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 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
At this point, the change that made |website=
and |newspaper=
(or some type of "periodical" field) in {{
cite web}} and {{
cite news}} has been reverted after the long discussion at ANI.
We need to discuss what the fix is going forward.
|website=
and |newspaper=
as an italic style ,and close to around 200-300k existing cs1 citations out there are likely using |publisher=
to get a non-italic style for the name.This confusion seems to be stemming from the assumption that websites should be treated as a periodical reference. This is true for many websites, but does not extend wholly for things like the World Health Organization. Many a discussion has been held at the MOS pages that whether website should be italicized or not, with some not so strict guidance, but enough variance that forcing websites to be in italics created problems with this change.
Understanding that before any change is done that there likely will need to be a larger RFC to confirm, and giving editors time to fix templates as needed, as well as looking for potential bot aids, there needs to be some way to resolve this.
I had at least two ideas:
|publisher=
into the right parameter, and add the "no italics" flag. This seems like the easiest outside of the bot to make the automated changes.I'm sure there's other possibility and solutions. And of course, this is on reading the consensus that the ability to have non-italic website/newspaper names in the citations is what the community wants. But this is a discussion that should happen now, now that we have resolved the immediate issue. -- Masem ( t) 03:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It is clear from the ANI consensus that forcingNo, no it's not. You don't get to establish a false premise as an end-run around the consensus established at the proper location and place (above) on that point. The only real consensus from a content/style POV that discussion indicates is that people don't like errors showing up in their articles (whether deserved or not). -- Izno ( talk) 04:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
and not as |publisher=
, which was a point of contention in the changes (not just the error message issue). Clearly there was a disconnect between those maintaining cs1 and those using cs1 for how this should apply, and - if there is a need to fill metadata - that requires figuring out how to normalize the templates. Yes, the status quo is "fine" but there sounded like there were core technical reasons to make the change for metadata filling. --
Masem (
t) 15:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
\"SiteName\":\"World Health Organization\"
.|url=
, whereas it is an optional parameter in {{
cite news}}. That is how is should be. There is no need to change it. Neither requires a mandatory|periodical=
field.
Mjroots (
talk) 08:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
as that was not the issue at WP:AN. |publisher=
is optional and allowed in all cs1|2 templates except the preprint templates {{
cite arxiv}}
, etc.|publisher=
has never been a required parameter. There is / was no Cite <template> requires |publisher=
error message.{{
cite news}}
and {{
cite web}}
were for some sort of periodical parameter. Those error messages were:
|newspaper=
|website=
|publisher=
played no part in the determination to display these two error messages. During the WP:AN discussion, it was these error messages that were hidden, not the category (
Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical)|publisher=
in lieu of |website=
only because it strikes me as more useful. I have never cared about whether it produces italics or not and I don't think that is the main problem here.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
be a) deprecated, b) contain the hosting website and be mandatory (i.e even if |publisher=
is present), c) contain the hosting website and be supplantable with |publisher=
? And if c) is implemented, what kind of information should go into |publisher=
and what kind of information goes into |website=
?" Or something else.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
MOS does not apply to citations(emphasis added). MOS may not, on the one hand, permit any consistent citation style ( WP:CITESTYLE) and then on another hand dictate how that citation style must be used. This, I think, is the point you are trying to make at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § RfC appears to contradict MOS here. cs1|2, like it or not, are styles (after all they are named Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2).
|mode=mla
to render a few ({{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, and one or two others) in MLA format. The experiment 'worked' but the code to make it work was such a tangle that it would have made maintenance of the code base worse than it already is. The experiment was backed out and I hope will never be repeated.style error? According to whom?
reputable style [guides]mentioned here and at WP:CITESTYLE. Certainly it was influenced by the
reputable style [guides]but does not adhere to any particular one or group of them. Website titles have been italicized by
{{
cite web}}
since its inception (15 years ago).The Supreme Court of the United States is not the name or title of this website.I asked you to tell me why that name is not the name of the court's website. You have not answered that question but instead, concocted speculative 'rules' about title capitalization and author-name font as examples of
style errors. Then you wrote:
Similarly, Supreme Court of the United States is not a title.Similar to what? How do your concocted rule examples tell me why Supreme Court of the United States is not the name of the court's website?
misunderstanding of the concept title, write something that will give me that understanding. Simply making declarative statements that Supreme Court of the United States (or World Health Organization) is not a title does not help anyone to understand why you are so certain that they are not titles.
announcing that the Supreme Court’s website would start posting briefs
a separate statement posted on the Supreme Court's website
posted on the Supreme Court's website in the early afternoon
The Court’s opinion is available on its website
|website=
or |newspaper=
required parameters. One possible outcome, in line with the RfC, is that |website=
is either in italics or blank. It's the "not blank" thing that seems to be one editor's thing, in my view, not the italics thing. –
Leviv
ich 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
When I waded through the chain of links within Wikipedia pages in the article and WP: space, I found myself at Z39.88-2004: The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services The Key/Encoded-Value (KEV) Format Implementation Guidelines. These have different metadata keys for different so-called generes. Examples include
So it strikes me that {{ cite web}} is emitting false metadata whenever the website is not a periodical. Due to the pervasive use of cite web for all kinds of things, I suggest that {{ cite web}} be modified to not emit any metadata, to avoid emitting falsehoods. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
renders stylistically like a journal citation, we use the COinS journal object with rft.genre
set to unknown
. For completeness:
rft.genre=article
– {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
rft.genre=conference
– {{
cite conference}}
when a periodical parameter is setrft.genre=preprint
– {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
This edit assisted by (made by?) by OAbot seems to have generated a parsing error in cite journal by adding a url parameter. I suppose it is the prior presence of "title-link", which might itself have been a misuse but one that wasn't flagged and seemed functional. Thank you for maintaining our citation templates so well. It's a pity some users are less ... Thincat ( talk) 09:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
|title=
to two different targets. |title-link=s:Mount Everest: The Reconnaissance
is a perfectly valid link into WikiSource. cs1|2 might handle this particular error a bit better by choosing either of |title-link=
or |url=
to link |title=
. Which should it be? When more than one link target is present, it's still an error so there will be some sort of message.|url=
to a cs1|2 template when that template has a valid title link so you should raise this issue at
User talk:OAbot.Accordind to the sfn documentation (More than one work in a year)
When
{{sfn}}
is used with{{ citation}}
or Citation Style 1 templates, a year-suffix letter may be added to|date=
for all accepted date formats except year initial numeric (YYYY-MM-DD). It is not necessary to include both|year=
and|date=
. If both are included,|year=
is used for theCITEREF
anchor to be compliant with legacy citations.
Also with regard to the direct use of CITEREF the following advice is given
Please consider keeping reference names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals
The function check_date
(
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation) takes proper care of the optional suffix, but in an unsatisfactory way. People find natural, if not normative, to suffix the year with letters from their native alphabet.
Hence
{{cite book |last=Αργυρίου |first=Αλέξανδρος |title=Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940) |volume=τ.Αʹ |publisher=Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη |location=Αθήνα |year=2002α |isbn=978-960-03-3156-1 |ref=harv}}
will produce this, because the year is suffixed with a greek alpha
Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη.
ISBN
978-960-03-3156-1. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
There is nothing wrong with the matching pattern, it is the use of the standard string library instead of ustring that breaks things (lines 564-5).
Is this a "feature" (a rather awkward one if you ask me) or an omission? paa ( talk) 09:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed in the sandbox, I think. Also required a fix to Module:Footnotes/sandbox:
{{harv/sandbox|Αργυρίου|2002α}}
→ (
Αργυρίου 2002α)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη.
ISBN
978-960-03-3156-1. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |ref=harv (
help)
|
Sandbox | Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη.
ISBN
978-960-03-3156-1. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |ref=harv (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
Cite document}}, {{
Cite paper}}, and {{
Citepaper}} all redirect to {{
Cite journal}}. Since {{
Cite document}}, {{
Cite paper}}, and {{
Citepaper}} are not likely to have the |journal=
parameter populated, these citations will generate the Cite journal requires |journal= error. Would it be better to have {{
Cite document}}, {{
Cite paper}}, and {{
Citepaper}} to redirect to {{
Cite report}} instead to avoid the error? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
|type=Report
so that the title renders in italics. (It's rare that I'd cite something that qualifies as a report that's also short enough to be considered a short-form document, and in those few cases, I err on the side of consistency with the rest and go italics.)
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC){{
cite report}}
and just repointing those redirects will break something. You might guess that I'm a bit sensitive to broken stuff right now ...{{
cite journal}}
(and, for that matter to the other cs1 templates). Then, if we decide that we need a {{
cite document}}
template, we create one.|zenodo=
This would allow us to cleanup all these |url=
https://zenodo.org/record/3348115#.XTk3rXt7kUE
or |url=
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3348115
to be |zenodo=3348115
→
Zenodo:
3348115 (with the green lock) instead. Or |doi=10.5281/zenodo.3348115
→ |zenodo=3348115
.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
|zenodo=
, since |doi=
and |url=
can already be used to store such links. Adding custom support for identifier schemes that are covered by the DOI system defeats the point of DOIs (having a unified identifier system on top of many providers). I think Zenodo URLs can already be made canonical as things stand. −
Pintoch (
talk) 15:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
|doi=
, then you're usurping the version of record DOI. It's the same with |biorxiv=
. It's technically a doi, but it's not the DOI.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)For works where an author's name is published as Surname Given-name (authors using "Eastern name order"), which underlying code is preferred? One option is putting the family name in |last=
, given name in |first=
, and then using |author-mask=
so that the name appears in the citation without the comma. Using |ref=harv
is straightforward, but one needs to add in punctuation such as the semicolon in |author-mask=
if there are any subsequent authors.
(1a) {{cite book|last=Zhang |first=San |first2=John |last2=Smith |date=2019 |title=Title |author-mask=Zhang San; |ref=harv}} with {{harv|Zhang|Smith|2019}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) with (
Zhang & Smith 2019)If |author-mask=
shouldn't be used to overwrite how the name appears in the citation, then one can put the entire name in the |author=
field as it was published. Then one would have to use {{
harvid}} within |ref=
if the article uses Harvard citations/shortened footnotes.
(1b) {{cite book|author=Li Si |first2=Jane |last2=Doe |date=2019 |title=Title |ref=harvid|Li|Doe}} with {{harv|Li|Doe|2019}}
Both methods also work with editors (sparing the details of |ref={{
harvid}}
):
(2a) {{cite book|editor-last=Kovács |editor-first=János |editor-mask=Kovács János; |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}
(2b) {{cite book|editor=Kovács János |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}
And with contributors (and again, sparing |ref=
details ):
(3a) {{cite book|contributor=Hong Gildong|contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}
(3b) {{cite book|contributor-last=Hong |contributor-first=Gildong |contributor-mask=Hong Gildong |contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}
Is there a reason why one method should be preferred over the other? Both produce the same visual output, but I was wondering if there were benefits to one over the other for other reasons. Thanks. Umimmak ( talk) 05:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
|author-mask=
adds the article to
Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation which will no doubt get improperly fixed by someone or some bot or some script which then becomes a maintenance headache. On the other hand, for the purposes of metadata, |last=
and |first=
are the preferred author-name parameters so using |author-mask=
to hide the name separator comma is to be preferred over |author=
with {{
sfnref}}
.|authorn-mask=
accept text arguments in {{
Harvc}} as well so it would work in a similar fashion? Thanks. And again, no rush on this; I know things have been a bit hectic.
