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 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
10-digit ISBNs have been deprecated since about 2007 and should be replaced by 13-digit ISBNs (now called just "ISBNs") wherever found. Conversion is a simple task (prepend "978-" and calculate a new check digit).
Correct grouping of the other digits (based on "group" and "publisher" identifier lengths) is quite a bit more complicated and would require some kind of periodically updated table.
I do have a javascript that accurately does both of these things while editing, so it could probably be converted to a lua module to do them while rendering instead. And I do mean a separate module, not just a new feature in {{ cite book}}. That way it can also replace the contents of the standalone {{ ISBN}} template, which currently looks dreadful.
If the above sounds like too much of a cosmetic execution-timesink (I suppose I'd need to create the module first and see how badly it performs), we could resort to tracking categories to fix the input rather than the output:
(digits == 10 && hyphens != 3) || (digits == 13 && hyphens != 4)
, because these are sure to be wrong.Note that detecting ISBNs with the correct number of hyphens at incorrect positions would probably be nearly as expensive as actually fixing them, so they would be neglected in the latter strategy. ― cobaltcigs 02:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
10-digit ISBNs...should be replaced by 13-digit ISBNs (now called just "ISBNs") wherever found.A 10-digit isbn in a book printed in 1982 is and forever shall be a 10-digit isbn. Editors at en.wiki are admonished to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Part of that is accurately recording bibliographic details from the book that they are being citing. If the isbn on the title page of the book is 10 digits, use 10 digits in the citation, don't convert it to 13 digits. See the cs1|2 isbn documentation.
The ponderous tome I linked to above says (emphasis mine):
All new ISBN assignments are based on ISBN-13. If a 10 digit ISBN is found on the resource, it should be converted to a 13 digit number, following the rules set out later in this section, before being encoded into the URN framework. According to the rules of the ISBN standard, such conversion does not create a new ISBN for the book, but a new representation of the existing ISBN. [...] The ISBN in thirteen digit form is defined by the ISO Standard 2108-2005 and later editions. It was previously referred to as “ISBN-13” to distinguish it from “ISBN-10”, but since all ISBNs are now valid only in the 13 digit format and ISBN-10 is deprecated, ISBN-13 should be referred to as “ISBN”, although in this document ISBN-13 is used for the sake of clarity.
Note that it very clearly says "all ISBNs" and not "ISBNs of books published in or after 2007" and that there is no reference to any "grandfather clause" or continued validity of ISBN-10s for any duration of time after 2007.
I do know Google Books (surely a more popular "where you got it" source than physical books anymore) info shows both 10- and 13-digit ISBNs, without regard to year of publication and without indicating which of them was ever printed on a physical book. Of course, according to the above document, they could have stopped displaying ISBN-10s (or recognizing them for search) twelve years ago without violating any standards. And since Google Books is an order of magnitude more popular than anything else on the Special:BookSources list, Wikipedia and the rest of the world would have immediately followed suit, if only they had done that. ― cobaltcigs 04:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
― cobaltcigs 20:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
|year=
while using the ISBN of their in-print edition which might be 20 years later. Then how do you know which edition it is? One could assume the ISBN is correct, but I've seen people and scripts add missing ISBNs to templates without a clear indication they are choosing the one intended, and not just the most recently published in-print edition. Particularly by people pushing links to bookseller sites for a certain edition. --
Green
C 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)| pages =
parameter followed by only one page number, there's a 90% chance it's the last page (often intentionally blank). ―
cobaltcigs 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)This thread is full of obviously wrong information. Some quick facts. All books with and isbn10 have an isbn13 — it’s automatic. It does not mean that it is printed in the book obviously. The EAN for a book is the isbn13. The GTIN 13 for a book is the isbn13 number. Lastly converting an isbn10 to isbn13 is easy: just add the prefix and change the check digit. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
|isbn=
parameter would accept two values rather than only one). On a practical level the two ISBNs are not actually redundant, as both might be used as text search patterns by users, and listing only one of them, users searching for ISBNs in articles may unfortunately fail to find a referenced book due to the embedded checksum (this is why stores almost always list both ISBNs in order to not miss any possible hits). --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)I recently added a citation which I wanted to include both a page range, because it's a journal article, and a page, to point to a particular portion of the article, but it has a CS1 error. (diff) Maybe this should be allowed for cite journal? Cheers, Mvolz ( talk) 10:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|pages=98–109 [101]
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|pages=98–109 (101)
. Not being aware that pages accepts free-flow input, personally I have used |pages=98–109, 101
hoping that readers would "get it" that there must be something important with page 101, and editors would not remove it as redundant. However, for consistency it would be better to have a well-defined and documented way to handle cases like this (with or without extra parameter). --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)To this template, to the section/box entitled "Most commonly used parameters in horizontal format", for each of the examples for which this does not appear, please at least add:
If one of these do not appear in every example, lack of importance might be inferred, which is contrary to WP policies and guidelines.Then, please add any other standard, important field that is normally needed (better empty fields in an example, than the field to be missing). Please, take onto account the preference of WP writers for web-accessible sources (and the fact of inevitable url demise). That is, consider whether every example book citation template should also present:
and possibly:
Finally, in my opinion, at least one further example would be helpful, that of a two-author book with two editors, that is a part of a series, that has an original publication date that is old, and a recent publication date of a newer edition, that is available both in hardcopy, and in a digital paginated form. Add to this access date, and the fields based on the expectation that the url/doi will die.
