like conference notes and similar works, it is common for authors to list their affiliations, like "Brookhaven National Laboratory". Would it be possible to get an author-affiliation tag for this purpose? It would not be for the work as a whole, which would be covered by publisher (or, I suppose, editor-affiliation?). Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I found translations for this Psycho-Pass Movie Pamphlet from 2015. How should the reference be handled? The website has some data about the pamphlet but I'm not sure what to make of it. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 17:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to overturn the mass change made to Module:Citation/CS1. --- Coffeeand crumbs 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been away for a few months, so I am not up to date on the detailed discussions about |dead-url=
and what it should be replaced with. It looks like documentation updates are needed on some or all of the doc pages for the individual cite templates listed
at Help:Citation Style 1.
Can someone who understands the changes better than I please take on the (onerous, I know) task of replacing |dead-url=
with its updated equivalent every time it appears on {{
cite news/doc}} and the doc pages for the other CS1 templates? It may help reduce the controversy around the latest updates. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
for {{
cite web}}. The change to |dead-url=
in articles is just housekeeping and can be fixed by a bot, so I think that the documentation will need to be updated at some point. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)I'm suddenly getting a lot of warnings "Cite web requires |website=". Under no circumstances will I supply this, so I need to switch off the warning. Anyone know where it comes from and how to shut it off? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I am just going to ask it here: Is it possible that we do something like this but only for instances of a missing |website=
parameter for {{
cite web}}?
It's just a question. I do not intend to promote this as a solution to the current predicament or engaging in that drama. I'm just curious if it can be done on a technical level. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to get rid of the script error if we write "Smith, John, et al." manually? I know we can add all the names and "display-author". But sometimes I can only remember the first author and don't have time to look up the others. I want to be able to add "et al." manually without causing the red message to appear. SarahSV (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
is how it's done.
{{cite book |title=Title |author=Smith, John |display-authors=etal}}
I'm suddenly getting a lot of warnings "Cite web requires |website=". Under no circumstances will I supply this, so I need to switch off the warning. Anyone know where it comes from and how to shut it off? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Previously, both lowercase "cs" and uppercase "CS" were allowed in values of |mode=
. Now the uppercase isn't recognized, generating many unnecessary errors. Please fix this.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 02:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm now seeing errors about lacking urls when filling in the format field. I thought that was the right one to use for electronic versions like .azw or .epub. If those should be used in the type field instead, the documentation needs to clearly state that as neither are currently mentioned at all.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
is for URLs, as described in the documentation. The documentation under format says For media format, use type.The documentation for type says
type: Provides additional information about the media type of the source.If you have suggestions for how the documentation could be improved, this page is a good place to make those suggestions. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
parameter. There has been previous discussion about changing the name to e.g. |url-format=
or |url-file-format=
to make that clear, but no-one has moved on that. --
Izno (
talk) 19:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
pdf
which displays as (
pdf) after the source. This alerts the reader that s/he has to have Adobe document format functionality on their device, perhaps as a browser add-in. Another common use would be in situations where the source may be formatted in one of the picture formats.
24.105.132.254 (
talk) 20:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
refers to the digital file format. It is irrelevant when a digital means to verify the citation is not given. The media type that is referenced by |type=
is the medium the source was accessed in: print, video, digital etc. Hope this is clearer.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 23:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Suppose I want to cite the top level of a website. For purposes of this discussion, the thing I want to cite only exists in the form of a website, and the true nature of it is a website. It isn't a book, journal, newspaper, or anything but a website. For example, I want to make the claim "USAGov is the Official Guide to Government Information and Services" and I wish to cite https://www.usa.gov/. I'm citing the top level of the website, and the website is a large work, so I should cite it like this:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
https://www.usa.gov/. {{
cite web}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Sandbox | USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
https://www.usa.gov/. {{
cite web}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Since I have an extra level of error messages being shown (I forget how I set it) and there has been recent play with error display, I will state that when I look at the rendered citations, I see Missing or empty |title=
If I were citing a much smaller website, I would want to be able to use the same citation, but somehow indicate that the website title should be surrounded by double quotes rather than be in italics. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
USA.gov
. The publisher would be USAGov, but since it's substantially the same as USA.gov, it should be omitted. For the page title, you can use |title=USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
.
[1] by
Trappist the monk started adding month (when specified) to categories for pages with DOIs inactive: table.insert( z.error_categories, 'Pages with DOIs inactive as of ' .. inactive_year .. ' ' .. inactive_month); -- use inactive month in category name
. For example, the page
Template:Cite journal displays a {{
cite journal}} example with doi-broken-date=2019-01-01
. The module edit has moved the page from
Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 to
Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 January.
Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Pages with DOIs inactive shows none of the monthly categories currently exist.
Template:Cite journal#Examples claims another category name is added: If the doi link is broken, then use of doi-broken-date unlinks the doi value, indicates when the doi-problem was first noticed, and will also add the page to "Category:Pages with DOIs broken since YYYY".
Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Pages with DOIs broken shows no such categories. I don't care how this is solved as long as articles stop showing red maintenance categories. One solution is to create the monthly categories with the current red names.
Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 August currently has 1175 members.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 15:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{broken doi explanation}}[[Category:Pages with inactive DOIs|year]][[Category:CS1 maintenance|D]]
, I believe.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 15:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)I know it's already been pointed out elsewhere and the folks maintaining these templates are dealing with a lot right now, but {{ cite tweet}} is still generating a "cite web requires website" error (not visible, but categorized). That's clearly not how that's supposed to work, but I don't know how to fix it. I was just working on David Akin where there is a tweet citation, if you want to see for yourself. Just one more requested bugfix for your attention, I'm sure it'll be repaired eventually. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
parameter. And seemingly rightly so, as the output of cite tweet doesn't render anything in italics, and that seems to be the correct format based on sources like
this and
this and
this. Should cite tweet use a different underlying template maybe?
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 20:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For Module:Citation/CS1:
In
Special:Diff/914376409,
Trappist the monk updated the module and, in doing so, also wrapped the output in the `cs1-sandbox` class by adding , wrapper=".cs1-sandbox"
to line 3885. I think this was a mistake during the update (ping @
Trappist the monk just in case). Accordingly, please replace
return table.concat ({citation0( config, args), frame:extensionTag ('templatestyles', '', {src=styles, wrapper=".cs1-sandbox"})});
with
return table.concat ({citation0( config, args), frame:extensionTag ('templatestyles', '', {src=styles})});
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what has gone wrong here:
gives:
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)Where did the issue number go? It used to say 14(2). The reader needs the issue number to find it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
to cite |journal=Diplomacy and Statecraft
. {{
cite book}}
does not support |issue=
{{
cite book}}
creates book-object metadata. Book-object metadata does not support issue. We do not control the metadata standard. If all you are writing is book and periodical citations you can use {{
citation}}
which will most-of-the-time get it right. If you want cs1 styling with that set |mode=cs1
:
{{citation |last=French |first=David |year=2003 |title=Invading Europe: The British Army and Its Preparations for the Normandy Campaign, 1942–44 |journal=Diplomacy and Statecraft |volume=14 |issue=2 |pp=271–294 |doi=10.1080/09592290412331308891 |issn=0959-2296 |mode=cs1}}
Did you mean ...messaging as described would be complex and, I think, not really worth the effort. We have page preview so that editors can inspect their work before they hit the Publish changes button.
WikiProject NRHP has 50,000 or so citations using "cite web" to National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination/registration documents, from the 1970s until now. These are not "news" items nor are they "periodicals" or "journals". It has seemed best to use "cite web". For ones hosted by the National Park Service supposedly in Washington D.C., we include "publisher= National Park Service". For the same document hosted by a state website, we would include "publisher=State of Arkansas" or whatever. These documents exist, published or not, somewhere, for every NRHP listing. (Addition: Well, sometimes the document used to justify NRHP listing is on a different state or local form.) Sometimes they are not available anywhere online (especially archeological site ones). Some states like Louisiana and Arkansas and New York have their own separate systems making these available, and make decisions differently than does the National Park Service about which documents to make available, or what versions of them. For a long time New York State provided archeological site ones which were not redacted to conceal location information, while the National Park Service is more likely to provide redacted versions, if they provide anything at all. It seems to me that it is reasonable to say the "publisher" is the government entity that is putting forth, on the internet, the specific document that is linked. I don't think saying "website=State of Arkansas" would make sense, because the state government is not a website. And these documents are sometimes available in quite scattered places, often not just in one coherent "website".