Umimmak (
talk) 05:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
{{harv|Black|2019}}
→ (
Black 2019){{harv|Brown|Black|2019}}
→ (
Brown & Black 2019){{harvc/sandbox |last=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask=Black Masked}}
{{harvc/sandbox |last=Brown |last2=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask2=2}}
|pages=
). One editor's superfluity is another editor's helpful additional link. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
links the source's title/home page, and |chapter-url=
uses the same link modified to locate a sub-page. This seems superfluous. The IA bot adds |url=
even when an in-source location url (in the diff example, a chapter url) is already present. The source link is of course published by the same provider (the Internet Archive) in both cases. Obviously, the bot would not be able to do this if multiple instances of the same website were disallowed in a citation.
65.88.88.91 (
talk) 20:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)|url=
when |doi=
is providedPer
User talk:Citation bot/Archive 18#"Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier", if |url=
should be removed when a |doi=
is provided, then per Masem's comment in that thread, shouldn't CS1 throw an error for the former rule, particularly in {{
cite journal}}?
czar 17:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
|doi=
and |url=
because A DOI links to a permanent web page with a specific year's assessment that will never be updated, so when a new assessment is issued, a new DOI will be created and the old one will then point to the previous assessment. An ID-based URL should always link to the current assessment, but that URL is not guaranteed to work indefinitely. Thus, it is probably best to use both, and to use the ID-based URL if only one URL will be used.But I do think in general it’s probably redundant and cluttered to have a DOI and the present address the DOI resolves to in the
|url=
field. The linked discussion began with examples like |url=
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539513000915
with |doi=10.1016/j.wsif.2013.05.012
. I’m not sure I see the issue with removing those sorts of |url=
s. But I agree that this shouldn’t be treated as a CS1 error—particularly as the |url=
often provides a different, typically free, way to access a paper.
Umimmak (
talk) 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Now that
#RfC on linking title to PMC has been closed, I would like an option to disable the automatic linking to PMC when it would be inappropriate (such as when the peer-reviewed version is available via DOI) in {{
cite xxx}}
(see
previous discussion [
perma]). I think the most obvious and intuitive way would be |url=none
.
Nardog (
talk) 08:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Could a bot be used to add the prefixes for e.x. here?-- Lirim | Talk 16:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
|language=
. The script parameters are:
|script-article=
, |script-chapter=
, |script-contribution=
, |script-entry=
, |script-journal=
, |script-magazine=
, |script-newspaper=
, |script-periodical=
, |script-section=
, |script-title=
, |script-website=
, |script-work=
|language=
be different from the language used in the associated script parameter).|pages=e01633{{hyphen}}17
gives the following
Instead of the correct/expected
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
|pages=
instead of |page=
? It looks like just one page is being cited. Using {{
cite compare}}:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
Sandbox | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
|pages=
:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
Sandbox | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
|page=
is technically more correct than |pages=
. However, we don't mangle the output if you have something like |pages=124
or |page=124–127
, so there's no reason to silently mangle the output here either.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
hyphen}}
is processed before the cs1|2 template and because {{hyphen}}
renders as -
with a trailing semicolon: then |pages=1{{hyphen}}2
becomes |pages=1-2
which (because pages plural) cs1|2 treats as two separate pages 1-
and 2
. Had you used |page=1{{hyphen}}2
(singular) then cs1|2 ignores the semicolon separator character.|page=e01633-17
with the keyboard hyphen character; don't use {{hyphen}}
.Would it be possible to have a url2 facility for URLs in {{ cite news}}? I deal with a lot of clippings from newspapers.com, and when an article continues across multiple clippings, I have to append a (Continued) to the end of the reference outside of the citation template because there's no way to link clippings together at one URL. (For instance, a reference of KMCS (Kansas) needs this.) Sammi Brie ( t • c) 21:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
|pages=1, 6-7
), I think it suffices to give the reader the url for the first page. I am pretty sure most readers could find their way to the rest of the pages without a separate url. If you have a large article and want to provide a specific in-source location (perhaps more than one), that is best handled by appending a suitable link (or links) to the in-line citation. E.g.: <ref>{{cite news | ...|ps=,}} [https:newspapers.com/xxx6/ page 6, col. 2].</ref>
♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am pretty sure most readers could find their way to the rest of the pages without a separate url.— maybe this is just because I’m not familiar with Newspapers.com, but I’m not seeing an easy way to get from [1] to [2], especially without an account/subscription. If the editor has access to all the relevant clippings, it definitely makes it significantly more convenient to the reader and other editors to link multiple locations. Umimmak ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
[E]specially without an account/subscription" — for sure, and that's a different problem. If you need to use multiple urls for the full citation then do as Sammi Brie suggested: append the extra information to the template. E.g., something like:
<ref>{{cite news |... |url=https://newspapers.com/xxx1|ps=,}} continued at [https://newspapers.com/xxx6/ page 6].</ref>
♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
|pages=
works for me, although I do wonder if this might cause issues for the
COinS metadata. But I’m not super familiar with that; I just vaguely recall this issue coming up in the past and another editor having that concern.
Umimmak (
talk) 00:58, 19 September 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.
@
Izno: Hi. It appears you've missed the fact that {{
Citation}} has a |mode=cs1
.
Here is a sample:
See the difference? flowing dreams ( talk page) 11:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
is not a cs1 template. It can be made to look like a cs1 template with |mode=cs1
. Similarly, cs1 templates can be made to look like cs2 with |mode=cs2
. Including cs2 in a table specifically intended for cs1 just muddies the water. You might consider implementing a similar table at
Help:Citation Style 2.|ref=
default value (cs1: not set, cs2: harv
). When |mode=cs1
is set in {{
citation}}
(a cs2 template) the rendered citation uses a period for element separators, capitalized static text, has a period for terminal punctuation, and does not set |ref=
. When |mode=cs2
is set in any of the cs1 templates, the rendered citation uses a comma for element separators, does not capitalize static text, does not have terminal punctuation, and sets |ref=harv
.|ref=
default value: not set|mode=cs1
is set in {{
citation}}
(a cs2 template) the rendered citation uses:
|ref=
default value: not set{{
citation}}
with |mode=cs1
is still a cs2 template; its rendering has just been disguised to look like the rendering of a cs1 template.{{
cite book}}
; news sources → {{
cite news}}
; preprints held at
arXiv → {{
cite arxiv}}
; dissertations and theses → {{
cite thesis}}
.|mode=cs1
. Perhaps it shouldn’t be mentioned alongside {{
Cite journal}} and the like, but I can understand why some editors might find it helpful to be reminded of this as a possibility when adding citations to an article in CS1 style, even if it isn’t a CS1 template itself.
Umimmak (
talk) 13:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure what the big fuss is about, but {{
citation}} isn't a CS1 template, it's a CS2 template, and shouldn't be shoehorned into CS1 advice simply because there's a |mode=cs1
. Likewise, CS1 templates aren't CS2 template simply because the |mode=cs2
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
don't object to such a mention in HELP:CS1, just so long as it is
not in the table that is expressly for cs1 templates. This seems like a fair compromise to all parties involved. @ Flowing dreams: your comments have been quite uncivil and full of accusations of bad faith, harassment, and the like. It would have been much more productive to work with other editors—ones more familiar with Wikipedia citation templates and their documentation—in order to come up with ways of doing this instead of insisting inclusion in the table of CS1 templates. My suggestion would be a sentence in the Help:Citation Style 1 § Style section, but I would defer to those editors who have spent more time thinking about these issues. Umimmak ( talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have three issues of a paper journal, each of which carries a barcode and text reading "ISSN 977 0016639 051"; that ISSN is also found online, for example at [3].
However:
<ref name="Gibbons">{{cite journal |last1=Gibbons |first1=Sue |title=Percival Boyd |journal=Genealogists' Magazine |date=March 2005 |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=187-195 |publisher=[[Society of Genealogists]] |issn=9770016639051}}</ref>
gives a template error [1] and https://www.worldcat.org/issn/9770016639051 find no entry.
What's up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help)
Thanks all; interesting. I am minded to agree with Headbomb that the 8-digit form should be enforced, but we could perhaps trap this alternative with a custom error message ("Did you mean..?"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of supplements, here's a challenge for everyone: I have a citable (because it is independently written) box in a chapter in a special supplement to a volume/issue in a journal. (Supplement available here. See "How do we know the world has warmed?" on p. S26.)
The preferred result would be on the lines of:
Kennedy, et al., (2010) "How do we know the world has warmed?". In: "State of the Climate in 2009". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 91(7):26 ....
Which I can almost do. Except that {cite journal} and {citation} ignore |chapter=
, and {cite book} drops the issue number and misformats the page number. I have also tried doing a minimal {cite journal} for the box, and appending "In: {cite journal ....}}" for the the supplement, but the page number doesn't work.
So: any suggestions? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
|at=
instead. --
Izno (
talk) 23:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC){{cite journal|author=Author|title=Introduction: BoxTitle|department=Special Supplements|journal=Journal|issue=1 ''SupplementTitle''|p=S1}}
Author. "Introduction: BoxTitle". Special Supplements. Journal (1 SupplementTitle): S1. {{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
|at=
to finesse the page numbering, right? Yes, that looks good. And |deparatment=
, of course, how could I have overlooked that??! Thanks to you both. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)According to WP:CS1, "Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring/summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source." (my emphasis) However in Muhammad_III_of_Granada#Primary_sources, I used "1247 AH" as the date (see "Ibn al-Khaṭīb (1347 AH)") and got a validation error Check date values in: |date=. How do I fix this? HaEr48 ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
|date=c. 1928
, plus either |orig-year=original date 1347
AH
or |quote=[Source pub. date] 1347
AH [+page# where this information is found]
.
24.105.132.254 (
talk) 14:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
This template help page states, "title: Title of source. Can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url may be used to add an external link, but not both. Displays in italics." It actually does not display in italics, as it should not because that would be the wrong format. Episode titles are properly formatted in quotes, never italics. It does display, in fact, in quotes so that needs clarification and I'm not sure if I am allowed to edit this or not. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 18:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
There are scientific journals that do not contain articles, but simply publish scientific data at regular intervals. One example is Minor Planet Circulars. How do I cite an entire issue, without specifying the title parameter (as there is no title to specify)? Specifically, I needed to cite a new observatory code listed on page 1 of issue 85415: https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf. Typing in
{{cite journal |journal=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |issn=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |issue=85415 |page=1 |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf |format=PDF}}
obviously produces a missing title error. I've worked around it by adding |title=New observatory codes
, but this is wrong, as "New observatory codes" is merely a section title, not an article title. Perhaps, there is some way to use {{citation}} template without specifying the title parameter? —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
|title=none
. But that won't work for this example because then there would be nothing for the url to link to. If you had a doi instead of a url it would work. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
|title=none
, but |issue=
has a value, then the issue should get linked to the provided URL. The semantics being that the URL points to an HTML page or a file containing the entire issue of the journal in question. For example, typing the code above would produce the following: Minor Planet Circulars ( 85415 (PDF)): 1. 17 November 2013. ISSN 0736-6884.
|issue=
has no value, then {{citation}} should throw an error, as it does now:
|url=
missing title or issue ( help)
{{
London Gazette}}
as a possible model:
{{London Gazette |issue=33000 |date=9 December 1924 |page=8957}}
{{London Gazette}}
– which is a misnomer, as the template also supports Belfast Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette – is a "macro" template that saves time by building the URL automatically from |city=
, |issue=
, and |page=
. It is certainly possible and perhaps even useful to implement a similar template for MPEC, MPC, MPS, and MPO, as they all have standard uniform URLs. But there still has to be a general solution to the problem of "article-less" journals.|title=
. A missing/empty |title=
will still produce a missing title error, so the new editors will still be taught to always include the title. The behavior will only be triggered by explicitly setting |title=none
, signalling: "I know what I'm doing. I'm doing this because I'm citing an "article-less" journal, and I want the issue linked to the URL."{{London Gazette}}
to the new system, as this looks more consistent with other citations:The London Gazette ( 33000): 8957. 9 December 1924.