All from me. Just aiming for no {{cite book | ... }} example to lack a page number, and for all to have needed url fields, and after than, hoping for an example that has essentially everything that is generally needed for citing scholarly secondary academic sources (which is our aim, I understand), Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:A57B:85B4:7889:AE7D ( talk) 15:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
When using the Cite function to add a URL in the VisualEditor, the |subscription=
parameter is still available even though it has been deprecated. -
Samuel Wiki (
talk) 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
|subscription=
and |registration=
are still valid supported parameters. Likely these two parameters will become unsupported at the next module-suite update.{{
cite web}}
does not support |chapter=
or |cite entry=
so template data should not recommend replacement of |subscription=
and |registration=
with |chapter-url-access=
and |entry-url-access=
. You might want to fix that.We might need a new url-status value (or two); maybe something like content-missing
or no-data
, for urls which are not dead, not usurped, not unfit (per discussions
here and
here), but which bring up the correct website, display readable content on the page like a containing header and footer with the expected website boilerplate there, but with the "meat and potatoes" portion in the middle blank, missing, or otherwise not able to
verify the content of the article.
Example:
this page should (and at one time, did) have the results of the Brazilian presidential election of 2002 (and others, via radio button) but no longer does; instead, the central frame of the website is an empty gray box. None of the current |url-status=
values express the fact that this url still belongs to the owner, still comes up, but contains no useful information capable of verifying content in a Wikipedia article. (In this case, the internet archive doesn't help; among
67 captures at Archive.org, it's no better (spot-checked a few). But that won't always be the case.)
I wish I had a better example, where the current website was a gray box, but Archive.org still had a valid capture showing the original page with complete data present (which I expect is a more common case), because that would be easier to deal with: the linked title should go to the archived page in that case instead of the url value; i.e., the action is similar to the status=dead-url, except "dead" is inaccurate since the original url is still live, just useless. In the example I gave, the action should actually be different, with the title being in plain-text, unlinked. It may be we need two new statuses then:
url-status=content-missing
– url is live and identifiably the correct page but needed data is absent; archive is good: link the title to the archive.org captureurl-status=content-inaccessible
– url is live and identifiably the correct page but needed data is absent; archive either doesn't exist, or exists but also has missing data: unlink the title.The actions required by these two cases may match actions associated with already existing values, and in that sense the new values (action-wise) are aliases of existing values. That would be a win for implementation, but the option of having new values would still be valuable in giving a clear and proper name to the cases. For example, the action for the first bullet is equivalent to the action for |url-status=dead
; but imho it would be confusing to use the word "dead" for this case merely to elicit the proper action when the url in that case is so clearly not dead, and would confuse citation template users no end. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-status=unfit
? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
unfit
and usurped
(see
this comment by Trappist above), the actions don't match; but I could be mistaken. Also, the url is working, and it's decidedly not a blank page; it is identifiably the correct page. That's the whole point.
Mathglot (
talk) 08:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)|url-status=
has no meaning to cs1|2 without the citation also has |archive-url=
. Because what en.wiki cares about is source content, this citation is as good as dead. I was going to suggest that {{
failed verification}}
might be added to a citation with that url but that template requires at 4 that "the source still contains useful information on the topic". The example url does not meet that requirement. The advice at {{failed verification}}
when the source has "no relevance to any part of the article" is to delete the citation and add {{
citation needed}}
. The url may once have supported the article text (we don't know but
WP:AGF, it did). Marking the citation with {{
dead link}}
will, I think, bring it to the attention of
IABot or others which will dutifully find one of the several archived empty snapshots at archive.org, add |archive-url=
, delete {{dead link}}
. No benefit there.{{
dead link}}
(because the link isn't) and {{failed verification}}
(because no "useful information on the topic"). Until a new source can be found, we want to continue to say that once-upon-a-time this article text was sourced but now cannot be verified due to a form of link rot; perhaps: {{
content missing}}
(surely there is a better name); something that would not cause IABot and friends to add useless blank snapshots but would serve as a flag for editors who might be induced to find a working or archived source as a replacement.{{failed verification}}
? Although, if we could come up with a good name for the param, then we'd have the name for the new template. The other reason I like your suggestion, is because it avoids having to complicate an already complicated situation here.{{citation}}
and running into this situation, could be guided to the template, rather than performing contortions with {{citation}}
or using improper values of url-status
.