Given recent changes to the CS templates, and/or recent decisions about displaying italics or not and using "website=" and "publisher=", or whatever, I am now completely unclear on what Wikipedia citation experts want for us to do now. I personally don't care what shows in italics or not; I'd just like to do whatever makes sense and does not show display errors. Help! What are we supposed to do, going forward? -- Doncram ( talk) 23:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
References
References
Well, although the error displays are gone now in all versions, I am still open to the idea that the NRHP documents are fundamentally "reports", suitable for "cite report", and should not have been using "cite web". In fact sometimes I want to refer to one of these which is only available offline, and "cite web" then shows errors, i.e. if "url=" is blank. And whatever is the philosophical issue with "cite web" that makes some want to require a "website=" field, may really be valid, despite some rollback just done. Perhaps it is more correct to remove the NRHP docs from the "cite web" world. But, it remains that "cite report" inserts display of "(Report)" into the reference. I have NEVER EVER seen that done in any non-Wikipedia citation of government documents, so that seems just awkward and wrong, and I would like to remove it from "cite report". Else it sorta seems "cite report" cannot be used. Although I must confess i don't know how often it has been used in practice, or for what types of government documents it is used without editors' objections. This is the forum to discuss changes in {{ cite report}} though, right? I hereby request the change of dropping default display of "(Report)" or at least being allowed to turn that off. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
|type=
parameter to "Report". You can choose to set it to another value if you have a preferable one: {{cite report |title=ReportTitle |type=registration}}
outputs ReportTitle (registration)..{{
cite report}}
is supposed to render with the |type=
preset to Report
. You will also notice that the report title is not quoted. You can prevent the rendering of the Report
annotation by setting |type=none
.References
Yesterday when I decided to hide the deprecated parameter and missing periodical error messages, I thought that just switching the error conditions hidden
value from false
to true
would be sufficient. It wasn't so I implemented a brute force method in
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities that did work. I have undone the brute force method in the sandbox. This very simple template should not be showing an error message:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title}}
→ "Title". {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000008A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title".</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+59" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite journal requires <code class="cs1-code">|journal=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#missing_periodical|help]])</span>
The module clearly thinks that the error message should be hidden because it has added class cs1-hidden-error
to the wrapping span. The old show-every-error css in my
common.css is commented out so that isn't it. @
Izno, you're more knowledgeable about css than I, any ideas?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)@ Izno: What does this change do? What happens when that module is copied to Module:Citation/CS1?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Where is the templatestyles wrapper parameter documented?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
IABot (
User:InternetArchiveBot / @
Cyberpower678:) reads and respects TemplateData specifically
Template:Cite_web/doc#TemplateData. Recently it was changed that |website=
is "required". As a result IABot automatically adds an empty |website=
to every template it touches.
Example. It also adds |website=
when a |newspaper=
already exists thus creating a duplication.
Example. I'm not sure what to do as there are multiple issues but want to bring it to the attention what is occurring. --
Green
C 13:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
. The second is easier. If {{
cite news}} is used, use |newspaper=
. If {{cite web}} is used, use |website=
. Both stand for the same thing (the work), therefore the module ignores additional instances of the same argument.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 14:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
is no longer required per the AN thread closure. Does that resolve this issue, GC? –
Leviv
ich 14:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)I reverted the change to TemplateData done September 3. Please discuss before re-adding. Given how powerful TemplateData can impact automated tools it is surprising it is not locked like templates. IABot has added thousands of empty and duplicate parameters in the past 5 days. -- Green C 14:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Template:Cite journal is for "citations for academic and scientific papers and journals." When citing a paper that appears in a journal, I agree that the citation should contain the journal name in the |journal=
parameter. The new Cite journal requires |journal= error and corresponding
Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical will help us find (and fix) these. However, what's the proper solution for academic and scientific papers that were not published in a journal? For example, see the citations in
2 Andromedae,
46,XX testicular disorders of sex development,
5 Lacertae, and
54 Piscium. I tried using {{
cite paper}}, but that just redirects to {{
cite journal}} and retains the error message. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 03:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I find that some errors should be fixed by changing {{ cite journal}} to {{ cite report}} or {{ cite thesis}} when the cited material is a report or thesis, but don't want to use those templates incorrectly just to make an error go away. GoingBatty ( talk) 03:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Délot EC, Vilain EJ. Nonsyndromic 46,XX Testicular Disorders of Sex Development. 2003 Oct 30 [Updated 2015 May 7]. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1416/
|chapter=
.
[2]References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)updated 2015
Can anyone advise how I can write this with {{ cite book}}?
This is where Cather and Milmine are the book's authors, not the editors. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The rearranged order and flagging with "By" were originally introduced to mark the difference between an authored book and edited one, but are no longer necessary as editors are now marked with (ed.)/(eds.). This is not so. There are obvious semantic differences between contributions in an authored book vs an edited one. The rationale for adding the contributor params in the templates was laid out in several posts through the years. One impetus was the relative obscurity and complexity of {{ harvc}}. The reason Introduction is not in quotes is because it is considered a standard part of a book (see front matter and back matter). The module strips the quotes. Similarly, one would not quote "Table of Contents", or "Index". However, if the Introduction was titled, then it is properly quoted, as in "Introduction: My Wonderful Introduction". 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 13:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
we should be able to do with the templates what we do manually. No. By their very nature templates are / can / will never be as flexible as manual, free-form-text citations.
A page I've cited a lot is https://dadgum.com/giantlist/. It's a single-page database of programmers for early video games. Most of the citations of this I've seen set "title", but not "website", because it isn't clear what the website tag should be. The same as the title? The domain name? Both of those are redundant. Feels like this is a legitimate reason to omit "website" without having a warning displayed. Dgpop ( talk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
website=
.{{cite web|url=https://dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/BILLYARD.HTM|title=Adam Billyard|website=The Giant List of Classic Game Programmers|access-date=3 September 2019}}
via=Dadgum.com
. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 17:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
parameter is for the name of the website, most often that's found in the html "title" on the home index page of the site. In this case, going to
https://dadgum.com/, it's "Dadgum Games". I think it should be:{{cite web|last=Hague|first=James|url=https://dadgum.com/giantlist/|title=The Giant List of Classic Game Programmers|website=Dadgum Games|access-date=3 September 2019}}
|via=
, suggested above.The recent discussion is a manifestation of the reaction to an enWp-wide impact of a change in this module. Trying to make a summary, the public reaction were basically triggered by these:
Looking back to learn from this event is not so much about the exact conditions of this event, but what can be made to minimized the risk of similar protests again.
@ Trappist the monk: This may not be the most urgent action just now, but it is important to get your view of what lead to the situation. Please address it when time permits.
@ Izno: I'm starting this topic as you said you considered in AN. Please help moderate it and invite relevant participants. JAGulin ( talk) 11:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
creative work? What does that really mean? Whatever it is, it is, I think, a poorly chosen term that, at best, is wholly subjective.
{{
cite web}}
and |website=
. Instead, you would use {{
cite book}}
and |via=Internet Archive
. archive.org, in this case, could be considered to be like a library. Regular websites like those published by World Health Organization, Supreme Court of the United States, Sears, corporate and governmental organizations recently mentioned, are not like libraries.updated in real-time, what would be the purpose of citing the results if the results can change moment to moment? Still, I'll bite. You might archive a snapshot of the Google search results, give them some sort of title, perhaps the search string, and set
|website=Google
.|website=
in {{
cite web}}
. Citing a PewDiePie episode or any other AV media is best done with the appropriate templates ({{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite serial}}
) which, not being {{cite web}}
, are out of scope here. If you want to cite something on the YouTube/About page with {{cite web}}
then: |website=YouTube
.If YouTube.com is not the publication YouTube when I'm citing to YouTube.com/PewDiePie [with {{ cite episode}}], then it's also not the publication YouTube when I'm citing YouTube.com/AboutUs [with {{ cite web}}], because the website YouTube.com either is, or is not, a publication. It can't be a publication when you cite one of its pages (/About Us), but not a publication when you cite a different page (/PewDiePie). – Leviv ich 17:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
tq}}
(Talk quote inline) implies that all of the green text in the first sentence of your post originates with me. It does not. Please don't do that again.|via=Internet Archive
in {{
cite book}}
. If you were citing what archive.org has to say about the Political TV Ad Archive on its
projects page, then |website=Internet Archive
in {{
cite web}}
. So too with PewDiePie (author / publisher) and YouTube (deliverer) using an appropriate cs1 template; YouTube/About with {{cite web}}
and |website=YouTube
.|website=Internet Archive
(italicized); when hosting content belonging to someone else (a hosted publisher's publication) the |via=Internet Archive
(not italicized). Two adjacent citations rendering Internet Archive
differently? You can see at a glance the role played by the host.The discussion "Seeking advice" on this page prompted a look at how the module presents some person roles (author, contributor and editor). I believe current presentation is confusing in a couple of cases. If memory serves, this has been remarked on before.