{{cite techreport|url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf|title=Minor Planet Circulars|number=85415|institution=[[Minor Planet Center]]|date=17 November 2013|p=1|issn= 0736-6884}}
Minor Planet Circulars (PDF) (Technical report).
Minor Planet Center. 17 November 2013. p. 1.
ISSN
0736-6884. 85415.
|type=none
will remove "(Technical report)" from the display. But imo, this would not be helpful to the average Wikipedia reader re:precision. The circulars, are after all, technical reports.
24.105.132.254 (
talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
{{cite journal |journal=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |issn=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |issue=85415 |title=none |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf |page=1}}
→{{citation |mode=cs1 |title=695 Kitt Peak |periodical=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf#page=121 |page=M.P.C. 85535 |nopp=yes |date=2013-11-17}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
and |periodical=
to get away from the journal style volume / issue / page format because, in this case, there is no volume nor issue; just page numbers; |nopp=yes
hides the pagination prefix.{{cite techreport |institution=[[Minor Planet Center]] |title=Minor Planet Circulars |ISSN=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |page=85535 |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf#page=121 |type=none}}
|chapter=
as a stand in for a batch of circulars, with its title taken from the page header:
{{cite techreport |institution=[[Minor Planet Center]] |title=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |ISSN=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |chapter=M.P.C. 2013 NOV. 17 |page=85535 |chapter-url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf#page=121 |type=none}}
There's been a couple of times lately, I've been pondering how to handle the increasingly different headlines between print and Internet versions of articles. While the articles appear to be identical (occasionally with an extra paragraph or two on the Internet version - perhaps trimmed for length), the headlines can differ massively. Today's example is on page A9 of the September 1 Toronto Star called The road with NO GREED LIMIT. The internet version though is a much more politically inflammatory Birth of a fiasco: How the Ontario Tories completely botched the sale of Highway 407. So which one should be cited? My preference would be to cite both - but I don't see an appropriate field. Any thoughts? Nfitz ( talk) 16:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not title=foo [print] bar [Internet]
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
plz add it · Carn !? 09:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This very long WP:AN discussion has just concluded, and requires changes to the modules, some of which have been made already:
The following change has also been made since the updates listed above, but it was not mandated by the discussion closure:
|dead-url=
/ |deadurl=
(already changed to "hidden" using CSS)We (Trappist, unless someone else has the programming skills) should probably make the remaining change as soon as possible. We could optionally start displaying the deprecated parameter messages, but I think that would just make people angry. I would prefer to see that happen after 99% or more of the |dead-url=
/ |deadurl=
have been converted to the new |url-status=
parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Trappist says everything required by the close is completed. The closing message also said "The other updates shall stand", so I think we should also monitor the progress plan for finalizing this change.
|dead-url=
The following were in scope for this change, but are now to be treated as discussions before further updates.
|dead-url=
- is that needed and welcome?|website=
, can documentation be updated and agreed upon?-- JAGulin ( talk) 14:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-hidden-error {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 hidden errors */
When url-status=dead, it correctly produces:
When url-status=unfit, it incorrectly produces:
The case is not agreeing with the comma before it. The second one should change to ", a", to match the first (unless there is a reason for it to be capitalized, in which case it should change to ". A"). (I'm not expert in citing, here or elsewhere.) - A876 ( talk) 04:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live |
Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29{{
citation}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Sandbox |
Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29{{
citation}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Sandbox | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Sandbox | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Title. Archived from the original on 2019-09-29.{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Sandbox |
Title. Archived from the original on 2019-09-29.{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Now that the blocking rfc has been closed, I propose to update the live cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019. Changes are:
|xxx-url-access=
error reporting;
discussion|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;
discussion|map-url-access=
;
discussion|title=
for {{
cite encyclopedia}}
;
discussion|issue=
& |volume=
in {{
citation}}
same as cs1 templates; {{citation|website=...}}
error message when |url=
missing or empty;
discussion{{
cite ssrn}}
;
discussion|doi-broken=
requires |doi=
error messaging;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|distributor=
;
discussion|script-periodical
and |trans-periodical
parameter support;|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;|map-url-access=
;|doi-broken=
requires |doi=
error messaging;Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
|contribution-url-access=
;
discussion|chapter=
aliases;
discussion|script-periodical
and |trans-periodical
parameter support;|lay-summary=
and |laysummary=
;
discussion|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;|map-url-access=
;{{cite ssrn}}
;Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|doi=10.5555...
error detection;
discussion|doi-inactive=
categorization;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Utilities:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
|agency=
one in
here also throw an error?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 07:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
|agency=
isn't used in the templates at the link you provided.@ Trappist the monk: Even with the heads up, this change caused some problems. Please assist in the questions below. JAGulin ( talk) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Trappist the monk: When using cite web a large number of red errors are sprinkled through the references saying "Cite web requires |website=". It is quite clear that cite web does not actually require the website parameter from the documentation, so whatever code is generating this error should be reverted or cut. This error is in CSS class "cs1-visible-error error citation-comment" Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
is dramatically unexpected behaviour and different to how I've been using the template for over 5 years. I often use publisher instead, but even if both are omitted, it should not be an error as the reference is still sufficient without either parameter as long as it includes a URL, a title and enough extra information to specify the reference if the URL breaks (e.g. author). This error type should be removed quite urgently due to the number of articles it affects. —
Bilorv (
talk) 12:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
" and again as Rfassbind says the citation in question has a |publisher=
parameter in it. It seems a bit superfluous to me for the citation to have to read {{cite web |url=http://foo.com/the_greatest_thing_ever_told |title=Whatever |website=foo.com |publisher=The Foo Corporation}}
producing|publisher=
be added as an acceptable alternative to the periodical parameters already listed?
Nthep (
talk) 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
starting spitting ugly red error messages everywhere? Especially when there's already a perfectly appropriate |publisher=
in there.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 11:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
as well as
the other options.
JAGulin (
talk) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website/work/...=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
and {{
cite magazine}}
. I seems that adding this error message to {{
cite web}}
has not been discussed, and in view of the apparent lack of consensus, should be reverted.
Kanguole 16:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
from the discussion was merely an oversight on my part. The code that emits the missing periodical error message is the same for all of the periodical templates / parameters.website
param for the same source. Noting that url
is unique and unambiguous and rarely misused, and "website" is none of the above, might lead you to the conclusion that making "url" required for a web page, and "website" merely informative and optional, was another way to go.
Mathglot (
talk) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
"watching ten different users place five different things in the website
param"
- This issue was addressed in the citation tool, at my suggestion, by changing the label from "website" to "website name". Maybe the same fix could be applied to the parameter itself?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)'This has gone far enough. It's not a documentation issue but an issue of overreaching micromanagement by the maintainers of the citation template group who have an incorrect understanding of policy. I feel that the changes (to flag "incorrectly populated" parameters) have been put through unilaterally without due concensus are detrimental to the project. As highlighted already by fellow editors, the numerous red cs1-errors tags that have been appearing since the change do not always correctly identify parameters that are problematic. Please note that few WP articles about websites have
italicised titles, so it is entirely jumping the gun to decide that all websites ought to be italicised within the reference section, as no consensus has been so reached locally nor according to policy and guidelines. The way I see around the problem would be a relatively easy but fastidious fix. To ensure that the titles of sources within the reference sections display according to the names in article space, I would see little alternative but to replace the {{
cite web}}, {{
cite news}} with the {{
citation}} template. This would then allow the unrestricted (and unflagged) use of |newspaper=
and their aliases, |publisher=
when appropriate. All I would need to do is to incorporate a suitable regex in my script, and those errant error messages will go away. However, I hope that we can come to a sensible arrangement with which all editors can be satisfied. --
Ohc
¡digame! 21:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Same for 'dead-url' paramter... I see this is listed now as deprecated and replaced with url-status, but couldn't there be a bot or something to fix them first? Broken citations everywhere are not a good look I'd think... -- IamNotU ( talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What are the available options? Getting errors and not sure how to format properly. There should be a mechanism to automatically rename parameter labels of citations in production when such labels change. As a utility module perhaps. 108.182.15.109 ( talk) 12:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|dead-url=
was deprecated in favor of |url-status=
, which accepts 'dead', 'live', 'unfit', 'usurped', and 'bot: unknown' (without quotation marks of course), so the only parameters which will have changed are the first two. As for renaming, there is a bot task approved for that work to start now. --
Izno (
talk) 12:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 16 — Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Echoing some of the other comments here regarding the rollout of this change, as well as the change itself. Why was it necessary to deprecate deadurl for this new param? And why was such a major change made, apparently, almost unilaterally? It seems to offer no obvious benefits over deadurl, and the rollout has caused an incredible amount of chaos across the project. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 21:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
-url
:
|archive-url=
, |article-url=
, |chapter-url=
, |conference-url=
, |contribution-url=
, |entry-url=
, |event-url=
, |lay-url=
, |map-url=
, |section-url=
, |transcript-url=
|dead-url=
does not hold a url but, because it looks like it should, editors do use it to hold the dead url. |url-status=
was the best name we could come up with that didn't end in -url
and still conveyed the meaning that we were looking for.|url-dead=
and rejected it because it is awkward in an English-grammar-sort-of-way. |etal=
doesn't work because, besides authors, there are also contributors, editors, interviewers, and translators.|url-status=
are "unfit" and "usurped", which would not make sense syntactically with a parameter name that included the word "dead", including the old |dead-url=
parameter. As for the hyphen, CS1 was
standardized long ago on hyphenated parameters when the parameter name contains more than one word. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)This new change is crazy, disruptive, and does not appear to have consensus here. "URL" is much easier to remember, quicker to type in, and its something editors are used to doing. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
remains entirely undeprecated. --
Izno (
talk) 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
is a periodical parameter much like |journal=
is a periodical parameter. It names the website because the website name is hidden in |url=
.|website=
actually does: {{cite web|url=https://www.example.com/|website=ExampleWebsite |title=Webpage}}
produces
"Webpage". ExampleWebsite. --
Izno (
talk) 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
displays new CS1 Error messages:
The changes were probably added today and affect numerous citations (millions?). Are these permanent changes? And if so, where are they documented? Rfassbind – talk 12:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to overturn the mass change made to Module:Citation/CS1 - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Trappist the monk: Sorry to ping you, but I know you're the expert even if I may be wrong about this. Was mode parameter check among the changes in this batch? Is it too complicated or undesirable to make value lowercase before use? Also, the Category:CS1_errors:_invalid_parameter_value seems to keeps track of each article, but not the offending Template itself. When I fixed OED 200 errors were solved in one go. If the template/doc pages were listed in a sub-category it would make it easier to fix those first. -- JAGulin ( talk) 11:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
*τ {{PAGENAME}}
may be the sortorder I suggest for templates, in cases like this when I want to gather them in the beginning of the list. All of this is in vain if no templates show up in the category, but I would think that at least the doc page should be listed.