Mathglot (
talk) 22:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Usually called a soft 404. They should be status 404, but the site is poorly maintained, it reports 200 even though the original page no longer exists or works (redirects to homepage is common). They are difficult to detect with automated processes. The best action is treat as dead. -- Green C 01:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-status=usurped
, but then used |url-access=limited
. I agree that a special option like |url-access=regional
or |url-access=GDPR-blocked
(or something along that line) might be useful. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
which concerns limited for all readers (if we follow the given examples). Wikipedia is not designed to deal with policy blocks, such as Turkey and China. The permutations are endless and constantly changing. --
Green
C 02:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)I was about to recommend the use of |template-doc-demo=
for another user but it turns out that I had a faulty assumption in mind: It currently disables error categorization in the mainspace. I do not believe that is the intent of the parameter and do believe that placement in the mainspace should cause the parameter to be disabled (or emit its own error message). --
Izno (
talk) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
|template-doc-demo=
in article space, for situations like this where the module has not yet been updated and a red error message should not be displayed. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
|template-doc-demo=
is do as its name indicates, then it certainly should not be used in article-space. If its aliases |no-cat=
, |nocat=
, |no-tracking=
, and |notracking=
are indicators then perhaps it could be used in article-space. The parameter's documentation is not a stellar example of clarity or, more importantly, accuracy:
|template-doc-demo=true
to disable categorization; mainly used for documentation where the error is demonstrated. Alias: no-cat.{{
citation error}}
nor does it use
Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax (it once did via {{
citation/core}}
). The first two sentences of the |template-doc-demo=
documentation should go away.|template-doc-demo=
and aliases will be disabled in article-space and |ignore-isbn-error=
goes away.I have removed support for the last few remaining deprecated parameters: |ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
(still supported by {{
cite arxiv}}
), |registration=
, and |subscription=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
url-status=unfit
to be used?I do not understand when url-status
should be set to unfit
. What is this setting for? The documentation doesn't seem to say what cases it is supposed to be used in. Thanks!
DemonDays64 (
talk) 00:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The classic use case is when a domain has expired and hijacked by spammers, malware or porn sites. We don't want those links displayed. They are no longer "fit" for Wikipedia. -- Green C 01:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
url-status-=usurped
A distinction without much difference in effect. And there is the related use case: The site is still valid, and is not porn or anything, but the content at the specified url has been changed so that it no longer supports the statement it is being cited for. This could use url-access=unfit, in that it is no longer fit for Wikipedia's purposes. Personally, I would like to see support for url-access=changed
(or perhaps "altered") for this specific use case, but I can't say that doing so is vital.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 19:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)I encounter a number of cited sources, particularly in medical refs cited via PMID, but in various other contexts as well, where a part of the source is made free for anyone to see (often a abstract for scholarly papers, or the first 2-3 paragraphs for a newspaper), but the full text is behind a paywall. Sometiems the visible part is all that is needed to support whatever content it is cited for, sometimes the paywalled part is needed. In any case it seems to me that we need a new value supported for |url-access=
. "subscription" is not right, because a significant part of the source is visible without a subscription. Would url-access=partial
work? Do we want to try to have different values depending on whether the part of the source being used is hidden or not?
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
works here IMO. --
Izno (
talk) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=subscription
is the one. It doesn't matter than an excerpt is freely available, what matters is the full source.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
when an excerpt/abstract is available. "Limited" includes "partial" (among other cases), and is good enough. Proliferation of parameter options to cover every single case (or class of cases) that appears should imo be avoided.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|at=Abstract
, or "See abstract in {{
cite xxx}}
". Abstracts are always free, so there's no need to point out that the abstract is free while the rest of the article isn't.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|xxx-access=
is to describe what restrictions on accessing the full source. For instance, a source that requires free registration to read is limited access. Or a source that you can read 10 times before having to pay for is limited access. A free blurb is irrelevant to this. All blurbs are free.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose to update the cs1|2 module suite on the weekend of 11–12 January 2020.
|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;|script-map=
;
discussion|language=<local language>
;
discussion
|script-title=
error report bug when used in {{
cite encyclopedia}}
;
discussion|script-param=
;
discussion|ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
, |registration=
, |subscription=
;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
|script-map=
;|language=<local language>
;|ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
, |registration=
, |subscription=
;|script-map=
;|ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
, |registration=
, |subscription=
;Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
|year=
with non-Latin script;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
this_wiki_code
from ~/Configuration;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
add prop cat to evaluate 2-location-param use in article space; discussion
|location=
.