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - NOT OK. I believe the editor role should be presented as in #1.{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |contributor=
requires |author=
(
help); |editor=
has generic name (
help) - NOT OK. I believe that there should be no error, and the static text should include "In" editor. "Author" is not really relevant here. "In editor" should be enough to show this as an edited collection of contributions.{{
cite book}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) - OK72.43.99.130 ( talk) 15:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
|contribution=
should be allowed with |editor=
. That would allow us to present citations of separately-authored prefaces of edited books in a consistent way to those of authored books. In fact, I would make |contribution=
an alias of |chapter=
. (Other changes would be required for full consistency, though).
Kanguole 18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
|chapter=
was in use for separately-authored parts of edited collections for a long time before |contribution=
was introduced for separately-authored parts of authored books (with inconsistent formatting, as I've said above). You are simply mistaken about how this form of the template is used.
Kanguole 14:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
|chapter=
was also in use for separately-authored parts of edited collections for a long time before |contribution=
was introduced. That is one of the reasons the contributor (vs. author) parameter-group was introduced, to distinguish then from citations of chapters in single-authored or multi-authored books. A collection however is not a book with many authors. It does have separately authored parts. But no single author can take credit for the entire work, that is the job of the editor who assembled the collection.
108.182.15.109 (
talk) 14:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Seems like there may soon be a very large number of new |website=
parameters added to existing citations... Reading many of the recent comments, it's apparent that there's still a fairly widespread belief that |website=
is for a simplified URL, like "example.com", rather than a name like "Example Domain", most often found in the HTML <title>
on the home index.html page. See for example this comment and its followups:
[3].
The current documentation is a little sparse:
and:
Title (name) of the website (or its short URL if no plain-language title is discernible); may be wikilinked; will display in italics. Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases.
Example
Would it be beneficial to add something along the lines of:
<title>
element of the main home index page, displayed in the browser's window or tab title. For instance, at the website
https://example.com, it is Example Domain. If no title is discernible, a short URL may be used. If publisher is substantially the same as website, then publisher should be omitted.and/or:
Title (name) of the website (or its short URL if no plain-language title is discernible); may be wikilinked; will display in italics. Often found in the browser tab or window title on the home page of a website. Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases; if so, 'publisher' should be omitted.
Example
? -- IamNotU ( talk) 00:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
<title>
simply defines the title of the HTML document, typically the title of the tab in your browser, which may or may not be the actual name of the website. For instance, on Rotten Tomatoes it is actually <title>Rotten Tomatoes: Movies | TV Shows | Movie Trailers | Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes</title>
. I am under the impression that there are other tags specifically for this purpose: <meta name>
, <meta title>
and <meta property>
. On Rotten Tomatoes it is <meta property="og:site_name" content="Rotten Tomatoes">
. I use
User:V111P/js/WebRef which is pretty good at fetching the correct name of the website. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 09:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
is for a simplified URL, like "example.com"and that the reason why the documentation is so vague is because it is not actually a very useful parameter that also combines several not-always-related pieces of information.
|website=
should work. In some cases, the website is also the publisher; in others it is merely a platform where the material published by someone else is hosted. The correct way would be to make |publisher=
be the essential parameter and |website=
an optional one for when one is getting the info from another website than that of the publisher per
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
by default, that's quite counterproductive and misleading.
Mathglot, the NFL example is unclear, because "NFL.com" is actually the website name of
http://nfl.com, as opposed to "www.nfl.com" that Citoid generates - a lot of sites are branded that way. On the other hand, the URL given in that example,
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/digestofrules, is now a dead link that redirects to
https://operations.nfl.com/ - the website name there is "NFL Football Operations"... --
IamNotU (
talk) 10:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
, not to say definitively "this is it", because it's sometimes not straightforward.<meta>
tag is a generic way to associate a name with a set of values as metadata, "name" is an attribute of the tag, which is the name of the variable. You could define for example, <meta name="sitename" content="Example Domain" />
, but there's no standard for that. <meta title>
doesn't exist, there's only <title>
, which like <meta>
goes in the <head>
of the html, and is metadata, defining the name of the page as you noted. Again, by convention the name of the home page usually includes (often among other things) the name of the website itself, but there's no real standard. --
IamNotU (
talk) 10:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
without any semantic or cosmetic loss. If I search for "NFL", one of the top results is the actual website. The website's landing page's title is "NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League" - that is also what the pertinent search result is. Again, what comes after the dash can be omitted. So I don't think we have to agonize much about which html property is best. Just use the website's title as it comes up on a real-world search.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Since the heading of this thread is "Better explanation for "website" parameter in docs" I will confine my comments to how the existing behavior could be documented, not how the parameter ought to behave.
The value of the website parameter is the title of the website, as assigned by the publisher (sometimes the author is also the publisher). The publisher is the entity responsible for the content of the website, not a web hosting service or the like.
As mentioned in other posts, it is tempting to look to the HTML title element for the title of the website. The current HTML 5 standard describes this element as
The title element represents the document's title or name. Authors should use titles that identify their documents even when they are used out of context, for example in a user's history or bookmarks, or in search results. The document's title is often different from its first heading, since the first heading does not have to stand alone when taken out of context. [Internal links omitted]
But just as Wikipedia editors often are ignorant of, or defy, the documentation of parameters, website publishers often put stuff in this parameter that looks nice in a browser tab, but is not a suitable title. Furthermore, just as book publishers often display the title of books in all kinds of crazy ways on the book jacket or cover, the website publisher may display the real website title in all kinds of ways, and in various levels of the website hierarchy. It may be difficult for the Wikipedia editor to discern what the real title is.
The Wikipedia editor should inspect the website to discern what the title of the website is, using a degree of flexibility similar to the way the editor would inspect a book jacket to discern a book title. The website title should be a word or phrase that actually appears on the website. A phrase composed by the editor is a description, not a title, and is not supported by citation templates (although many printed style manuals allow a description instead of a title, with appropriate typography to inform the reader that it is not a literal title.) If the website title cannot be determined, some template other than "cite web" or "cite news" should be used, or the citation should be written without the use of templates.
The website publisher may, for branding purposes, decide to adopt a short version of the URL as the title of the website, and may also choose the shortened URL as the official name of the publisher's corporation, or may do business under the shortened URL. The shortened URL may be used as the value of the website parameter if and only if the publisher is using it as the title of the website, which is something the Wikipedia editor will have to discern by inspecting the website. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:CITESTYLE, which allows what it calls "common sense" exceptions...The words 'common sense' appear exactly twice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, the home of WP:CITESTYLE. The first is the second positional parameter in a
{{
redirect}}
template; the second is provided by {{
subcat guideline}}
, a boilerplate template used in a lot of guideline pages. The word 'exceptions' occurs three times (the singular form is not used) the first in {{subcat guideline}}
, the second in
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations and the last in
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags. None of these mention italic formatting. This is not, it seems to me, much of an argument against italic formatting of 'Rotten Tomatoes' or any other website name. Rotten Tomatoes is an electronic publication of the corporate entity Fandango Media (publisher).Wikipedia does not have a single house styleand does say that
the [widely used] Chicago Manual of Style ... may be used here. But, here, on this page we are discussing cs1|2. CMOS has no control over cs1|2. If you want to use CMOS in articles that you author, or edit, you are absolutely free to do so, assuming that there is consensus to support you in your efforts.
bad-faith argument? Go back and reread what I wrote. When I said:
None of these mention italic formatting, I was talking about the immediately preceding sentence where I pointed out that the words "common sense" and "exceptions" appeared only in
{{
subcat guideline}}
, the {{
redirect}}
template, and two subsections of
WP:CITE, to wit:
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations and
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags. None of those places mention italics.[W]e are discussing cs1|2. CMOS has no control over cs1is plain-speak. cs1|2 is not CMOS. They are different styles just as CMOS is not ALA and CMOS is not MLA and CMOS is not Bluebook. Because cs1|2 is not CMOS, the rules that apply to CMOS do not apply to cs1|2. In the past, CMOS may have influenced the development of cs1|2. Or not, I don't know; perhaps if you troll through the archives here and the various templates and modules you can learn if and where CMOS influence is felt.
{{
Cite AV media notes}} uses |others=
for the name of the recording's artist, and media notes often do not have a listed author. Here's an example pulled from
a real article:
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live | Queen of the Clouds (liner notes). Tove Lo. United States:
Universal Music Group. 2014. B0021921-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (
link)
|
Sandbox | Queen of the Clouds (liner notes). Tove Lo. United States:
Universal Music Group. 2014. B0021921-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (
link)
|
The example categorizes the article in Category:CS1 maint: others, but this seems like a valid – and from the documentation and category population, widespread – usage.