JAGulin (
talk) 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
Namespace Greek}}
. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 11:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC).|deadurl=No/Yes
(change to |url-status=live/dead
, respectively) and to |nopp=Y
(change "Y" to "y"). –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)The change log says 'add support for {{ cite ssrn}}', but no such template exist. This needs to be created. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite ssrn/new}}
.{{invoke:}}
(not Lua code), {{
documentation}}
(not Lua code), and <includeonly>...</includeonly>
& <noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags (not Lua code). The invoke should not point to the module sandbox.Since there are many pages and edit summaries that link to the old (and recently mostly deleted categories), wouldn't it be better to {{ Category redirect}} them instead of deleting? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Category:CS1: long volume value should probably display a cs1-maint (the green type) message, right? Currently it has no visual output. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
|volume-subtitle=
parameter or something to that effect. -
BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)What is the correct resolution for invisible character errors in citations with titles using zero-width joiners between emoji, as in the citation on 2019 in American television? — Ost ( talk) 20:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
{{cite tweet|number=1155848220775452673|user=TeenNick|author=TeenNick|title=An all new season of #HunterStreet is coming to TeenNick TONIGHT at 7:30/6:30p 🕵️‍♀️ |date=July 29, 2019|accessdate=September 26, 2019}}
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite compare}}
no longer obeys |old=no
; any value causes the transclusion of {{cite xxx/old}}
. In this case, {{
cite arXiv/old}}
unconditionally adds
Category:Articles with missing Cite arXiv inputs regardless of the namespace. The fix for this is at {{cite compare}}
to make it obey |old=no
. Pinging Editor
Izno?|old=
and made it so that any value caused the old template to display. The correct fix is to remove |old=no
in this case. --
Izno (
talk) 13:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
|old=no
behave the same as |old=yes
is counter-intuitive. I suggest fixing that, or at least cleaning up all former uses that depended on the previous behavior. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
|old=yes
should trigger display of the old template). --
Izno (
talk) 14:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)These two identically formatted citations, as found in Abelian group:
produce inconsistent formatting: the first book's volume number is bolded and the second is not.
Maybe we should fix this? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
|volume=36-I
→ 4 characters|volume=36-II
→ 5 characters|volume=
should be used.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking something like
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is the urgency? This has been discussed since the change to conditional bolding was being considered, some years back. Why does this keep popping up? Either leave as is and provide a better explanation for the apparent inconsistency, or apply uniform font weight. It is a bit tiresome to keep revisiting the same issues. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 15:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Why does this keep popping up?Because it's an unresolved problem? — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 19:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is some things to cleanup, most related to citations. I think the related bug in VE has been fixed. -- Izno ( talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
In
The final |, generated though {{!}}
, is missing. The title should display as ... direct measurement of |Vtb|.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
{{xt|{{!}}V<sub>tb</sub>{{!}}}}
which renders exactly as intended, e.g. |Vtb|. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Headbomb (
talk •
contribs) 18:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
<math>...</math>
is problematic because MediaWiki took away our ability to see the underlying content of the tag. The content of <math>...</math>
is rendered visually as an image; logged in editors can select one of three styles according to a setting in their
Special:Preferences. When MediaWiki took away our ability to see the image's underlying makeup, we lost the ability to render any sort of meaningful metadata. All that
Module:Citation/CS1 sees is a math stripmarker that looks something like this: ?'"`UNIQ--math-0000001C-QINU`"'?
(the '?' characters represent the delete character). Because we can no longer see what that stripmarker represents, all title metadata for titles with <math>...</math>
in them get an error message (MATH RENDER ERROR
) in place of the <math>...</math>
content. So, for the example template, cs1 produces this article title metadata:
&rft.atitle=Evidence+for+production+of+single+top+quarks+and+first+direct+measurement+of+MATH+RENDER+ERROR
<math>...</math>
tags. See the phabricator ticket.|"{delimiter}
it renders "{delimiter}{delimiter}
.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 01:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
pipe}}
is discouraged because it produces improper metadata.|title=
field, unlike the magic word/variable, which apparently trips when display format is applied on the parameter.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 14:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
script_concatenate
function in
Module:Citation/CS1 (lines 572-580). The {{
!}} variable works as it should when inserted in other fields, but not for |title=
(and its various aliases). The function that formats |title=
(format_chapter_title
) uses the function script_concatenate
. See line 714, and the code comment: -- <bdi> tags, lang atribute, categorization, etc; must be done after title is wrapped. This also appears in section "format main title" starting in line 3110 (the pertinent statements are in lines 3126-3140). So
|title=
formatting may have something to do with the disappearing variable after all?
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Abazov, V.M.; et al. ( DØ Collaboration) (2007). "Evidence for production of single top quarks and first direct measurement of |Vtb|". Physical Review Letters. 98 (18): 181802. arXiv: hep-ex/0612052. Bibcode: 2007PhRvL..98r1802A. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.181802. hdl: 10211.3/194387. PMID 17501561. |
Sandbox | Abazov, V.M.; et al. ( DØ Collaboration) (2007). "Evidence for production of single top quarks and first direct measurement of |Vtb|". Physical Review Letters. 98 (18): 181802. arXiv: hep-ex/0612052. Bibcode: 2007PhRvL..98r1802A. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.181802. hdl: 10211.3/194387. PMID 17501561. |
is_wikilink(str)
in the live module does not return when it discovers that str
is not a wikilink, the live module assumes that trailing (and / or leading) pipes in D
and L
are an acceptable form of wikilink; these all work:
[[Abraham Lincoln]]
→
Abraham Lincoln (no pipes)[[|Abraham Lincoln]]
→
Abraham Lincoln (leading pipe)[[Abraham Lincoln|]]
→
Abraham Lincoln (trailing pipe)[[Abraham Lincoln|Abe|]]
→
Abe| (trailing pipe)is_wikilink()
function is called because journal titles need to be kerned if the title's first and / or last character is some form of quote mark. When the title is wikilinked, the leading / trailing quote marks may be inside the display portion of the wikilink. It occurs to me that L
can never have a leading pipe so L = L and mw.text.trim (L, '%s|');
is pointless. I have disabled that line while I think about it and revised the early exit test.if not
condition you added seems to work out, I guess this is resolved in some fashion.
172.254.98.154 (
talk) 17:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)In Schröder–Hipparchus number, we have a citation
that accurately describes the publication dates of this book: Volume I was published in 1997, Volume II in 1999, and after the end of the template the rest of the footnote refers to several pages from each volume. (This is citation style 2, not CS1, but it makes no difference for the issue at hand). Although the template formats this correctly, it also throws a reference error because of the date format:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)Trying to be helpful,
Yiosie2356 "fixed" the error by changing it to 1997–1999, which indeed is no longer marked by the citation template as being an error but is in fact more erroneous than the original citation. The book was not published over a range of dates, it was published in two volumes on two separate and specific dates, and the original citation reflected that while the "fixed" version does not. Is there some way to continue to use the citation template to get both the correct dates and no error? Or is this one of the many recent instances where the increasing rigidity of the template conflicts with the flexibility of real-world citations and forces us to format the citation manually? For instance, {{
harvs}} has a |year2=
parameter; maybe we could consider having a similar parameter in the citation templates themselves? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why a citation to a two-volume work should be forced to be artificially split into two separate but almost equal citations?
Relatedly, the documentation says "Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring/summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source." However, it appears to be false that freeform dates are allowed. Maybe we should either remove this claim or clarify what types of dates are allowed? For instance {{citation|title=Persian calendar|title-link=Iranian calendars|date=1398 SH}} does not work:
Persian calendar, 1398 SH {{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)
I found this cite web template in George Washington:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
Sandbox | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
I'm seeing "CS1 maint: extra punctuation". At the linked help page, I see "The test that adds articles to this category is currently limited to checking for trailing commas, colons, or semicolons (,:;
)."
I do not see any trailing ,:;
in this citation.
Removing the |ref=
parameter and its value appears to eliminate the maintenance message:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
Sandbox | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
...but I do not know why. What am I missing? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
sfnref}}
is rendered:
{{sfnRef|"Five-star Generals, 2017"}}
→ CITEREF"Five-star_Generals,_2017"
→ CITEREF"Five-star_Generals,_2017"What happened to the |supplement= parameter on cite news? It either isn't working anymore or for some reason was removed which seems pretty stupid to remove that. Govvy ( talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
|supplement=
ever existed in cs1|2 templates.|type=supplement
instead. If the particular supplement is a regular feature, identify the feature in e.g |department=weekly magazine
or |department=annual survey
or some such.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
{{cite newspaper}}
is as a redirect to {{
cite news}}
. Over its history, that has never changed.|department=
.|supplement=
parameter. It's not a CS1 template, but could be the source of confusion.
Jts1882 |
talk 16:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
What's the proper format for name suffixes like Jr. or III?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
|last=
and then the first name and any suffixes in |first=
separated with a comma, yielding examples like Doe, John, Sr.or
Deer, Jason, III. Umimmak ( talk) 17:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
|last=Doe
|first=John Sr.
or |last=Deer
|first=Jason III
etc, yielding "Doe, John Sr." or "Deer, Jason III". —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Commas are not required with Jr. and Sr., and they are never used to set off II, III, and the like when these are used as part of a name. In an inverted name, however (as in an index; see 16.41), a comma is required before such an element, which comes last.Umimmak ( talk) 21:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
|first=John, Sr.
; |first=Jason, III
. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books, it lists ISBN as optional, below a list of other fields that are very often not included (at least in what I've seen) implying that this field is not particularly important. Yet in Template:Cite book/doc under "Brief instructions/notes" for isbn, it states "always include ISBN, if one has been assigned ", with one of only two bold parts in the whole table. Well which is it then? Is it optional, or required? And if something is optional but strongly encouraged, is it really appropriate to present it this way in the documentation?
On an unrelated note, the notice at the top of this page needs to be changed or removed. It states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citation Style 1 page.", but as mentioned AFTER that, (and as one would find if clicking talk from a different page) this is actually a centralised discussion page for several pages, so I feel this needs to be removed as it is confusing (well it was to me at least!) A7V2 ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
if one has been assigned". And I would consider the "always include" as more of an injunction – as in "you should do this" — whereas "require" (as you phrased it) is stronger, and implies that there is some kind of enforcement. That we don't have. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
Talk header}}
does not allow for a fully custom title.|page=
(or |ref=harv
) is included it should be required to have either |isbn=
or |publisher=
+ |year=
- otherwise it is impossible to know which edition it is since page numbers can change depending on edition, many books have multiple editions/publishers/printings/media. --
Green
C 16:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)|Edition=
is used to specify edition, and year often works to the same purpose. In the extremely rare cases where neither of those is sufficient to distinguish between two near identical documents that differ in pagination the ISBN might help. But making ISBN (or publisher) required merely because a page is given is ludicrous. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:16, 19 October 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 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
At this point, the change that made |website=
and |newspaper=
(or some type of "periodical" field) in {{
cite web}} and {{
cite news}} has been reverted after the long discussion at ANI.
We need to discuss what the fix is going forward.
|website=
and |newspaper=
as an italic style ,and close to around 200-300k existing cs1 citations out there are likely using |publisher=
to get a non-italic style for the name.This confusion seems to be stemming from the assumption that websites should be treated as a periodical reference. This is true for many websites, but does not extend wholly for things like the World Health Organization. Many a discussion has been held at the MOS pages that whether website should be italicized or not, with some not so strict guidance, but enough variance that forcing websites to be in italics created problems with this change.