108.182.15.109 (
talk) 16:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There is something weird in the current {{
cite arxiv}} code that is causing the following to display an "ignored" error... while also displaying the parameter which is supposedly ignored (I noticed on my random trawl through the archives). See here where |publisher=Publisher
is displayed, as is |accessdate=
:
Wikitext | {{cite arXiv
|
---|---|
Live | Conte, Elio (2002).
"A Quantum Like Interpretation and Solution of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox in Quantum Mechanics". pp. 271–304.
arXiv:
0711.2260 [
quant-ph]. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |publisher= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Conte, Elio (2002).
"A Quantum Like Interpretation and Solution of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox in Quantum Mechanics". pp. 271–304.
arXiv:
0711.2260 [
quant-ph]. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |publisher= ignored (
help)
|
-- Izno ( talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
; {{
cite arxiv}}
is a pre-print citation template that supports only those parameters that are relevant to a pre-print. {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, and {{
cite ssrn}}
are similar.|access-date=
and |publisher=
are valid for use in periodical templates but not valid for use in the pre-print templates. But, |access-date=
and |publisher=
escaped that 'unsetting' because they matched the patterns we have in
Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions. The code for that emitted the error messages but left the parameters intact so they were rendered by the periodical rendering code in the citation along with the error message.Seems a {{ Cite web}} discussion has creeped its way to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM. Interested parties are welcomed. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Using {{
cite web}}, if the |title=
ends on "?" or "!" and either |work=
or |series=
is used and the separator is set to the default ".", the rendered output looks odd as the "?" or "!" is immediately followed by a ".". This does not happen when the |title=
ends on "." because a trailing "." is automatically removed.
Since the "?" or "!" cannot reasonably be removed from a title, the "." preceding either |work=
or |series=
should be suppressed instead.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 02:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Title?". Website. |
Sandbox | "Title?". Website. |
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Website. |
Sandbox | "Title". Website. |
As discussed before there are journals, magazines (and even books) which define values for |volume=
, |issue=
and |number=
- for example
Dr. Dobbs Journal, Minolta-Spiegel etc.
Right now, the usage of the |issue=
and |number=
parameters is mutually exclusive and will create an error message. Putting the |number=
value into another parameter like |id=
is an unsatisfactory solution given that we already have a suitably named parameter for this. Also, this makes the number look out of place in the output.
I understand that issuing an error message is a safety measure so that people don't accidently add one of the two parameters overlooking the other, but I wonder if this is really a frequent problem.
If not, I suggest to simply allow either or both of these parameters to be used at the same time. If both are used, |issue=
should be displayed following |volume=
, followed by the |number=
as follows:
or
If only one of the parameters is given, the display should be as follows (for journals):
or (for magazines):
If, however, the error condition is a frequent problem that needs to be catched by default, I suggest to add at least some means to override this error message, like putting the |number=
value in (()) in order to let the template accept it.
Assuming that there is only one "issue number" placeholder to be filled in metadata I'm open in regard to what value(s) should be passed on if both are given: It would be possible to only pass on |issue=
or to concat both parameters into one string like "<issue> #<number>" before passing it on. It would also be possible to make this selectable on (()) being used on either or both of |issue=
and |number=
.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 03:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
|num-issue=yes
and |issue-num=yes
to set the order and declare that both are actually relevant. See also
this.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)|issue=
and |number=
values, perhaps the template output should be given some more thought to remain as close to established rules for formatting as possible:|number=
to contain a number, but perhaps prefixed like "number 524". This could also apply to |issue=
, like in "issue 4", but it could also contain a text-only value like "summer issue", "special issue" etc.The {{
cite book}} and {{
cite web}} templates silently ignore the |issue=
and |number=
parameters, if they are specified. Additionally, {{
cite web}} ignores the |volume=
parameter. There might be more such cases, but these are the ones I run into quite frequently in articles.
In general, I don't think it is a good idea to suppress information provided. The contributing editor probably had a reason to add this information in the first place. Also, as has been discussed earlier, there are books which have volume, issue and number values assigned to them, hence this info should be displayed.
I don't know if {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite magazine}} etc. silently suppress some other parameters as well, but if not, {{ cite book}} and {{ cite web}} should display some message suggesting to switch to {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite magazine}} if unsupported parameters are used. (Not sure, if this should be an error message, a maintenance message or a message only displayed in edit mode.)