Should we exclude Template:Cite AV media notes from the CS1 maint: others category? That would help us focus our analysis of potential problems on citations that are actually missing useful, available information. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite serial}}
so that they properly handle name lists: don't use aliases of |authors=
and don't misuse |others=
. I've been saying this on and off for a long time.I noticed in a reference to an old newspaper I added, through ProQuest, that someone changed |url=https://search.proquest.com/nahs/docview/344377835
to |id={{ProQuest|344377835}}
but now using |url-access=
and |access-date=
creates an error message that there's no url - which makes me wonder if it's better off the way it was. Is there any other option - or an error suppression flag?
Nfitz (
talk) 21:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
.Well ProQuest contains papers which were published in print; it's not like the access-date would be useful since it's not like it could change like other websites. For the same reason we don't have |jstor-access-date=
, |doi-access-date=
, etc. And just like DOIs, JSTOR IDs, etc., the default is that it's assumed a ProQuest link requires a subscription to access papers. So I'm not sure why it's necessarily better to say when you accessed a given paper via ProQuest or to use |url=
and |url-access=subscription
instead of just a ProQuest ID.
Umimmak (
talk) 23:24, 10 September 2019 (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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Following the close above at #Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment, any thoughts about implementing this? I'm not feeling creative or analytical right now. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: |trans-periodical=
requires |periodical=
or |script-periodical=
(
help). Is that intentional? --
Izno (
talk) 13:57, 27 August 2019 (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.
Currently if |url=
is not specified, then the title of an article generated by a
CS1 template is linked to the |pmc=
link. Should we continue to include this link or should we remove it?
Boghog (
talk) 05:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The link is very useful because not everybody knows how to navigate the publication IDsDelicious baloney (I actually detest baloney). My expectation, and what I think the more reasonable one is, is that if the user has URLs in the citation, he'll follow each of them (either in turn or separately) until he can access a free source. (And if there is no free source, then he will rarely access any of them as requiring extraordinary effort for anyone but the most-serious researcher.)
PMC link is the best possible because it's official, open access and technically high qualityNone of which we care about for the purposes of a rendered citation. (Well, perhaps open-access, but that's not sufficient to duplicate a link from one place to another.)
what the green link meansThe average reader has a browser which can display the title of the link, which is set to 'free access', when the green is present. He'll figure it out eventually. -- Izno ( talk) 13:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
|arXiv=
or |doi=
with |doi-access=free
. In this way, the discrepancy between PMC and the other identifiers is resolved. As a reader, clicking on the title is more natural than having to click on an id. −
Pintoch (
talk) 09:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)|doi-access=free
/|bibcode-access=free
etc.). This is a huge accessibility boost to readers.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)|url=
parameter? –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 13:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The padlock doesn't display on mobile devicesDo you have evidence to back that up? Here is a contrived
{{
cite journal}}
template:
{{cite journal |title=Title |url=//example.com |url-access=subscription |pmc=12345}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)|url=
is explicitly provided is to meet our general audience where they are. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 22:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)|pmc=
link. The pmc link is now followed by a "green/open padlock icon" which makes it clear that the source is free to read. Redundantly linking titles to pmc links creates a counter productive
sea of blue in reference sections.
Boghog (
talk) 05:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)|pmc=
than, say, |jstor=
; confusing.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)not everybody knows how to navigate the publication IDs" a bit ludicrous. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
but this requires the editor to insert this link which is not always done. To make matters worse, citoid often inserts |url=
completely oblivious to whether it is free or not. An open/green padlock always follows the specific PMC link, so it should be obvious to the average reader that the PMC link is free.
Boghog (
talk) 03:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
). If you don't like the word "best", just mentally substitute "most beneficial for the reader". The reasoning remains unchanged and unchallenged. There is never any good reason not to present the reader with a link from the title, unless the source simply doesn't exist online. --
RexxS (
talk) 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)|url=
, but that again is redundant and leads to
WP:SEAOFBLUE, when |doi-access=free
will do.It is inconsistent that PMC is being singled out as the only source that automatically links the title in the absence of |url=
. But if we expanded this feature, determining the priority of sources would be a nightmare. The editor who inserts the template should be able to decide which part of the citation is linked where.
Nardog (
talk) 10:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
|url=
parameter. The people commenting that "pubmed is obviously the best link" presumably work in a field covered by pubmed; for many other fields, pubmed coverage is sporadic, random, and unhelpful. In astronomy, maybe ads/abs (bibcode) is the best link; maybe in mathematics it is mathscinet (mr). I don't think we should be in the business of picking and choosing when there are multiple ids like this to link to. I would not be strongly opposed to doi links, because they are almost always authoritative, but even for those I prefer the current system of linking them only through the id. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)The proposal is poorly stated. When |url=
is non-empty it is used to link the title. The proposal appears to be: don't use |pmc=
for that purpose when |url=
is empty. I don't see that any "link" (or link parameter?) is being removed. It's more like a link using pmc is not created in the first place. But this is not quite certain. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
|pmc=
but not |url=
:
{{cite journal |last=Bannen |first=RM |display-authors=etal |date=2008 |title=Optimal design of thermally stable proteins |journal=Bioinformatics |volume=24 |issue=20 |pages=2339–2343 |doi=10.1093/bioinformatics/btn450 |pmc=2562006}}
|pmc=
is created if |url=
is empty. The removal proposal is not to link the title to |pmc=
.
Boghog (
talk) 22:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)I think the concern about duplicate is misplaced. In the case where a URL is supplied and to the official journal article, then the DOI link takes one to the same place. So in fact the title link is nearly always duplicating another link. Both the DOI and PMC ID are, textually, part of a full citation text, so we wouldn't eliminate them. I think the convention of having the title link to freely available editions of the article is a fine one to retain. -- Colin° Talk 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
|auto-url=none
and that would be a pretty simple option to bypass things in the minority cases it doesn't make sense to have the automatic url.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
|url=none
.
Nardog (
talk) 06:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
pmc
gets used for the title link in the absence of |url=
by default. If ever, I would like to have this feature enabled only on demand (not by default), and to also have a feature to select the identifier used for this purpose from the list of available ones. This could be easily done if the |url=
parameter would support the number of supported identifiers as selectors: |url=pmc
, |url=doi
, etc. The advantage of having to explicitly activate this feature would also help arguments brought forward above that this should not be forced onto our users by default and that defaulting to pmc
would be arbitrary.|access-date=
, |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters when an |url=
parameter gets deleted because it has been found to be redundant with one of the more specific identifier links like |doi=
. Some editors just remove these parameters, which in my opinion is a very bad idea and not very far-sighted, because even "permanent links" like a doi are not garanteed to be working forever, and by removing archived links and access dates we loose parts of our quality assurance ("the link was checked to be functional and supporting the statement on date xyz") and backup system against link-rot. With something like f.e. |url=doi
, |access-date=
, |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
could stay and would refer to the doi as well.I propose having an |in-title=
form of the title parameter that prefixes an unitalicized "In" before the title. This is currently done for the titles of books (or "works") containing chapters ("contributions") when an editor is specified, but not when an editor is not specified. I have instances of multiple chapters in books where it is preferable to not list the book's editors in each chapter's citation, yet I would like to indicate that the chapter is "in" a larger work. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
{{cite book |contributor-first=A. |contributor-last=Contributor |contribution=Introduction |title=Book |first=A. |last=BookAuthor}}
{{cite book |contributor-first=A. |contributor-last=Contributor |contribution=Chapter |title=Book |first=A. |last=BookAuthor}}
{{cite book |first=A. |last=ChapterAuthor |chapter=Chapter |title=Book}}
{{cite book |first=F. |last=ChapterAuthor |chapter=Chapter |title=Book |editor-first=A.N. |editor-last=Editor}}
{{
cite book}}
: |contributor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |contributor-last=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help) Leaving aside |contributor=
for the present, would
this change do what you want? Examples:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | ChapterAuthor, A. "Chapter". Book. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | ChapterAuthor, A. "Chapter". Book. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | ChapterAuthor, F. "Chapter". In Editor, A.N. (ed.). Book. {{
cite book}} : |editor-last= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | ChapterAuthor, F. "Chapter". In Editor, A.N. (ed.). Book. {{
cite book}} : |editor-last= has generic name (
help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (
help)
|
Kanguole 14:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that I oppose this change. 'In' ('in' in {{
citation}}
) appears to have a use in that it names the editors who compiled the book and whose names appear on the front cover (it is their book so they are listed in the bibliographic information for the book). Authors of the individual chapters may not be or are not so named. 'In' without editors, to me, seems to be extraneous because |authorn=
(and aliases) identify the author(s) of the entire book so saying explicitly that "Chapter title" is 'In' Book title written by Author(s) is overkill or clutter. The "Chapter title". Book title form of cs1|2 rendering has been in use for a long, long time and, so far as I know, has not caused our readers untoward confusion. That being the case, this proposal seems like a fix for something that isn't broken.