Understanding that before any change is done that there likely will need to be a larger RFC to confirm, and giving editors time to fix templates as needed, as well as looking for potential bot aids, there needs to be some way to resolve this.
I had at least two ideas:
|publisher=
into the right parameter, and add the "no italics" flag. This seems like the easiest outside of the bot to make the automated changes.I'm sure there's other possibility and solutions. And of course, this is on reading the consensus that the ability to have non-italic website/newspaper names in the citations is what the community wants. But this is a discussion that should happen now, now that we have resolved the immediate issue. -- Masem ( t) 03:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It is clear from the ANI consensus that forcingNo, no it's not. You don't get to establish a false premise as an end-run around the consensus established at the proper location and place (above) on that point. The only real consensus from a content/style POV that discussion indicates is that people don't like errors showing up in their articles (whether deserved or not). -- Izno ( talk) 04:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
and not as |publisher=
, which was a point of contention in the changes (not just the error message issue). Clearly there was a disconnect between those maintaining cs1 and those using cs1 for how this should apply, and - if there is a need to fill metadata - that requires figuring out how to normalize the templates. Yes, the status quo is "fine" but there sounded like there were core technical reasons to make the change for metadata filling. --
Masem (
t) 15:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
\"SiteName\":\"World Health Organization\"
.|url=
, whereas it is an optional parameter in {{
cite news}}. That is how is should be. There is no need to change it. Neither requires a mandatory|periodical=
field.
Mjroots (
talk) 08:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
as that was not the issue at WP:AN. |publisher=
is optional and allowed in all cs1|2 templates except the preprint templates {{
cite arxiv}}
, etc.|publisher=
has never been a required parameter. There is / was no Cite <template> requires |publisher=
error message.{{
cite news}}
and {{
cite web}}
were for some sort of periodical parameter. Those error messages were:
|newspaper=
|website=
|publisher=
played no part in the determination to display these two error messages. During the WP:AN discussion, it was these error messages that were hidden, not the category (
Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical)|publisher=
in lieu of |website=
only because it strikes me as more useful. I have never cared about whether it produces italics or not and I don't think that is the main problem here.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
be a) deprecated, b) contain the hosting website and be mandatory (i.e even if |publisher=
is present), c) contain the hosting website and be supplantable with |publisher=
? And if c) is implemented, what kind of information should go into |publisher=
and what kind of information goes into |website=
?" Or something else.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
MOS does not apply to citations(emphasis added). MOS may not, on the one hand, permit any consistent citation style ( WP:CITESTYLE) and then on another hand dictate how that citation style must be used. This, I think, is the point you are trying to make at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § RfC appears to contradict MOS here. cs1|2, like it or not, are styles (after all they are named Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2).
|mode=mla
to render a few ({{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, and one or two others) in MLA format. The experiment 'worked' but the code to make it work was such a tangle that it would have made maintenance of the code base worse than it already is. The experiment was backed out and I hope will never be repeated.style error? According to whom?
reputable style [guides]mentioned here and at WP:CITESTYLE. Certainly it was influenced by the
reputable style [guides]but does not adhere to any particular one or group of them. Website titles have been italicized by
{{
cite web}}
since its inception (15 years ago).The Supreme Court of the United States is not the name or title of this website.I asked you to tell me why that name is not the name of the court's website. You have not answered that question but instead, concocted speculative 'rules' about title capitalization and author-name font as examples of
style errors. Then you wrote:
Similarly, Supreme Court of the United States is not a title.Similar to what? How do your concocted rule examples tell me why Supreme Court of the United States is not the name of the court's website?
misunderstanding of the concept title, write something that will give me that understanding. Simply making declarative statements that Supreme Court of the United States (or World Health Organization) is not a title does not help anyone to understand why you are so certain that they are not titles.
announcing that the Supreme Court’s website would start posting briefs
a separate statement posted on the Supreme Court's website
posted on the Supreme Court's website in the early afternoon
The Court’s opinion is available on its website
|website=
or |newspaper=
required parameters. One possible outcome, in line with the RfC, is that |website=
is either in italics or blank. It's the "not blank" thing that seems to be one editor's thing, in my view, not the italics thing. –
Leviv
ich 16:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
When I waded through the chain of links within Wikipedia pages in the article and WP: space, I found myself at Z39.88-2004: The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services The Key/Encoded-Value (KEV) Format Implementation Guidelines. These have different metadata keys for different so-called generes. Examples include
So it strikes me that {{ cite web}} is emitting false metadata whenever the website is not a periodical. Due to the pervasive use of cite web for all kinds of things, I suggest that {{ cite web}} be modified to not emit any metadata, to avoid emitting falsehoods. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
renders stylistically like a journal citation, we use the COinS journal object with rft.genre
set to unknown
. For completeness:
rft.genre=article
– {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
rft.genre=conference
– {{
cite conference}}
when a periodical parameter is setrft.genre=preprint
– {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
This edit assisted by (made by?) by OAbot seems to have generated a parsing error in cite journal by adding a url parameter. I suppose it is the prior presence of "title-link", which might itself have been a misuse but one that wasn't flagged and seemed functional. Thank you for maintaining our citation templates so well. It's a pity some users are less ... Thincat ( talk) 09:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
|title=
to two different targets. |title-link=s:Mount Everest: The Reconnaissance
is a perfectly valid link into WikiSource. cs1|2 might handle this particular error a bit better by choosing either of |title-link=
or |url=
to link |title=
. Which should it be? When more than one link target is present, it's still an error so there will be some sort of message.|url=
to a cs1|2 template when that template has a valid title link so you should raise this issue at
User talk:OAbot.Accordind to the sfn documentation (More than one work in a year)
When
{{sfn}}
is used with{{ citation}}
or Citation Style 1 templates, a year-suffix letter may be added to|date=
for all accepted date formats except year initial numeric (YYYY-MM-DD). It is not necessary to include both|year=
and|date=
. If both are included,|year=
is used for theCITEREF
anchor to be compliant with legacy citations.
Also with regard to the direct use of CITEREF the following advice is given
Please consider keeping reference names simple and restricted to the standard English alphabet and numerals
The function check_date
(
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation) takes proper care of the optional suffix, but in an unsatisfactory way. People find natural, if not normative, to suffix the year with letters from their native alphabet.
Hence
{{cite book |last=Αργυρίου |first=Αλέξανδρος |title=Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940) |volume=τ.Αʹ |publisher=Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη |location=Αθήνα |year=2002α |isbn=978-960-03-3156-1 |ref=harv}}
will produce this, because the year is suffixed with a greek alpha
Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη.
ISBN
978-960-03-3156-1. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
There is nothing wrong with the matching pattern, it is the use of the standard string library instead of ustring that breaks things (lines 564-5).
Is this a "feature" (a rather awkward one if you ask me) or an omission? paa ( talk) 09:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed in the sandbox, I think. Also required a fix to Module:Footnotes/sandbox:
{{harv/sandbox|Αργυρίου|2002α}}
→ (
Αργυρίου 2002α)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη.
ISBN
978-960-03-3156-1. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |ref=harv (
help)
|
Sandbox | Αργυρίου, Αλέξανδρος (2002α). Ιστορία της ελληνικής λογοτεχνίας και η πρόσληψή της στα χρόνια του Μεσοπολέμου (1918-1940). Vol. τ.Αʹ. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Καστανιώτη.
ISBN
978-960-03-3156-1. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |ref=harv (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 10:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
Cite document}}, {{
Cite paper}}, and {{
Citepaper}} all redirect to {{
Cite journal}}. Since {{
Cite document}}, {{
Cite paper}}, and {{
Citepaper}} are not likely to have the |journal=
parameter populated, these citations will generate the Cite journal requires |journal= error. Would it be better to have {{
Cite document}}, {{
Cite paper}}, and {{
Citepaper}} to redirect to {{
Cite report}} instead to avoid the error? Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
|type=Report
so that the title renders in italics. (It's rare that I'd cite something that qualifies as a report that's also short enough to be considered a short-form document, and in those few cases, I err on the side of consistency with the rest and go italics.)
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC){{
cite report}}
and just repointing those redirects will break something. You might guess that I'm a bit sensitive to broken stuff right now ...{{
cite journal}}
(and, for that matter to the other cs1 templates). Then, if we decide that we need a {{
cite document}}
template, we create one.|zenodo=
This would allow us to cleanup all these |url=
https://zenodo.org/record/3348115#.XTk3rXt7kUE
or |url=
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3348115
to be |zenodo=3348115
→
Zenodo:
3348115 (with the green lock) instead. Or |doi=10.5281/zenodo.3348115
→ |zenodo=3348115
.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
|zenodo=
, since |doi=
and |url=
can already be used to store such links. Adding custom support for identifier schemes that are covered by the DOI system defeats the point of DOIs (having a unified identifier system on top of many providers). I think Zenodo URLs can already be made canonical as things stand. −
Pintoch (
talk) 15:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
|doi=
, then you're usurping the version of record DOI. It's the same with |biorxiv=
. It's technically a doi, but it's not the DOI.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)For works where an author's name is published as Surname Given-name (authors using "Eastern name order"), which underlying code is preferred? One option is putting the family name in |last=
, given name in |first=
, and then using |author-mask=
so that the name appears in the citation without the comma. Using |ref=harv
is straightforward, but one needs to add in punctuation such as the semicolon in |author-mask=
if there are any subsequent authors.
(1a) {{cite book|last=Zhang |first=San |first2=John |last2=Smith |date=2019 |title=Title |author-mask=Zhang San; |ref=harv}} with {{harv|Zhang|Smith|2019}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) with (
Zhang & Smith 2019)If |author-mask=
shouldn't be used to overwrite how the name appears in the citation, then one can put the entire name in the |author=
field as it was published. Then one would have to use {{
harvid}} within |ref=
if the article uses Harvard citations/shortened footnotes.
(1b) {{cite book|author=Li Si |first2=Jane |last2=Doe |date=2019 |title=Title |ref=harvid|Li|Doe}} with {{harv|Li|Doe|2019}}
Both methods also work with editors (sparing the details of |ref={{
harvid}}
):
(2a) {{cite book|editor-last=Kovács |editor-first=János |editor-mask=Kovács János; |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}
(2b) {{cite book|editor=Kovács János |editor2-first=Max |editor2-last=Mustermann |title=Title |date=2019}}
And with contributors (and again, sparing |ref=
details ):
(3a) {{cite book|contributor=Hong Gildong|contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}
(3b) {{cite book|contributor-last=Hong |contributor-first=Gildong |contributor-mask=Hong Gildong |contribution=Preface|last=Smith |first=John |title=Title |date=2019}}
Is there a reason why one method should be preferred over the other? Both produce the same visual output, but I was wondering if there were benefits to one over the other for other reasons. Thanks. Umimmak ( talk) 05:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
|author-mask=
adds the article to
Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation which will no doubt get improperly fixed by someone or some bot or some script which then becomes a maintenance headache. On the other hand, for the purposes of metadata, |last=
and |first=
are the preferred author-name parameters so using |author-mask=
to hide the name separator comma is to be preferred over |author=
with {{
sfnref}}
.|authorn-mask=
accept text arguments in {{
Harvc}} as well so it would work in a similar fashion? Thanks. And again, no rush on this; I know things have been a bit hectic.