Additionally, these citations should be put into some maintenance category so that they can be reviewed and reworked to use more suitable templates.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 04:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
|issue=
and |number=
are supported parameters? All I see is {cite news} accepts |issue= and |volume= parameters while {cite web} does not. Template documentation is supposed to list all supported parameters, and editors should not expect that other parameters will work.
|issue=
as a supported parameter. I will fix it. If this discussion results in that parameter gaining support, my edits can be reverted. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)|journal=
in {{
cite journal}}, a user might be tempted to switch to {{
cite web}}), not realizing that some of the other parameters will be ignored then. This is easy to miss, in particular if editing "foreign" citations.After a discussion at
WP:VPT, I have updated the documentation for |interviewer=
based on the documentation for the |author=
parameters. You can see the updates at {{
cite interview}}. Error corrections are welcome. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The parameter ssrn=
automatically displays the green free access lock, which is almost always a good thing (apparently this feature was added in 2016 - see
SSRN free access lock in this talk page's archives). I discovered today that SSRN hosts a few papers that require payment, such as
an NBER Working Paper I cited today (that's a wikilink to the footnote). ¶ Therefore, it seems we will (eventually) need a method to indicate that an SSRN paper is not free. (I tried ssrn-access=subscription
but that parameter doesn't exist.) I don't see this as a top priority—I simply wanted to bring it to the attention of folks who know how address little problems like this one. My solution today was to just leave out the SSRN link as interested readers will find it on the NBER page for the paper anyway. Thanks! - Mark ¶ P.S. My apologies if this is old news. I did search the archives but didn't find anything.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD
(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it would be helpful to have |accessdate=
(or something similar to that parameter) work with {{
cite sign}}, as signs are frequently removed, vandalised or become unreadable after exposure to the elements. This is just a suggestion; I could see it not being helpful due to how rarely signs are "archived" compared to web pages.
Glades12 (
talk) 18:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A quarry query reveals a few things. Namely
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – invalid directory{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – terminal punctuation{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – three-digit registrant{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – four digit leading zero with subcode{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – four digit leading zero{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – five digit leading zero with subcode{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – five digit leading zero{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – five digit does not begin with 1, 2, or 3; is there a 40000 registrant?{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – six+ digit registrant{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – test registrant10.d.d
, but not in 10.d
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
{{cite book |last=Metzinger |first=Thomas |year=2013 |title=Spirituality and Intellectual Honesty: An Essay |publisher=Self-Published |isbn=978-3-00-041539-5 |doi=10.978.300/0415395}}
is each10.d.d
, but not in10.d
d
three digits so, as regex, 10\.\d\d\d\.\d\d\d
, but not in 10\.\d\d\d
?
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers function doi()
updated.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | شاه, سيد يوسف (١٩٣٠). حالات مشوانی. لاھور: محمدی پریس. pp. ١٦٠-١٦١. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |year= (
help)
|
Sandbox | شاه, سيد يوسف (١٩٣٠). حالات مشوانی. لاھور: محمدی پریس. pp. ١٦٠-١٦١. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |year= (
help)
|
~/Date validation recognizes the Arabic digits as digit characters, but Lua's tonumber()
function only works with Latin characters. Fixed in the sandbox. Because this is a lua script error, I will likely update ~/Date validation within the next week.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation updated.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
For a while, there has been a copy-paste bug in the Visual Editor (VE) that caused code like templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"
to appear in articles' wikicode. The bug is described in
T209493. A bug fix was reportedly deployed on 15 January 2020.
This search shows articles currently affected by the bug. In theory, if we get them all cleaned up, we can find out if the bug is still present by watching to see if it shows up as a result of a future VE copy-paste edit.
Here's how I fixed one article. Helpfully, the edit that placed the bug-infected code in the article had a nice edit summary that led me to the original wikicode, which I was able to copy and paste to replace the badly formatted references. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Since the last update, I have been engaged in discussions with the editor who maintains the cs1|2 modules at sq.wiki. Those discussions have led to some changes that, I hope, will aid editors at other wikis when they update their module suites.
cfg.defaults
table is disableddefaults
table because it only supported |url-status=
and the code never actually looks for the assigned default value (dead
); rather, it looks for live
, unfit
, usurped
, and bot: unknown
err_msg_supl
to hold supplementary error message text for archive url, bibcode, isbn, and Vancouver style error messages— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I have had several sources which have both a paper book and an e-book available, and they naturally have both their own ISBN numbers. Should the template:Cite book have parametres for inputting both (to be used only in case they are releases of the same edition), like the journal and magazine templates have the possibility of inputting both ISSN and eISSN parametres? -- XoravaX ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just spotted that a date without a space between the day & month is not flagged as an error.