The proposed use case, instances of multiple chapters in books where it is preferable to not list the book's editors in each chapter's citation
, would result in incomplete citations with, consequently, incomplete metadata. Why are multiple less-than-a-full citation templates preferable to full citations? Can this not be handled by a mixture of {{
sfn}}
templates pointing to {{
harvc}}
templates that point to a single full citation template?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.-M. Bréon, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson-Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D. Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and S.-P. Xie, 2013: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Why are multiple less-than-a-full citation templates preferable to full citations?"?
be handled by a mixture of {{ sfn}} templates pointing to {{ harvc}} templates that point to a single full citation template". And what needs fixing is the current inability to get "in" without an editor. But possibly Kangoule has a fix in hand. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@
Kanguole: See reference #20 at
Schlumbergera#References. Is this the effect you want?
More generally, catering for every exceptional case in the citation templates is a mistake, in my view. Some unusual and complex citations are best handled manually.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 15:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
|author=
, |orig-year=
, |date=
(to allow YEARa, YEARb, YEARc for sfns when multiple contributors in the same book have the same author(s)), conceivably |doi=
, |translator=
, but doing |title=''"[chapter title]"''
, while a bit "hacky", produces the desired effect perfectly, so thanks for showing me that method,
Peter coxhead.
Umimmak (
talk) 02:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Citation |last=Hunt |first=David |title=''"Appendix III Excerpts from a Brazilian diary"''}}, in {{Harvnb|McMillan|Horobin|1995|pp=82–88}}
{{
citation}}
portion of that is this:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000003C-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFHunt" class="citation cs2">Hunt, David, ''<span></span>''"Appendix III Excerpts from a Brazilian diary"''<span></span>''</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=%22Appendix+III+Excerpts+from+a+Brazilian+diary%22&rft.aulast=Hunt&rft.aufirst=David&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+59" class="Z3988"></span>
{{
harvnb}}
templates for the appendix authors that link to appropriate {{
harvc}}
templates that in turn link to the single citation template:
{{harvnb}}
templates (in the text)
{{harvnb |Hunt |1995a}}
→
Hunt 1995a{{harvnb |Hunt |1995b}}
→
Hunt 1995b{{harvnb |McMillan |Horobin |Hunt |1995}}
→
McMillan, Horobin & Hunt 1995{{harvc}}
templates:
{{harvc/sandbox |in=McMillan |in2=Horobin |last=Hunt |first=David |c=Appendix I Names and synonyms of the species, subspecies and interspecific hybrids |year=1995 |anchor-year=1995a |mode=cs2 |nb=yes}}
{{harvc/sandbox |in=McMillan |in2=Horobin |last=Hunt |first=David |c=Appendix III Excerpts from a Brazilian diary |year=1995 |anchor-year=1995b |mode=cs2 |nb=yes}}
{{harvc/sandbox |in=McMillan |in2=Horobin |last1=McMillan |first1=A.J.S. |last2=Horobin |first2=J.F. |last3=Hunt |first3=David |c=Appendix IV Checklists of historic varieties and modern cultivars |year=1995 |mode=cs2 |nb=yes}}
{{citation}}
template:
{{Citation |last=McMillan |first=A. J. S. |last2=Horobin |first2=J. F. |year=1995 |title=Christmas Cacti: The Genus ''Schlumbergera'' and Its Hybrids |edition=p/b |publication-place=Sherbourne, Dorset, UK |publisher=David Hunt |isbn=978-0-9517234-6-3}}
|date=
has never been supported by {{harvc}}
because CITEREFs produced by the {{harv}}
family and {{
sfn}}
only use the year portion of a date; similarly, |author=
, |orig-year=
, and |translator=
are not supported just as they are not supported by {{harv}}
and {{sfn}}
(there is a three-year-old request for |translator=
though I do not recall having seen that request before); there may be some sense in supporting |doi=
in {{harvc}}
because dois are often assigned to book chapters; though, to date, no one has requested such support.|author=
would have been used in the CS1 family, the whole name should go in |last=
?
Umimmak (
talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
|anchor-year=
in {{
harvc}}
would solve that. If that parameter has a disambiguated year (year portion must match |year=
) then {{harvc}}
would use that in its CITEREF anchor and render the value parenthetically after the author names; |year=
would continue to be used in the CITEREF link to the cs1|2 template. Doing this would mean that {{
sfnref}}
templates in my examples above would not be required.{{
harvc}}
examples to {{
harvc/sandbox}}
which uses
Module:Harvc/sandbox. The sandboxen now support |anchor-year=
and |nb=
. In the renderings, when |anchor-year=
is used, and is the same 'year' as |year=
, and has a required disambiguator, the value of |anchor-year=
is used in the CITEREF identifier and is rendered after the author name-list. When |nb=yes
, link to the cs1|2 template is rendered the same as a {{
harvnb}}
rendering.|author=
(etc.). Universal bibilographic practice is to sort and search by surname (family name, "last" in Western usage); links to citations are (e.g.) in the form of "Smith and Jones, 2001", not "Smith, Larry, and Jones, William, 2001". ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 23:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
|author=
is more apt than |last=
, |first=
.
Template:Harvc only has the latter which doesn’t work for, say, collective authors credited under an organizational name or whatever, and it’s also less than ideal for names with non-Western word orders as an incorrect comma gets added.
Umimmak (
talk) 00:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)harvc ... seems to be morphing into a full citation. Hardly.
{{
harvc}}
has not been touched since December 2015. There is some sense to adding |authorn=
support so that corporate authors are placed into semantically meaningful parameters; this is simply the addition of alias support (it would be the same as cs1|2 in which |lastn=
and |authorn=
are aliases). It is unlikely that {{harvc}}
will ever be a full citation because the bibliographic detail required by a full citation is not required and not supported by {{harvc}}
and would be redundant to bibliographic detail in the associated cs1|2 template. {{harvc}}
supports |firstn=
because the visual rendering should show all of the chapter / section / article author's name. The comma separator inserted in non-western names has been an unsolved problem in cs1|2 forever and it's no different in {{harvc}}
. Find a solution for this with either of cs1|2 or {{harvc}}
and you've solved the problem in both.{{harvc}}
would be some sort of mechanism to control parentheses in the rendering to allow {{harvc}}
to match parentheses rendered by the article's chosen short-form templates.@ Kanguole: I think what you demonstrated would be a satisfactory resolution. Is there any chance it might be implmented soon? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
In collections like conference notes and similar works, it is common for authors to list their affiliations, like "Brookhaven National Laboratory". Would it be possible to get an author-affiliation tag for this purpose? It would not be for the work as a whole, which would be covered by publisher (or, I suppose, editor-affiliation?). Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I found translations for this Psycho-Pass Movie Pamphlet from 2015. How should the reference be handled? The website has some data about the pamphlet but I'm not sure what to make of it. Cheers. Tintor2 ( talk) 17:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to overturn the mass change made to Module:Citation/CS1. --- Coffeeand crumbs 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been away for a few months, so I am not up to date on the detailed discussions about |dead-url=
and what it should be replaced with. It looks like documentation updates are needed on some or all of the doc pages for the individual cite templates listed
at Help:Citation Style 1.
Can someone who understands the changes better than I please take on the (onerous, I know) task of replacing |dead-url=
with its updated equivalent every time it appears on {{
cite news/doc}} and the doc pages for the other CS1 templates? It may help reduce the controversy around the latest updates. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
for {{
cite web}}. The change to |dead-url=
in articles is just housekeeping and can be fixed by a bot, so I think that the documentation will need to be updated at some point. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)I'm suddenly getting a lot of warnings "Cite web requires |website=". Under no circumstances will I supply this, so I need to switch off the warning. Anyone know where it comes from and how to shut it off? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I am just going to ask it here: Is it possible that we do something like this but only for instances of a missing |website=
parameter for {{
cite web}}?
It's just a question. I do not intend to promote this as a solution to the current predicament or engaging in that drama. I'm just curious if it can be done on a technical level. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 21:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to get rid of the script error if we write "Smith, John, et al." manually? I know we can add all the names and "display-author". But sometimes I can only remember the first author and don't have time to look up the others. I want to be able to add "et al." manually without causing the red message to appear. SarahSV (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
is how it's done.