Umimmak (
talk) 05:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
{{harv|Black|2019}}
→ (
Black 2019){{harv|Brown|Black|2019}}
→ (
Brown & Black 2019){{harvc/sandbox |last=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask=Black Masked}}
{{harvc/sandbox |last=Brown |last2=Black |year=2019 |c=Contribution Title |in=Editor |author-mask2=2}}
|pages=
). One editor's superfluity is another editor's helpful additional link. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
links the source's title/home page, and |chapter-url=
uses the same link modified to locate a sub-page. This seems superfluous. The IA bot adds |url=
even when an in-source location url (in the diff example, a chapter url) is already present. The source link is of course published by the same provider (the Internet Archive) in both cases. Obviously, the bot would not be able to do this if multiple instances of the same website were disallowed in a citation.
65.88.88.91 (
talk) 20:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)|url=
when |doi=
is providedPer
User talk:Citation bot/Archive 18#"Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier", if |url=
should be removed when a |doi=
is provided, then per Masem's comment in that thread, shouldn't CS1 throw an error for the former rule, particularly in {{
cite journal}}?
czar 17:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
|doi=
and |url=
because A DOI links to a permanent web page with a specific year's assessment that will never be updated, so when a new assessment is issued, a new DOI will be created and the old one will then point to the previous assessment. An ID-based URL should always link to the current assessment, but that URL is not guaranteed to work indefinitely. Thus, it is probably best to use both, and to use the ID-based URL if only one URL will be used.But I do think in general it’s probably redundant and cluttered to have a DOI and the present address the DOI resolves to in the
|url=
field. The linked discussion began with examples like |url=
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277539513000915
with |doi=10.1016/j.wsif.2013.05.012
. I’m not sure I see the issue with removing those sorts of |url=
s. But I agree that this shouldn’t be treated as a CS1 error—particularly as the |url=
often provides a different, typically free, way to access a paper.
Umimmak (
talk) 23:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Now that
#RfC on linking title to PMC has been closed, I would like an option to disable the automatic linking to PMC when it would be inappropriate (such as when the peer-reviewed version is available via DOI) in {{
cite xxx}}
(see
previous discussion [
perma]). I think the most obvious and intuitive way would be |url=none
.
Nardog (
talk) 08:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Could a bot be used to add the prefixes for e.x. here?-- Lirim | Talk 16:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
|language=
. The script parameters are:
|script-article=
, |script-chapter=
, |script-contribution=
, |script-entry=
, |script-journal=
, |script-magazine=
, |script-newspaper=
, |script-periodical=
, |script-section=
, |script-title=
, |script-website=
, |script-work=
|language=
be different from the language used in the associated script parameter).|pages=e01633{{hyphen}}17
gives the following
Instead of the correct/expected
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
|pages=
instead of |page=
? It looks like just one page is being cited. Using {{
cite compare}}:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
Sandbox | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
|pages=
:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
Sandbox | Schloss, Patrick D.; Johnston, Mark; Casadevall, Arturo (2017-09-26). "Support science by publishing in scientific society journals". mBio. 8 (5): e01633-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01633-17. PMC 5615203. PMID 28951482. |
|page=
is technically more correct than |pages=
. However, we don't mangle the output if you have something like |pages=124
or |page=124–127
, so there's no reason to silently mangle the output here either.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
hyphen}}
is processed before the cs1|2 template and because {{hyphen}}
renders as -
with a trailing semicolon: then |pages=1{{hyphen}}2
becomes |pages=1-2
which (because pages plural) cs1|2 treats as two separate pages 1-
and 2
. Had you used |page=1{{hyphen}}2
(singular) then cs1|2 ignores the semicolon separator character.|page=e01633-17
with the keyboard hyphen character; don't use {{hyphen}}
.Would it be possible to have a url2 facility for URLs in {{ cite news}}? I deal with a lot of clippings from newspapers.com, and when an article continues across multiple clippings, I have to append a (Continued) to the end of the reference outside of the citation template because there's no way to link clippings together at one URL. (For instance, a reference of KMCS (Kansas) needs this.) Sammi Brie ( t • c) 21:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
|pages=1, 6-7
), I think it suffices to give the reader the url for the first page. I am pretty sure most readers could find their way to the rest of the pages without a separate url. If you have a large article and want to provide a specific in-source location (perhaps more than one), that is best handled by appending a suitable link (or links) to the in-line citation. E.g.: <ref>{{cite news | ...|ps=,}} [https:newspapers.com/xxx6/ page 6, col. 2].</ref>
♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am pretty sure most readers could find their way to the rest of the pages without a separate url.— maybe this is just because I’m not familiar with Newspapers.com, but I’m not seeing an easy way to get from [1] to [2], especially without an account/subscription. If the editor has access to all the relevant clippings, it definitely makes it significantly more convenient to the reader and other editors to link multiple locations. Umimmak ( talk) 22:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
[E]specially without an account/subscription" — for sure, and that's a different problem. If you need to use multiple urls for the full citation then do as Sammi Brie suggested: append the extra information to the template. E.g., something like:
<ref>{{cite news |... |url=https://newspapers.com/xxx1|ps=,}} continued at [https://newspapers.com/xxx6/ page 6].</ref>
♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
|pages=
works for me, although I do wonder if this might cause issues for the
COinS metadata. But I’m not super familiar with that; I just vaguely recall this issue coming up in the past and another editor having that concern.
Umimmak (
talk) 00:58, 19 September 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.
@
Izno: Hi. It appears you've missed the fact that {{
Citation}} has a |mode=cs1
.
Here is a sample:
See the difference? flowing dreams ( talk page) 11:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
is not a cs1 template. It can be made to look like a cs1 template with |mode=cs1
. Similarly, cs1 templates can be made to look like cs2 with |mode=cs2
. Including cs2 in a table specifically intended for cs1 just muddies the water. You might consider implementing a similar table at
Help:Citation Style 2.|ref=
default value (cs1: not set, cs2: harv
). When |mode=cs1
is set in {{
citation}}
(a cs2 template) the rendered citation uses a period for element separators, capitalized static text, has a period for terminal punctuation, and does not set |ref=
. When |mode=cs2
is set in any of the cs1 templates, the rendered citation uses a comma for element separators, does not capitalize static text, does not have terminal punctuation, and sets |ref=harv
.|ref=
default value: not set|mode=cs1
is set in {{
citation}}
(a cs2 template) the rendered citation uses:
|ref=
default value: not set{{
citation}}
with |mode=cs1
is still a cs2 template; its rendering has just been disguised to look like the rendering of a cs1 template.{{
cite book}}
; news sources → {{
cite news}}
; preprints held at
arXiv → {{
cite arxiv}}
; dissertations and theses → {{
cite thesis}}
.|mode=cs1
. Perhaps it shouldn’t be mentioned alongside {{
Cite journal}} and the like, but I can understand why some editors might find it helpful to be reminded of this as a possibility when adding citations to an article in CS1 style, even if it isn’t a CS1 template itself.
Umimmak (
talk) 13:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not really sure what the big fuss is about, but {{
citation}} isn't a CS1 template, it's a CS2 template, and shouldn't be shoehorned into CS1 advice simply because there's a |mode=cs1
. Likewise, CS1 templates aren't CS2 template simply because the |mode=cs2
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
don't object to such a mention in HELP:CS1, just so long as it is
not in the table that is expressly for cs1 templates. This seems like a fair compromise to all parties involved. @ Flowing dreams: your comments have been quite uncivil and full of accusations of bad faith, harassment, and the like. It would have been much more productive to work with other editors—ones more familiar with Wikipedia citation templates and their documentation—in order to come up with ways of doing this instead of insisting inclusion in the table of CS1 templates. My suggestion would be a sentence in the Help:Citation Style 1 § Style section, but I would defer to those editors who have spent more time thinking about these issues. Umimmak ( talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have three issues of a paper journal, each of which carries a barcode and text reading "ISSN 977 0016639 051"; that ISSN is also found online, for example at [3].
However:
<ref name="Gibbons">{{cite journal |last1=Gibbons |first1=Sue |title=Percival Boyd |journal=Genealogists' Magazine |date=March 2005 |volume=28 |issue=5 |pages=187-195 |publisher=[[Society of Genealogists]] |issn=9770016639051}}</ref>
gives a template error [1] and https://www.worldcat.org/issn/9770016639051 find no entry.
What's up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help)
Thanks all; interesting. I am minded to agree with Headbomb that the 8-digit form should be enforced, but we could perhaps trap this alternative with a custom error message ("Did you mean..?"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of supplements, here's a challenge for everyone: I have a citable (because it is independently written) box in a chapter in a special supplement to a volume/issue in a journal. (Supplement available here. See "How do we know the world has warmed?" on p. S26.)
The preferred result would be on the lines of:
Kennedy, et al., (2010) "How do we know the world has warmed?". In: "State of the Climate in 2009". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 91(7):26 ....
Which I can almost do. Except that {cite journal} and {citation} ignore |chapter=
, and {cite book} drops the issue number and misformats the page number. I have also tried doing a minimal {cite journal} for the box, and appending "In: {cite journal ....}}" for the the supplement, but the page number doesn't work.
So: any suggestions? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
|at=
instead. --
Izno (
talk) 23:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC){{cite journal|author=Author|title=Introduction: BoxTitle|department=Special Supplements|journal=Journal|issue=1 ''SupplementTitle''|p=S1}}
Author. "Introduction: BoxTitle". Special Supplements. Journal (1 SupplementTitle): S1. {{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
|at=
to finesse the page numbering, right? Yes, that looks good. And |deparatment=
, of course, how could I have overlooked that??! Thanks to you both. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 20:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)According to WP:CS1, "Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring/summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source." (my emphasis) However in Muhammad_III_of_Granada#Primary_sources, I used "1247 AH" as the date (see "Ibn al-Khaṭīb (1347 AH)") and got a validation error Check date values in: |date=. How do I fix this? HaEr48 ( talk) 13:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
|date=c. 1928
, plus either |orig-year=original date 1347
AH
or |quote=[Source pub. date] 1347
AH [+page# where this information is found]
.
24.105.132.254 (
talk) 14:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
This template help page states, "title: Title of source. Can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url may be used to add an external link, but not both. Displays in italics." It actually does not display in italics, as it should not because that would be the wrong format. Episode titles are properly formatted in quotes, never italics. It does display, in fact, in quotes so that needs clarification and I'm not sure if I am allowed to edit this or not. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 18:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
There are scientific journals that do not contain articles, but simply publish scientific data at regular intervals. One example is Minor Planet Circulars. How do I cite an entire issue, without specifying the title parameter (as there is no title to specify)? Specifically, I needed to cite a new observatory code listed on page 1 of issue 85415: https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf. Typing in
{{cite journal |journal=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |issn=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |issue=85415 |page=1 |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf |format=PDF}}
obviously produces a missing title error. I've worked around it by adding |title=New observatory codes
, but this is wrong, as "New observatory codes" is merely a section title, not an article title. Perhaps, there is some way to use {{citation}} template without specifying the title parameter? —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 01:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
|title=none
. But that won't work for this example because then there would be nothing for the url to link to. If you had a doi instead of a url it would work. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
|title=none
, but |issue=
has a value, then the issue should get linked to the provided URL. The semantics being that the URL points to an HTML page or a file containing the entire issue of the journal in question. For example, typing the code above would produce the following: Minor Planet Circulars ( 85415 (PDF)): 1. 17 November 2013. ISSN 0736-6884.
|issue=
has no value, then {{citation}} should throw an error, as it does now:
|url=
missing title or issue ( help)
{{
London Gazette}}
as a possible model:
{{London Gazette |issue=33000 |date=9 December 1924 |page=8957}}
{{London Gazette}}
– which is a misnomer, as the template also supports Belfast Gazette and Edinburgh Gazette – is a "macro" template that saves time by building the URL automatically from |city=
, |issue=
, and |page=
. It is certainly possible and perhaps even useful to implement a similar template for MPEC, MPC, MPS, and MPO, as they all have standard uniform URLs. But there still has to be a general solution to the problem of "article-less" journals.|title=
. A missing/empty |title=
will still produce a missing title error, so the new editors will still be taught to always include the title. The behavior will only be triggered by explicitly setting |title=none
, signalling: "I know what I'm doing. I'm doing this because I'm citing an "article-less" journal, and I want the issue linked to the URL."{{London Gazette}}
to the new system, as this looks more consistent with other citations:The London Gazette ( 33000): 8957. 9 December 1924.