For example {{cite web |url=https://www.goethe.de/ins/ca/en/kul/sup/dsk/dstu/fvp.html |title=PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL“ |date=11July 1998 |publisher=Goethe |access-date=26November 2019 }}
"PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL"". Goethe. 11July 1998. Retrieved 26November 2019. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
and |date=
(
help)
Keith D ( talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
|date=
above, removing the space to show that this is not just a problem with |access-date=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
^([1-9]%d?) *(%D-) +((%d%d%d%d?)%a?)$
in
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox have + instead of * in the 13th character position? I made that change and got the output below. I have done no further testing, which could be risky. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL"". Goethe. 11July 1998. Retrieved 26November 2019. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL"". Goethe. 11July 1998. Retrieved 26November 2019. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (
help)
|
Hello, is it possible that a dev add the ability to have multiple |chapter= in Template talk:Cite book? It would be useful if,for example, one is to use sources from the same book but from different chapters. Veverve ( talk) 01:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Are there particularly significant reasons behind why we bold volume numbers in CS1? Although it may help parse volume versus issue, it also over-emphasiseds the volume in a way that's not really very helpful. It seems to have been more common in very compact citation styles where often the title would be omitted or before the ability to link to an item. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
|issue/number=
and |page(s)=
in {{
cite journal}} particularly also) comes up every couple months or so and mostly just needs an RFC to decide what we want to do. I imagine a couple questions:
From the above, we have three styles for rendering volumes and pages:
Book | Journal | |
---|---|---|
Current | 3, pp. 12–56. | 3: 12–56. |
Proposal 1 | vol. 3, pp. 12–56. | 3: 12–56. |
Proposal 2 | vol. 3, pp. 12–56. |
and maybe variants of the first two without bolding. In my view the volume needs to be set off in some way, if not by bolding then with a prefix. Kanguole 19:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help) If we are going to do an RFC, that existing condition needs to be thrown into the soup. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)I am not sure if this is intended, but
this edit clears the "extra punctuation" category. Should |ref=
actually be checked for extra punctuation? --
Izno (
talk) 20:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
, which is intended to have dashes, as with
here. I do not know about the correct solution in this case either, though I have found a preferable solution in the context of these templates. --
Izno (
talk) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
. {{
long dash}} renders as <span style="letter-spacing:-.25em;">———</span>
– note the ending semicolon, which places the citation in the "extra punctuation" category. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
usage is not compliant with the documentation, but I could go either way.<
, >
, &
, "
, and
html entities as the final 'character' in a parameter. Here are the two templates mentioned above:{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)|author=
will no longer be detected:{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)|author=
not to be caught would be unfortunate. What I didn't try is to put the Mask parameters in the whitelist. Do you think that's possible with the current code? Or do we think it is not worth it and users should be instructed to provide an alphanumeric directly in |author-mask=
et al, and to continue checking it like it is today? I think I tend toward continuing to check it and instructing users--which might lead to a stronger parameter check than currently (because this kind of check is fairly soft). --
Izno (
talk) 17:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Ref
to that whitelist 'works' but we lose the ability to detect stray comma-colon-semicolon punctuation.|author=
problem is; MediaWiki repeatedly dies, returns nothing, or times out when I try to search for |author=
. 
,
, etc) with or without ascii space characters mixed in. When these strings of html whitespace characters are detected, the whole parameter value would be set to nil
and the module would emit an error message or maint cat.This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The styles in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css define a few new link icons, but they use low-resolution images, which look ugly on high-resolution screens (or when zooming in), particularly when shown next to default MediaWiki link icons, which are high-resolution.
For example, look at reference 2 on It (novel)#References.
I recommend using the same approach as MediaWiki to load SVG images on browsers that support them: https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/resources/src/mediawiki.less/mediawiki.mixins.less#L31
Namely, please make these changes to Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css:
Extended content
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Matma Rex talk 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have just normalised a book citation, which cited a specific footnote. So I inserted a 'footnote = ' in front. It is an unrecognised parameter. Can this be added? And I suppose we better have endnote= too. The context for this is when the cited book itself cites an inaccessible source. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
|at=p. 117, footnote 77
.
Kanguole 19:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite book| url = https://academic.oup.com/past/article/149/1/95/1460442 | title= Calendar Reform in eighteenth-century England | last= Poole | first= Robert | date= 1995 | series= Oxford Academic Past & Present | at = p. 117, footnote 77}}
{{cite journal | title = 'Give us back our eleven days!': Calendar Reform in eighteenth-century England | last= Poole | first= Robert | date= 1995 | journal= Past & Present | volume = 149 | issue = 1 | pages = 95–139 | doi = 10.1093/past/149.1.95 }} p. 117, footnote 77.
|page=
(even in journal citations) is supposed to be used for according to its documentation. :^) There is nothing to prevent JMF from having the specific page and I'm sure I would not be alone in recommending he add the specific page number. --
Izno (
talk) 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)The Wikipedia article in question appears to be " Calendar (New Style) Act 1750". It's a hopeless mix of {{ Citation}}, Cite xxx, short footnotes, cites to books without using short footnotes as an intermediary, citations using special purpose templates, and citations that do not use templates. It seems to me you need to figure out what the citation system will be for the article before trying to improve individual endnotes. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=117|loc=footnote 77}}
.