{{cite book |title=Title |author=Smith, John |display-authors=etal}}
I'm suddenly getting a lot of warnings "Cite web requires |website=". Under no circumstances will I supply this, so I need to switch off the warning. Anyone know where it comes from and how to shut it off? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Previously, both lowercase "cs" and uppercase "CS" were allowed in values of |mode=
. Now the uppercase isn't recognized, generating many unnecessary errors. Please fix this.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 02:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm now seeing errors about lacking urls when filling in the format field. I thought that was the right one to use for electronic versions like .azw or .epub. If those should be used in the type field instead, the documentation needs to clearly state that as neither are currently mentioned at all.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
is for URLs, as described in the documentation. The documentation under format says For media format, use type.The documentation for type says
type: Provides additional information about the media type of the source.If you have suggestions for how the documentation could be improved, this page is a good place to make those suggestions. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
parameter. There has been previous discussion about changing the name to e.g. |url-format=
or |url-file-format=
to make that clear, but no-one has moved on that. --
Izno (
talk) 19:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
pdf
which displays as (
pdf) after the source. This alerts the reader that s/he has to have Adobe document format functionality on their device, perhaps as a browser add-in. Another common use would be in situations where the source may be formatted in one of the picture formats.
24.105.132.254 (
talk) 20:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|format=
refers to the digital file format. It is irrelevant when a digital means to verify the citation is not given. The media type that is referenced by |type=
is the medium the source was accessed in: print, video, digital etc. Hope this is clearer.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 23:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Suppose I want to cite the top level of a website. For purposes of this discussion, the thing I want to cite only exists in the form of a website, and the true nature of it is a website. It isn't a book, journal, newspaper, or anything but a website. For example, I want to make the claim "USAGov is the Official Guide to Government Information and Services" and I wish to cite https://www.usa.gov/. I'm citing the top level of the website, and the website is a large work, so I should cite it like this:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
https://www.usa.gov/. {{
cite web}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Sandbox | USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
https://www.usa.gov/. {{
cite web}} : Missing or empty |title= (
help)
|
Since I have an extra level of error messages being shown (I forget how I set it) and there has been recent play with error display, I will state that when I look at the rendered citations, I see Missing or empty |title=
If I were citing a much smaller website, I would want to be able to use the same citation, but somehow indicate that the website title should be surrounded by double quotes rather than be in italics. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
USA.gov
. The publisher would be USAGov, but since it's substantially the same as USA.gov, it should be omitted. For the page title, you can use |title=USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal
.
[1] by
Trappist the monk started adding month (when specified) to categories for pages with DOIs inactive: table.insert( z.error_categories, 'Pages with DOIs inactive as of ' .. inactive_year .. ' ' .. inactive_month); -- use inactive month in category name
. For example, the page
Template:Cite journal displays a {{
cite journal}} example with doi-broken-date=2019-01-01
. The module edit has moved the page from
Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 to
Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 January.
Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Pages with DOIs inactive shows none of the monthly categories currently exist.
Template:Cite journal#Examples claims another category name is added: If the doi link is broken, then use of doi-broken-date unlinks the doi value, indicates when the doi-problem was first noticed, and will also add the page to "Category:Pages with DOIs broken since YYYY".
Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Pages with DOIs broken shows no such categories. I don't care how this is solved as long as articles stop showing red maintenance categories. One solution is to create the monthly categories with the current red names.
Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 August currently has 1175 members.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 15:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{broken doi explanation}}[[Category:Pages with inactive DOIs|year]][[Category:CS1 maintenance|D]]
, I believe.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 15:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)I know it's already been pointed out elsewhere and the folks maintaining these templates are dealing with a lot right now, but {{ cite tweet}} is still generating a "cite web requires website" error (not visible, but categorized). That's clearly not how that's supposed to work, but I don't know how to fix it. I was just working on David Akin where there is a tweet citation, if you want to see for yourself. Just one more requested bugfix for your attention, I'm sure it'll be repaired eventually. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
parameter. And seemingly rightly so, as the output of cite tweet doesn't render anything in italics, and that seems to be the correct format based on sources like
this and
this and
this. Should cite tweet use a different underlying template maybe?
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 20:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For Module:Citation/CS1:
In
Special:Diff/914376409,
Trappist the monk updated the module and, in doing so, also wrapped the output in the `cs1-sandbox` class by adding , wrapper=".cs1-sandbox"
to line 3885. I think this was a mistake during the update (ping @
Trappist the monk just in case). Accordingly, please replace
return table.concat ({citation0( config, args), frame:extensionTag ('templatestyles', '', {src=styles, wrapper=".cs1-sandbox"})});
with
return table.concat ({citation0( config, args), frame:extensionTag ('templatestyles', '', {src=styles})});
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 03:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what has gone wrong here:
gives:
{{
cite book}}
: |journal=
ignored (
help)Where did the issue number go? It used to say 14(2). The reader needs the issue number to find it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
to cite |journal=Diplomacy and Statecraft
. {{
cite book}}
does not support |issue=
{{
cite book}}
creates book-object metadata. Book-object metadata does not support issue. We do not control the metadata standard. If all you are writing is book and periodical citations you can use {{
citation}}
which will most-of-the-time get it right. If you want cs1 styling with that set |mode=cs1
:
{{citation |last=French |first=David |year=2003 |title=Invading Europe: The British Army and Its Preparations for the Normandy Campaign, 1942–44 |journal=Diplomacy and Statecraft |volume=14 |issue=2 |pp=271–294 |doi=10.1080/09592290412331308891 |issn=0959-2296 |mode=cs1}}
Did you mean ...messaging as described would be complex and, I think, not really worth the effort. We have page preview so that editors can inspect their work before they hit the Publish changes button.
WikiProject NRHP has 50,000 or so citations using "cite web" to National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination/registration documents, from the 1970s until now. These are not "news" items nor are they "periodicals" or "journals". It has seemed best to use "cite web". For ones hosted by the National Park Service supposedly in Washington D.C., we include "publisher= National Park Service". For the same document hosted by a state website, we would include "publisher=State of Arkansas" or whatever. These documents exist, published or not, somewhere, for every NRHP listing. (Addition: Well, sometimes the document used to justify NRHP listing is on a different state or local form.) Sometimes they are not available anywhere online (especially archeological site ones). Some states like Louisiana and Arkansas and New York have their own separate systems making these available, and make decisions differently than does the National Park Service about which documents to make available, or what versions of them. For a long time New York State provided archeological site ones which were not redacted to conceal location information, while the National Park Service is more likely to provide redacted versions, if they provide anything at all. It seems to me that it is reasonable to say the "publisher" is the government entity that is putting forth, on the internet, the specific document that is linked. I don't think saying "website=State of Arkansas" would make sense, because the state government is not a website. And these documents are sometimes available in quite scattered places, often not just in one coherent "website".
Given recent changes to the CS templates, and/or recent decisions about displaying italics or not and using "website=" and "publisher=", or whatever, I am now completely unclear on what Wikipedia citation experts want for us to do now. I personally don't care what shows in italics or not; I'd just like to do whatever makes sense and does not show display errors. Help! What are we supposed to do, going forward? -- Doncram ( talk) 23:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
References
References
Well, although the error displays are gone now in all versions, I am still open to the idea that the NRHP documents are fundamentally "reports", suitable for "cite report", and should not have been using "cite web". In fact sometimes I want to refer to one of these which is only available offline, and "cite web" then shows errors, i.e. if "url=" is blank. And whatever is the philosophical issue with "cite web" that makes some want to require a "website=" field, may really be valid, despite some rollback just done. Perhaps it is more correct to remove the NRHP docs from the "cite web" world. But, it remains that "cite report" inserts display of "(Report)" into the reference. I have NEVER EVER seen that done in any non-Wikipedia citation of government documents, so that seems just awkward and wrong, and I would like to remove it from "cite report". Else it sorta seems "cite report" cannot be used. Although I must confess i don't know how often it has been used in practice, or for what types of government documents it is used without editors' objections. This is the forum to discuss changes in {{ cite report}} though, right? I hereby request the change of dropping default display of "(Report)" or at least being allowed to turn that off. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
|type=
parameter to "Report". You can choose to set it to another value if you have a preferable one: {{cite report |title=ReportTitle |type=registration}}
outputs ReportTitle (registration)..{{
cite report}}
is supposed to render with the |type=
preset to Report
. You will also notice that the report title is not quoted. You can prevent the rendering of the Report
annotation by setting |type=none
.References
Yesterday when I decided to hide the deprecated parameter and missing periodical error messages, I thought that just switching the error conditions hidden
value from false
to true
would be sufficient. It wasn't so I implemented a brute force method in
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities that did work. I have undone the brute force method in the sandbox. This very simple template should not be showing an error message:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title}}
→ "Title". {{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000008A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title".</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+59" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Cite journal requires <code class="cs1-code">|journal=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#missing_periodical|help]])</span>
The module clearly thinks that the error message should be hidden because it has added class cs1-hidden-error
to the wrapping span. The old show-every-error css in my
common.css is commented out so that isn't it. @
Izno, you're more knowledgeable about css than I, any ideas?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)@ Izno: What does this change do? What happens when that module is copied to Module:Citation/CS1?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Where is the templatestyles wrapper parameter documented?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
IABot (
User:InternetArchiveBot / @
Cyberpower678:) reads and respects TemplateData specifically
Template:Cite_web/doc#TemplateData. Recently it was changed that |website=
is "required". As a result IABot automatically adds an empty |website=
to every template it touches.