{{cite techreport|url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf|title=Minor Planet Circulars|number=85415|institution=[[Minor Planet Center]]|date=17 November 2013|p=1|issn= 0736-6884}}
Minor Planet Circulars (PDF) (Technical report).
Minor Planet Center. 17 November 2013. p. 1.
ISSN
0736-6884. 85415.
|type=none
will remove "(Technical report)" from the display. But imo, this would not be helpful to the average Wikipedia reader re:precision. The circulars, are after all, technical reports.
24.105.132.254 (
talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
{{cite journal |journal=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |issn=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |issue=85415 |title=none |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf |page=1}}
→{{citation |mode=cs1 |title=695 Kitt Peak |periodical=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf#page=121 |page=M.P.C. 85535 |nopp=yes |date=2013-11-17}}
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help){{
citation}}
and |periodical=
to get away from the journal style volume / issue / page format because, in this case, there is no volume nor issue; just page numbers; |nopp=yes
hides the pagination prefix.{{cite techreport |institution=[[Minor Planet Center]] |title=Minor Planet Circulars |ISSN=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |page=85535 |url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf#page=121 |type=none}}
|chapter=
as a stand in for a batch of circulars, with its title taken from the page header:
{{cite techreport |institution=[[Minor Planet Center]] |title=[[Minor Planet Circulars]] |ISSN=0736-6884 |date=17 November 2013 |chapter=M.P.C. 2013 NOV. 17 |page=85535 |chapter-url=https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/ECS/MPCArchive/2013/MPC_20131117.pdf#page=121 |type=none}}
There's been a couple of times lately, I've been pondering how to handle the increasingly different headlines between print and Internet versions of articles. While the articles appear to be identical (occasionally with an extra paragraph or two on the Internet version - perhaps trimmed for length), the headlines can differ massively. Today's example is on page A9 of the September 1 Toronto Star called The road with NO GREED LIMIT. The internet version though is a much more politically inflammatory Birth of a fiasco: How the Ontario Tories completely botched the sale of Highway 407. So which one should be cited? My preference would be to cite both - but I don't see an appropriate field. Any thoughts? Nfitz ( talk) 16:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not title=foo [print] bar [Internet]
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC).
plz add it · Carn !? 09:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This very long WP:AN discussion has just concluded, and requires changes to the modules, some of which have been made already:
The following change has also been made since the updates listed above, but it was not mandated by the discussion closure:
|dead-url=
/ |deadurl=
(already changed to "hidden" using CSS)We (Trappist, unless someone else has the programming skills) should probably make the remaining change as soon as possible. We could optionally start displaying the deprecated parameter messages, but I think that would just make people angry. I would prefer to see that happen after 99% or more of the |dead-url=
/ |deadurl=
have been converted to the new |url-status=
parameter. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Trappist says everything required by the close is completed. The closing message also said "The other updates shall stand", so I think we should also monitor the progress plan for finalizing this change.
|dead-url=
The following were in scope for this change, but are now to be treated as discussions before further updates.
|dead-url=
- is that needed and welcome?|website=
, can documentation be updated and agreed upon?-- JAGulin ( talk) 14:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-hidden-error {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 hidden errors */
When url-status=dead, it correctly produces:
When url-status=unfit, it incorrectly produces:
The case is not agreeing with the comma before it. The second one should change to ", a", to match the first (unless there is a reason for it to be capitalized, in which case it should change to ". A"). (I'm not expert in citing, here or elsewhere.) - A876 ( talk) 04:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live |
Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29{{
citation}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Sandbox |
Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29{{
citation}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Sandbox | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Sandbox | Title, archived from the original on 2019-09-29 |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live |
Title. Archived from the original on 2019-09-29.{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Sandbox |
Title. Archived from the original on 2019-09-29.{{
cite book}} : CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
|
Now that the blocking rfc has been closed, I propose to update the live cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019. Changes are:
|xxx-url-access=
error reporting;
discussion|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;
discussion|map-url-access=
;
discussion|title=
for {{
cite encyclopedia}}
;
discussion|issue=
& |volume=
in {{
citation}}
same as cs1 templates; {{citation|website=...}}
error message when |url=
missing or empty;
discussion{{
cite ssrn}}
;
discussion|doi-broken=
requires |doi=
error messaging;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration:
|distributor=
;
discussion|script-periodical
and |trans-periodical
parameter support;|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;|map-url-access=
;|doi-broken=
requires |doi=
error messaging;Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:
|contribution-url-access=
;
discussion|chapter=
aliases;
discussion|script-periodical
and |trans-periodical
parameter support;|lay-summary=
and |laysummary=
;
discussion|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;|map-url-access=
;{{cite ssrn}}
;Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers:
|doi=10.5555...
error detection;
discussion|doi-inactive=
categorization;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Utilities:
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
|agency=
one in
here also throw an error?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 07:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
|agency=
isn't used in the templates at the link you provided.@ Trappist the monk: Even with the heads up, this change caused some problems. Please assist in the questions below. JAGulin ( talk) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Trappist the monk: When using cite web a large number of red errors are sprinkled through the references saying "Cite web requires |website=". It is quite clear that cite web does not actually require the website parameter from the documentation, so whatever code is generating this error should be reverted or cut. This error is in CSS class "cs1-visible-error error citation-comment" Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 11:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
is dramatically unexpected behaviour and different to how I've been using the template for over 5 years. I often use publisher instead, but even if both are omitted, it should not be an error as the reference is still sufficient without either parameter as long as it includes a URL, a title and enough extra information to specify the reference if the URL breaks (e.g. author). This error type should be removed quite urgently due to the number of articles it affects. —
Bilorv (
talk) 12:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
" and again as Rfassbind says the citation in question has a |publisher=
parameter in it. It seems a bit superfluous to me for the citation to have to read {{cite web |url=http://foo.com/the_greatest_thing_ever_told |title=Whatever |website=foo.com |publisher=The Foo Corporation}}
producing|publisher=
be added as an acceptable alternative to the periodical parameters already listed?
Nthep (
talk) 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)|website=
starting spitting ugly red error messages everywhere? Especially when there's already a perfectly appropriate |publisher=
in there.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 11:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
as well as
the other options.
JAGulin (
talk) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website/work/...=
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
and {{
cite magazine}}
. I seems that adding this error message to {{
cite web}}
has not been discussed, and in view of the apparent lack of consensus, should be reverted.
Kanguole 16:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
from the discussion was merely an oversight on my part. The code that emits the missing periodical error message is the same for all of the periodical templates / parameters.website
param for the same source. Noting that url
is unique and unambiguous and rarely misused, and "website" is none of the above, might lead you to the conclusion that making "url" required for a web page, and "website" merely informative and optional, was another way to go.
Mathglot (
talk) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
"watching ten different users place five different things in the website
param"
- This issue was addressed in the citation tool, at my suggestion, by changing the label from "website" to "website name". Maybe the same fix could be applied to the parameter itself?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)'This has gone far enough. It's not a documentation issue but an issue of overreaching micromanagement by the maintainers of the citation template group who have an incorrect understanding of policy. I feel that the changes (to flag "incorrectly populated" parameters) have been put through unilaterally without due concensus are detrimental to the project. As highlighted already by fellow editors, the numerous red cs1-errors tags that have been appearing since the change do not always correctly identify parameters that are problematic. Please note that few WP articles about websites have
italicised titles, so it is entirely jumping the gun to decide that all websites ought to be italicised within the reference section, as no consensus has been so reached locally nor according to policy and guidelines. The way I see around the problem would be a relatively easy but fastidious fix. To ensure that the titles of sources within the reference sections display according to the names in article space, I would see little alternative but to replace the {{
cite web}}, {{
cite news}} with the {{
citation}} template. This would then allow the unrestricted (and unflagged) use of |newspaper=
and their aliases, |publisher=
when appropriate. All I would need to do is to incorporate a suitable regex in my script, and those errant error messages will go away. However, I hope that we can come to a sensible arrangement with which all editors can be satisfied. --
Ohc
¡digame! 21:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Same for 'dead-url' paramter... I see this is listed now as deprecated and replaced with url-status, but couldn't there be a bot or something to fix them first? Broken citations everywhere are not a good look I'd think... -- IamNotU ( talk) 12:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What are the available options? Getting errors and not sure how to format properly. There should be a mechanism to automatically rename parameter labels of citations in production when such labels change. As a utility module perhaps. 108.182.15.109 ( talk) 12:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|dead-url=
was deprecated in favor of |url-status=
, which accepts 'dead', 'live', 'unfit', 'usurped', and 'bot: unknown' (without quotation marks of course), so the only parameters which will have changed are the first two. As for renaming, there is a bot task approved for that work to start now. --
Izno (
talk) 12:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 16 — Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Echoing some of the other comments here regarding the rollout of this change, as well as the change itself. Why was it necessary to deprecate deadurl for this new param? And why was such a major change made, apparently, almost unilaterally? It seems to offer no obvious benefits over deadurl, and the rollout has caused an incredible amount of chaos across the project. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 21:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
-url
:
|archive-url=
, |article-url=
, |chapter-url=
, |conference-url=
, |contribution-url=
, |entry-url=
, |event-url=
, |lay-url=
, |map-url=
, |section-url=
, |transcript-url=
|dead-url=
does not hold a url but, because it looks like it should, editors do use it to hold the dead url. |url-status=
was the best name we could come up with that didn't end in -url
and still conveyed the meaning that we were looking for.|url-dead=
and rejected it because it is awkward in an English-grammar-sort-of-way. |etal=
doesn't work because, besides authors, there are also contributors, editors, interviewers, and translators.|url-status=
are "unfit" and "usurped", which would not make sense syntactically with a parameter name that included the word "dead", including the old |dead-url=
parameter. As for the hyphen, CS1 was
standardized long ago on hyphenated parameters when the parameter name contains more than one word. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)This new change is crazy, disruptive, and does not appear to have consensus here. "URL" is much easier to remember, quicker to type in, and its something editors are used to doing. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|url=
remains entirely undeprecated. --
Izno (
talk) 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|website=
is a periodical parameter much like |journal=
is a periodical parameter. It names the website because the website name is hidden in |url=
.|website=
actually does: {{cite web|url=https://www.example.com/|website=ExampleWebsite |title=Webpage}}
produces
"Webpage". ExampleWebsite. --
Izno (
talk) 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
displays new CS1 Error messages:
The changes were probably added today and affect numerous citations (millions?). Are these permanent changes? And if so, where are they documented? Rfassbind – talk 12:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to overturn the mass change made to Module:Citation/CS1 - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Trappist the monk: Sorry to ping you, but I know you're the expert even if I may be wrong about this. Was mode parameter check among the changes in this batch? Is it too complicated or undesirable to make value lowercase before use? Also, the Category:CS1_errors:_invalid_parameter_value seems to keeps track of each article, but not the offending Template itself. When I fixed OED 200 errors were solved in one go. If the template/doc pages were listed in a sub-category it would make it easier to fix those first. -- JAGulin ( talk) 11:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
*τ {{PAGENAME}}
may be the sortorder I suggest for templates, in cases like this when I want to gather them in the beginning of the list. All of this is in vain if no templates show up in the category, but I would think that at least the doc page should be listed.