Kanguole 20:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
If this is actually a footnote, add "n" at the end of the page number: |p=117n
. If there is more than one footnote in the same page, these are usually numbered (or otherwise separated), so you should include that number/separator: |p=117n2
. This has been the way to signify footnotes, since … forever. If it is a note at the end of a chapter or a book, these are usually in a separate, titled section. In this case you are citing a note in that section. Input the section title after the chapter title |chapter=Chapter: Section
(most likely, "Notes"), or if at the end, |chapter=Section
or and |chapter=
End matter
|at=
End matter, p. [number], n. [number]
. Edit: I moved "End matter" to |at=
because only a limited number of special front/back sections are not quoted by the module.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 22:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
As Jc3s5h observes, the article where this question arose is indeed a mess of various citation styles. I made the mistake of thinking I could clean them up using a mobile (cell phone). Not a good idea. Thank you all for the suggestions, I will review the whole article when I have time to do it properly. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The template provides an archive-url parameter but does not provide an equivalent parameter for the archive of the chapter-url. It would be useful to provide an archive for the referenced chapter when chapter-url is present. Adding chapter-archive-url would need chapter-archive-date, chapter-url-status, and chapter-access-date parameters. Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 20:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
|archive-url=
is the placeholder. Suggest extra archives added to {{
webarchive}}
which can hold up to 10. --
Green
C 20:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)I need to cite several webpages with modern (2011) scholarly translations into Russian of mediaeval Italian chronicles written in Latin, translated from their 19-century publication in book series form printed in Germany. GregZak ( talk) 09:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Module:Citation/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I've tweaked |language=
handling so that it accepts ISO 639-2, -3 codes with IETF tags (yue-HK
); ISO 639-1 with IETF tags already accepted.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Cantonese). |
Sandbox | Title (in Cantonese). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
yue-HK
IETF language tag).Because there are different language versions of wikisource, en.wikisource should not be hard-coded into Module:Citation/CS1. Tweaked the sandbox to use the local language's language code (from Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration) as the second-level domain name.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:04, 19 February 2020 (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 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
10-digit ISBNs have been deprecated since about 2007 and should be replaced by 13-digit ISBNs (now called just "ISBNs") wherever found. Conversion is a simple task (prepend "978-" and calculate a new check digit).
Correct grouping of the other digits (based on "group" and "publisher" identifier lengths) is quite a bit more complicated and would require some kind of periodically updated table.
I do have a javascript that accurately does both of these things while editing, so it could probably be converted to a lua module to do them while rendering instead. And I do mean a separate module, not just a new feature in {{ cite book}}. That way it can also replace the contents of the standalone {{ ISBN}} template, which currently looks dreadful.
If the above sounds like too much of a cosmetic execution-timesink (I suppose I'd need to create the module first and see how badly it performs), we could resort to tracking categories to fix the input rather than the output:
(digits == 10 && hyphens != 3) || (digits == 13 && hyphens != 4)
, because these are sure to be wrong.Note that detecting ISBNs with the correct number of hyphens at incorrect positions would probably be nearly as expensive as actually fixing them, so they would be neglected in the latter strategy. ― cobaltcigs 02:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
10-digit ISBNs...should be replaced by 13-digit ISBNs (now called just "ISBNs") wherever found.A 10-digit isbn in a book printed in 1982 is and forever shall be a 10-digit isbn. Editors at en.wiki are admonished to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Part of that is accurately recording bibliographic details from the book that they are being citing. If the isbn on the title page of the book is 10 digits, use 10 digits in the citation, don't convert it to 13 digits. See the cs1|2 isbn documentation.
The ponderous tome I linked to above says (emphasis mine):
All new ISBN assignments are based on ISBN-13. If a 10 digit ISBN is found on the resource, it should be converted to a 13 digit number, following the rules set out later in this section, before being encoded into the URN framework. According to the rules of the ISBN standard, such conversion does not create a new ISBN for the book, but a new representation of the existing ISBN. [...] The ISBN in thirteen digit form is defined by the ISO Standard 2108-2005 and later editions. It was previously referred to as “ISBN-13” to distinguish it from “ISBN-10”, but since all ISBNs are now valid only in the 13 digit format and ISBN-10 is deprecated, ISBN-13 should be referred to as “ISBN”, although in this document ISBN-13 is used for the sake of clarity.