Example. It also adds |website=
when a |newspaper=
already exists thus creating a duplication.
Example. I'm not sure what to do as there are multiple issues but want to bring it to the attention what is occurring. --
Green
C 13:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
. The second is easier. If {{
cite news}} is used, use |newspaper=
. If {{cite web}} is used, use |website=
. Both stand for the same thing (the work), therefore the module ignores additional instances of the same argument.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 14:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
is no longer required per the AN thread closure. Does that resolve this issue, GC? –
Leviv
ich 14:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)I reverted the change to TemplateData done September 3. Please discuss before re-adding. Given how powerful TemplateData can impact automated tools it is surprising it is not locked like templates. IABot has added thousands of empty and duplicate parameters in the past 5 days. -- Green C 14:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Template:Cite journal is for "citations for academic and scientific papers and journals." When citing a paper that appears in a journal, I agree that the citation should contain the journal name in the |journal=
parameter. The new Cite journal requires |journal= error and corresponding
Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical will help us find (and fix) these. However, what's the proper solution for academic and scientific papers that were not published in a journal? For example, see the citations in
2 Andromedae,
46,XX testicular disorders of sex development,
5 Lacertae, and
54 Piscium. I tried using {{
cite paper}}, but that just redirects to {{
cite journal}} and retains the error message. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 03:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I find that some errors should be fixed by changing {{ cite journal}} to {{ cite report}} or {{ cite thesis}} when the cited material is a report or thesis, but don't want to use those templates incorrectly just to make an error go away. GoingBatty ( talk) 03:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Délot EC, Vilain EJ. Nonsyndromic 46,XX Testicular Disorders of Sex Development. 2003 Oct 30 [Updated 2015 May 7]. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1416/
|chapter=
.
[2]References
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)updated 2015
Can anyone advise how I can write this with {{ cite book}}?
This is where Cather and Milmine are the book's authors, not the editors. SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The rearranged order and flagging with "By" were originally introduced to mark the difference between an authored book and edited one, but are no longer necessary as editors are now marked with (ed.)/(eds.). This is not so. There are obvious semantic differences between contributions in an authored book vs an edited one. The rationale for adding the contributor params in the templates was laid out in several posts through the years. One impetus was the relative obscurity and complexity of {{ harvc}}. The reason Introduction is not in quotes is because it is considered a standard part of a book (see front matter and back matter). The module strips the quotes. Similarly, one would not quote "Table of Contents", or "Index". However, if the Introduction was titled, then it is properly quoted, as in "Introduction: My Wonderful Introduction". 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 13:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
we should be able to do with the templates what we do manually. No. By their very nature templates are / can / will never be as flexible as manual, free-form-text citations.
A page I've cited a lot is https://dadgum.com/giantlist/. It's a single-page database of programmers for early video games. Most of the citations of this I've seen set "title", but not "website", because it isn't clear what the website tag should be. The same as the title? The domain name? Both of those are redundant. Feels like this is a legitimate reason to omit "website" without having a warning displayed. Dgpop ( talk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
website=
.{{cite web|url=https://dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/BILLYARD.HTM|title=Adam Billyard|website=The Giant List of Classic Game Programmers|access-date=3 September 2019}}
via=Dadgum.com
. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 17:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
parameter is for the name of the website, most often that's found in the html "title" on the home index page of the site. In this case, going to
https://dadgum.com/, it's "Dadgum Games". I think it should be:{{cite web|last=Hague|first=James|url=https://dadgum.com/giantlist/|title=The Giant List of Classic Game Programmers|website=Dadgum Games|access-date=3 September 2019}}
|via=
, suggested above.The recent discussion is a manifestation of the reaction to an enWp-wide impact of a change in this module. Trying to make a summary, the public reaction were basically triggered by these:
Looking back to learn from this event is not so much about the exact conditions of this event, but what can be made to minimized the risk of similar protests again.
@ Trappist the monk: This may not be the most urgent action just now, but it is important to get your view of what lead to the situation. Please address it when time permits.
@ Izno: I'm starting this topic as you said you considered in AN. Please help moderate it and invite relevant participants. JAGulin ( talk) 11:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
creative work? What does that really mean? Whatever it is, it is, I think, a poorly chosen term that, at best, is wholly subjective.
{{
cite web}}
and |website=
. Instead, you would use {{
cite book}}
and |via=Internet Archive
. archive.org, in this case, could be considered to be like a library. Regular websites like those published by World Health Organization, Supreme Court of the United States, Sears, corporate and governmental organizations recently mentioned, are not like libraries.updated in real-time, what would be the purpose of citing the results if the results can change moment to moment? Still, I'll bite. You might archive a snapshot of the Google search results, give them some sort of title, perhaps the search string, and set
|website=Google
.|website=
in {{
cite web}}
. Citing a PewDiePie episode or any other AV media is best done with the appropriate templates ({{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite serial}}
) which, not being {{cite web}}
, are out of scope here. If you want to cite something on the YouTube/About page with {{cite web}}
then: |website=YouTube
.If YouTube.com is not the publication YouTube when I'm citing to YouTube.com/PewDiePie [with {{ cite episode}}], then it's also not the publication YouTube when I'm citing YouTube.com/AboutUs [with {{ cite web}}], because the website YouTube.com either is, or is not, a publication. It can't be a publication when you cite one of its pages (/About Us), but not a publication when you cite a different page (/PewDiePie). – Leviv ich 17:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
tq}}
(Talk quote inline) implies that all of the green text in the first sentence of your post originates with me. It does not. Please don't do that again.|via=Internet Archive
in {{
cite book}}
. If you were citing what archive.org has to say about the Political TV Ad Archive on its
projects page, then |website=Internet Archive
in {{
cite web}}
. So too with PewDiePie (author / publisher) and YouTube (deliverer) using an appropriate cs1 template; YouTube/About with {{cite web}}
and |website=YouTube
.|website=Internet Archive
(italicized); when hosting content belonging to someone else (a hosted publisher's publication) the |via=Internet Archive
(not italicized). Two adjacent citations rendering Internet Archive
differently? You can see at a glance the role played by the host.The discussion "Seeking advice" on this page prompted a look at how the module presents some person roles (author, contributor and editor). I believe current presentation is confusing in a couple of cases. If memory serves, this has been remarked on before.
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - NOT OK. I believe the editor role should be presented as in #1.{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) - OK{{
cite book}}
: |contributor=
requires |author=
(
help); |editor=
has generic name (
help) - NOT OK. I believe that there should be no error, and the static text should include "In" editor. "Author" is not really relevant here. "In editor" should be enough to show this as an edited collection of contributions.{{
cite book}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) - OK72.43.99.130 ( talk) 15:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
|contribution=
should be allowed with |editor=
. That would allow us to present citations of separately-authored prefaces of edited books in a consistent way to those of authored books. In fact, I would make |contribution=
an alias of |chapter=
. (Other changes would be required for full consistency, though).
Kanguole 18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
|chapter=
was in use for separately-authored parts of edited collections for a long time before |contribution=
was introduced for separately-authored parts of authored books (with inconsistent formatting, as I've said above). You are simply mistaken about how this form of the template is used.
Kanguole 14:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
|chapter=
was also in use for separately-authored parts of edited collections for a long time before |contribution=
was introduced. That is one of the reasons the contributor (vs. author) parameter-group was introduced, to distinguish then from citations of chapters in single-authored or multi-authored books. A collection however is not a book with many authors. It does have separately authored parts. But no single author can take credit for the entire work, that is the job of the editor who assembled the collection.