JAGulin (
talk) 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
Namespace Greek}}
. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 11:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC).|deadurl=No/Yes
(change to |url-status=live/dead
, respectively) and to |nopp=Y
(change "Y" to "y"). –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)The change log says 'add support for {{ cite ssrn}}', but no such template exist. This needs to be created. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite ssrn/new}}
.{{invoke:}}
(not Lua code), {{
documentation}}
(not Lua code), and <includeonly>...</includeonly>
& <noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags (not Lua code). The invoke should not point to the module sandbox.Since there are many pages and edit summaries that link to the old (and recently mostly deleted categories), wouldn't it be better to {{ Category redirect}} them instead of deleting? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Category:CS1: long volume value should probably display a cs1-maint (the green type) message, right? Currently it has no visual output. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
|volume-subtitle=
parameter or something to that effect. -
BRAINULATOR9 (
TALK) 01:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)What is the correct resolution for invisible character errors in citations with titles using zero-width joiners between emoji, as in the citation on 2019 in American television? — Ost ( talk) 20:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
{{cite tweet|number=1155848220775452673|user=TeenNick|author=TeenNick|title=An all new season of #HunterStreet is coming to TeenNick TONIGHT at 7:30/6:30p 🕵️‍♀️ |date=July 29, 2019|accessdate=September 26, 2019}}
Self-explanatory. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite compare}}
no longer obeys |old=no
; any value causes the transclusion of {{cite xxx/old}}
. In this case, {{
cite arXiv/old}}
unconditionally adds
Category:Articles with missing Cite arXiv inputs regardless of the namespace. The fix for this is at {{cite compare}}
to make it obey |old=no
. Pinging Editor
Izno?|old=
and made it so that any value caused the old template to display. The correct fix is to remove |old=no
in this case. --
Izno (
talk) 13:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
|old=no
behave the same as |old=yes
is counter-intuitive. I suggest fixing that, or at least cleaning up all former uses that depended on the previous behavior. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
|old=yes
should trigger display of the old template). --
Izno (
talk) 14:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)These two identically formatted citations, as found in Abelian group:
produce inconsistent formatting: the first book's volume number is bolded and the second is not.
Maybe we should fix this? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
|volume=36-I
→ 4 characters|volume=36-II
→ 5 characters|volume=
should be used.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking something like
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what is the urgency? This has been discussed since the change to conditional bolding was being considered, some years back. Why does this keep popping up? Either leave as is and provide a better explanation for the apparent inconsistency, or apply uniform font weight. It is a bit tiresome to keep revisiting the same issues. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 15:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Why does this keep popping up?Because it's an unresolved problem? — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 19:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is some things to cleanup, most related to citations. I think the related bug in VE has been fixed. -- Izno ( talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
In
The final |, generated though {{!}}
, is missing. The title should display as ... direct measurement of |Vtb|.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
{{xt|{{!}}V<sub>tb</sub>{{!}}}}
which renders exactly as intended, e.g. |Vtb|. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Headbomb (
talk •
contribs) 18:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
<math>...</math>
is problematic because MediaWiki took away our ability to see the underlying content of the tag. The content of <math>...</math>
is rendered visually as an image; logged in editors can select one of three styles according to a setting in their
Special:Preferences. When MediaWiki took away our ability to see the image's underlying makeup, we lost the ability to render any sort of meaningful metadata. All that
Module:Citation/CS1 sees is a math stripmarker that looks something like this: ?'"`UNIQ--math-0000001C-QINU`"'?
(the '?' characters represent the delete character). Because we can no longer see what that stripmarker represents, all title metadata for titles with <math>...</math>
in them get an error message (MATH RENDER ERROR
) in place of the <math>...</math>
content. So, for the example template, cs1 produces this article title metadata:
&rft.atitle=Evidence+for+production+of+single+top+quarks+and+first+direct+measurement+of+MATH+RENDER+ERROR
<math>...</math>
tags. See the phabricator ticket.|"{delimiter}
it renders "{delimiter}{delimiter}
.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 01:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
pipe}}
is discouraged because it produces improper metadata.|title=
field, unlike the magic word/variable, which apparently trips when display format is applied on the parameter.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 14:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
script_concatenate
function in
Module:Citation/CS1 (lines 572-580). The {{
!}} variable works as it should when inserted in other fields, but not for |title=
(and its various aliases). The function that formats |title=
(format_chapter_title
) uses the function script_concatenate
. See line 714, and the code comment: -- <bdi> tags, lang atribute, categorization, etc; must be done after title is wrapped. This also appears in section "format main title" starting in line 3110 (the pertinent statements are in lines 3126-3140). So
|title=
formatting may have something to do with the disappearing variable after all?
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Abazov, V.M.; et al. ( DØ Collaboration) (2007). "Evidence for production of single top quarks and first direct measurement of |Vtb|". Physical Review Letters. 98 (18): 181802. arXiv: hep-ex/0612052. Bibcode: 2007PhRvL..98r1802A. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.181802. hdl: 10211.3/194387. PMID 17501561. |
Sandbox | Abazov, V.M.; et al. ( DØ Collaboration) (2007). "Evidence for production of single top quarks and first direct measurement of |Vtb|". Physical Review Letters. 98 (18): 181802. arXiv: hep-ex/0612052. Bibcode: 2007PhRvL..98r1802A. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.181802. hdl: 10211.3/194387. PMID 17501561. |
is_wikilink(str)
in the live module does not return when it discovers that str
is not a wikilink, the live module assumes that trailing (and / or leading) pipes in D
and L
are an acceptable form of wikilink; these all work:
[[Abraham Lincoln]]
→
Abraham Lincoln (no pipes)[[|Abraham Lincoln]]
→
Abraham Lincoln (leading pipe)[[Abraham Lincoln|]]
→
Abraham Lincoln (trailing pipe)[[Abraham Lincoln|Abe|]]
→
Abe| (trailing pipe)is_wikilink()
function is called because journal titles need to be kerned if the title's first and / or last character is some form of quote mark. When the title is wikilinked, the leading / trailing quote marks may be inside the display portion of the wikilink. It occurs to me that L
can never have a leading pipe so L = L and mw.text.trim (L, '%s|');
is pointless. I have disabled that line while I think about it and revised the early exit test.if not
condition you added seems to work out, I guess this is resolved in some fashion.
172.254.98.154 (
talk) 17:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)In Schröder–Hipparchus number, we have a citation
that accurately describes the publication dates of this book: Volume I was published in 1997, Volume II in 1999, and after the end of the template the rest of the footnote refers to several pages from each volume. (This is citation style 2, not CS1, but it makes no difference for the issue at hand). Although the template formats this correctly, it also throws a reference error because of the date format:
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)Trying to be helpful,
Yiosie2356 "fixed" the error by changing it to 1997–1999, which indeed is no longer marked by the citation template as being an error but is in fact more erroneous than the original citation. The book was not published over a range of dates, it was published in two volumes on two separate and specific dates, and the original citation reflected that while the "fixed" version does not. Is there some way to continue to use the citation template to get both the correct dates and no error? Or is this one of the many recent instances where the increasing rigidity of the template conflicts with the flexibility of real-world citations and forces us to format the citation manually? For instance, {{
harvs}} has a |year2=
parameter; maybe we could consider having a similar parameter in the citation templates themselves? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why a citation to a two-volume work should be forced to be artificially split into two separate but almost equal citations?
Relatedly, the documentation says "Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring/summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source." However, it appears to be false that freeform dates are allowed. Maybe we should either remove this claim or clarify what types of dates are allowed? For instance {{citation|title=Persian calendar|title-link=Iranian calendars|date=1398 SH}} does not work:
Persian calendar, 1398 SH {{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)
I found this cite web template in George Washington:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
Sandbox | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
I'm seeing "CS1 maint: extra punctuation". At the linked help page, I see "The test that adds articles to this category is currently limited to checking for trailing commas, colons, or semicolons (,:;
)."
I do not see any trailing ,:;
in this citation.
Removing the |ref=
parameter and its value appears to eliminate the maintenance message:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
Sandbox | "How Many U.S. Army Five-star Generals Have There Been and Who Were They?". U.S. Army Center of Military History. 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2018. |
...but I do not know why. What am I missing? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
sfnref}}
is rendered:
{{sfnRef|"Five-star Generals, 2017"}}
→ CITEREF"Five-star_Generals,_2017"
→ CITEREF"Five-star_Generals,_2017"What happened to the |supplement= parameter on cite news? It either isn't working anymore or for some reason was removed which seems pretty stupid to remove that. Govvy ( talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
|supplement=
ever existed in cs1|2 templates.|type=supplement
instead. If the particular supplement is a regular feature, identify the feature in e.g |department=weekly magazine
or |department=annual survey
or some such.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
{{cite newspaper}}
is as a redirect to {{
cite news}}
. Over its history, that has never changed.|department=
.|supplement=
parameter. It's not a CS1 template, but could be the source of confusion.
Jts1882 |
talk 16:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
What's the proper format for name suffixes like Jr. or III?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
|last=
and then the first name and any suffixes in |first=
separated with a comma, yielding examples like Doe, John, Sr.or
Deer, Jason, III. Umimmak ( talk) 17:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
|last=Doe
|first=John Sr.
or |last=Deer
|first=Jason III
etc, yielding "Doe, John Sr." or "Deer, Jason III". —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Commas are not required with Jr. and Sr., and they are never used to set off II, III, and the like when these are used as part of a name. In an inverted name, however (as in an index; see 16.41), a comma is required before such an element, which comes last.Umimmak ( talk) 21:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
|first=John, Sr.
; |first=Jason, III
. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books, it lists ISBN as optional, below a list of other fields that are very often not included (at least in what I've seen) implying that this field is not particularly important. Yet in Template:Cite book/doc under "Brief instructions/notes" for isbn, it states "always include ISBN, if one has been assigned ", with one of only two bold parts in the whole table. Well which is it then? Is it optional, or required? And if something is optional but strongly encouraged, is it really appropriate to present it this way in the documentation?
On an unrelated note, the notice at the top of this page needs to be changed or removed. It states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citation Style 1 page.", but as mentioned AFTER that, (and as one would find if clicking talk from a different page) this is actually a centralised discussion page for several pages, so I feel this needs to be removed as it is confusing (well it was to me at least!) A7V2 ( talk) 22:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
if one has been assigned". And I would consider the "always include" as more of an injunction – as in "you should do this" — whereas "require" (as you phrased it) is stronger, and implies that there is some kind of enforcement. That we don't have. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
Talk header}}
does not allow for a fully custom title.|page=
(or |ref=harv
) is included it should be required to have either |isbn=
or |publisher=
+ |year=
- otherwise it is impossible to know which edition it is since page numbers can change depending on edition, many books have multiple editions/publishers/printings/media. --
Green
C 16:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)|Edition=
is used to specify edition, and year often works to the same purpose. In the extremely rare cases where neither of those is sufficient to distinguish between two near identical documents that differ in pagination the ISBN might help. But making ISBN (or publisher) required merely because a page is given is ludicrous. ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 22:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)