108.182.15.109 (
talk) 14:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Seems like there may soon be a very large number of new |website=
parameters added to existing citations... Reading many of the recent comments, it's apparent that there's still a fairly widespread belief that |website=
is for a simplified URL, like "example.com", rather than a name like "Example Domain", most often found in the HTML <title>
on the home index.html page. See for example this comment and its followups:
[3].
The current documentation is a little sparse:
and:
Title (name) of the website (or its short URL if no plain-language title is discernible); may be wikilinked; will display in italics. Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases.
Example
Would it be beneficial to add something along the lines of:
<title>
element of the main home index page, displayed in the browser's window or tab title. For instance, at the website
https://example.com, it is Example Domain. If no title is discernible, a short URL may be used. If publisher is substantially the same as website, then publisher should be omitted.and/or:
Title (name) of the website (or its short URL if no plain-language title is discernible); may be wikilinked; will display in italics. Often found in the browser tab or window title on the home page of a website. Having both 'publisher' and 'website' is redundant in many cases; if so, 'publisher' should be omitted.
Example
? -- IamNotU ( talk) 00:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
<title>
simply defines the title of the HTML document, typically the title of the tab in your browser, which may or may not be the actual name of the website. For instance, on Rotten Tomatoes it is actually <title>Rotten Tomatoes: Movies | TV Shows | Movie Trailers | Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes</title>
. I am under the impression that there are other tags specifically for this purpose: <meta name>
, <meta title>
and <meta property>
. On Rotten Tomatoes it is <meta property="og:site_name" content="Rotten Tomatoes">
. I use
User:V111P/js/WebRef which is pretty good at fetching the correct name of the website. –
Finnusertop (
talk ⋅
contribs) 09:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
is for a simplified URL, like "example.com"and that the reason why the documentation is so vague is because it is not actually a very useful parameter that also combines several not-always-related pieces of information.
|website=
should work. In some cases, the website is also the publisher; in others it is merely a platform where the material published by someone else is hosted. The correct way would be to make |publisher=
be the essential parameter and |website=
an optional one for when one is getting the info from another website than that of the publisher per
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
by default, that's quite counterproductive and misleading.
Mathglot, the NFL example is unclear, because "NFL.com" is actually the website name of
http://nfl.com, as opposed to "www.nfl.com" that Citoid generates - a lot of sites are branded that way. On the other hand, the URL given in that example,
http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/digestofrules, is now a dead link that redirects to
https://operations.nfl.com/ - the website name there is "NFL Football Operations"... --
IamNotU (
talk) 10:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
, not to say definitively "this is it", because it's sometimes not straightforward.<meta>
tag is a generic way to associate a name with a set of values as metadata, "name" is an attribute of the tag, which is the name of the variable. You could define for example, <meta name="sitename" content="Example Domain" />
, but there's no standard for that. <meta title>
doesn't exist, there's only <title>
, which like <meta>
goes in the <head>
of the html, and is metadata, defining the name of the page as you noted. Again, by convention the name of the home page usually includes (often among other things) the name of the website itself, but there's no real standard. --
IamNotU (
talk) 10:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
without any semantic or cosmetic loss. If I search for "NFL", one of the top results is the actual website. The website's landing page's title is "NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League" - that is also what the pertinent search result is. Again, what comes after the dash can be omitted. So I don't think we have to agonize much about which html property is best. Just use the website's title as it comes up on a real-world search.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Since the heading of this thread is "Better explanation for "website" parameter in docs" I will confine my comments to how the existing behavior could be documented, not how the parameter ought to behave.
The value of the website parameter is the title of the website, as assigned by the publisher (sometimes the author is also the publisher). The publisher is the entity responsible for the content of the website, not a web hosting service or the like.
As mentioned in other posts, it is tempting to look to the HTML title element for the title of the website. The current HTML 5 standard describes this element as
The title element represents the document's title or name. Authors should use titles that identify their documents even when they are used out of context, for example in a user's history or bookmarks, or in search results. The document's title is often different from its first heading, since the first heading does not have to stand alone when taken out of context. [Internal links omitted]
But just as Wikipedia editors often are ignorant of, or defy, the documentation of parameters, website publishers often put stuff in this parameter that looks nice in a browser tab, but is not a suitable title. Furthermore, just as book publishers often display the title of books in all kinds of crazy ways on the book jacket or cover, the website publisher may display the real website title in all kinds of ways, and in various levels of the website hierarchy. It may be difficult for the Wikipedia editor to discern what the real title is.
The Wikipedia editor should inspect the website to discern what the title of the website is, using a degree of flexibility similar to the way the editor would inspect a book jacket to discern a book title. The website title should be a word or phrase that actually appears on the website. A phrase composed by the editor is a description, not a title, and is not supported by citation templates (although many printed style manuals allow a description instead of a title, with appropriate typography to inform the reader that it is not a literal title.) If the website title cannot be determined, some template other than "cite web" or "cite news" should be used, or the citation should be written without the use of templates.
The website publisher may, for branding purposes, decide to adopt a short version of the URL as the title of the website, and may also choose the shortened URL as the official name of the publisher's corporation, or may do business under the shortened URL. The shortened URL may be used as the value of the website parameter if and only if the publisher is using it as the title of the website, which is something the Wikipedia editor will have to discern by inspecting the website. Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:CITESTYLE, which allows what it calls "common sense" exceptions...The words 'common sense' appear exactly twice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, the home of WP:CITESTYLE. The first is the second positional parameter in a
{{
redirect}}
template; the second is provided by {{
subcat guideline}}
, a boilerplate template used in a lot of guideline pages. The word 'exceptions' occurs three times (the singular form is not used) the first in {{subcat guideline}}
, the second in
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations and the last in
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags. None of these mention italic formatting. This is not, it seems to me, much of an argument against italic formatting of 'Rotten Tomatoes' or any other website name. Rotten Tomatoes is an electronic publication of the corporate entity Fandango Media (publisher).Wikipedia does not have a single house styleand does say that
the [widely used] Chicago Manual of Style ... may be used here. But, here, on this page we are discussing cs1|2. CMOS has no control over cs1|2. If you want to use CMOS in articles that you author, or edit, you are absolutely free to do so, assuming that there is consensus to support you in your efforts.
bad-faith argument? Go back and reread what I wrote. When I said:
None of these mention italic formatting, I was talking about the immediately preceding sentence where I pointed out that the words "common sense" and "exceptions" appeared only in
{{
subcat guideline}}
, the {{
redirect}}
template, and two subsections of
WP:CITE, to wit:
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations and
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags. None of those places mention italics.[W]e are discussing cs1|2. CMOS has no control over cs1is plain-speak. cs1|2 is not CMOS. They are different styles just as CMOS is not ALA and CMOS is not MLA and CMOS is not Bluebook. Because cs1|2 is not CMOS, the rules that apply to CMOS do not apply to cs1|2. In the past, CMOS may have influenced the development of cs1|2. Or not, I don't know; perhaps if you troll through the archives here and the various templates and modules you can learn if and where CMOS influence is felt.
{{
Cite AV media notes}} uses |others=
for the name of the recording's artist, and media notes often do not have a listed author. Here's an example pulled from
a real article:
Wikitext | {{cite AV media notes
|
---|---|
Live | Queen of the Clouds (liner notes). Tove Lo. United States:
Universal Music Group. 2014. B0021921-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (
link)
|
Sandbox | Queen of the Clouds (liner notes). Tove Lo. United States:
Universal Music Group. 2014. B0021921-02. {{
cite AV media notes}} : Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (
link)
|
The example categorizes the article in Category:CS1 maint: others, but this seems like a valid – and from the documentation and category population, widespread – usage.
Should we exclude Template:Cite AV media notes from the CS1 maint: others category? That would help us focus our analysis of potential problems on citations that are actually missing useful, available information. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite serial}}
so that they properly handle name lists: don't use aliases of |authors=
and don't misuse |others=
. I've been saying this on and off for a long time.I noticed in a reference to an old newspaper I added, through ProQuest, that someone changed |url=https://search.proquest.com/nahs/docview/344377835
to |id={{ProQuest|344377835}}
but now using |url-access=
and |access-date=
creates an error message that there's no url - which makes me wonder if it's better off the way it was. Is there any other option - or an error suppression flag?
Nfitz (
talk) 21:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
.Well ProQuest contains papers which were published in print; it's not like the access-date would be useful since it's not like it could change like other websites. For the same reason we don't have |jstor-access-date=
, |doi-access-date=
, etc. And just like DOIs, JSTOR IDs, etc., the default is that it's assumed a ProQuest link requires a subscription to access papers. So I'm not sure why it's necessarily better to say when you accessed a given paper via ProQuest or to use |url=
and |url-access=subscription
instead of just a ProQuest ID.
Umimmak (
talk) 23:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)