Note that it very clearly says "all ISBNs" and not "ISBNs of books published in or after 2007" and that there is no reference to any "grandfather clause" or continued validity of ISBN-10s for any duration of time after 2007.
I do know Google Books (surely a more popular "where you got it" source than physical books anymore) info shows both 10- and 13-digit ISBNs, without regard to year of publication and without indicating which of them was ever printed on a physical book. Of course, according to the above document, they could have stopped displaying ISBN-10s (or recognizing them for search) twelve years ago without violating any standards. And since Google Books is an order of magnitude more popular than anything else on the Special:BookSources list, Wikipedia and the rest of the world would have immediately followed suit, if only they had done that. ― cobaltcigs 04:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
― cobaltcigs 20:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
|year=
while using the ISBN of their in-print edition which might be 20 years later. Then how do you know which edition it is? One could assume the ISBN is correct, but I've seen people and scripts add missing ISBNs to templates without a clear indication they are choosing the one intended, and not just the most recently published in-print edition. Particularly by people pushing links to bookseller sites for a certain edition. --
Green
C 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)| pages =
parameter followed by only one page number, there's a 90% chance it's the last page (often intentionally blank). ―
cobaltcigs 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)This thread is full of obviously wrong information. Some quick facts. All books with and isbn10 have an isbn13 — it’s automatic. It does not mean that it is printed in the book obviously. The EAN for a book is the isbn13. The GTIN 13 for a book is the isbn13 number. Lastly converting an isbn10 to isbn13 is easy: just add the prefix and change the check digit. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 18:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
|isbn=
parameter would accept two values rather than only one). On a practical level the two ISBNs are not actually redundant, as both might be used as text search patterns by users, and listing only one of them, users searching for ISBNs in articles may unfortunately fail to find a referenced book due to the embedded checksum (this is why stores almost always list both ISBNs in order to not miss any possible hits). --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)I recently added a citation which I wanted to include both a page range, because it's a journal article, and a page, to point to a particular portion of the article, but it has a CS1 error. (diff) Maybe this should be allowed for cite journal? Cheers, Mvolz ( talk) 10:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|pages=98–109 [101]
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|pages=98–109 (101)
. Not being aware that pages accepts free-flow input, personally I have used |pages=98–109, 101
hoping that readers would "get it" that there must be something important with page 101, and editors would not remove it as redundant. However, for consistency it would be better to have a well-defined and documented way to handle cases like this (with or without extra parameter). --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)To this template, to the section/box entitled "Most commonly used parameters in horizontal format", for each of the examples for which this does not appear, please at least add:
If one of these do not appear in every example, lack of importance might be inferred, which is contrary to WP policies and guidelines.Then, please add any other standard, important field that is normally needed (better empty fields in an example, than the field to be missing). Please, take onto account the preference of WP writers for web-accessible sources (and the fact of inevitable url demise). That is, consider whether every example book citation template should also present:
and possibly:
Finally, in my opinion, at least one further example would be helpful, that of a two-author book with two editors, that is a part of a series, that has an original publication date that is old, and a recent publication date of a newer edition, that is available both in hardcopy, and in a digital paginated form. Add to this access date, and the fields based on the expectation that the url/doi will die.
All from me. Just aiming for no {{cite book | ... }} example to lack a page number, and for all to have needed url fields, and after than, hoping for an example that has essentially everything that is generally needed for citing scholarly secondary academic sources (which is our aim, I understand), Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:A57B:85B4:7889:AE7D ( talk) 15:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
When using the Cite function to add a URL in the VisualEditor, the |subscription=
parameter is still available even though it has been deprecated. -
Samuel Wiki (
talk) 16:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
|subscription=
and |registration=
are still valid supported parameters. Likely these two parameters will become unsupported at the next module-suite update.{{
cite web}}
does not support |chapter=
or |cite entry=
so template data should not recommend replacement of |subscription=
and |registration=
with |chapter-url-access=
and |entry-url-access=
. You might want to fix that.We might need a new url-status value (or two); maybe something like content-missing
or no-data
, for urls which are not dead, not usurped, not unfit (per discussions
here and
here), but which bring up the correct website, display readable content on the page like a containing header and footer with the expected website boilerplate there, but with the "meat and potatoes" portion in the middle blank, missing, or otherwise not able to
verify the content of the article.
Example:
this page should (and at one time, did) have the results of the Brazilian presidential election of 2002 (and others, via radio button) but no longer does; instead, the central frame of the website is an empty gray box. None of the current |url-status=
values express the fact that this url still belongs to the owner, still comes up, but contains no useful information capable of verifying content in a Wikipedia article. (In this case, the internet archive doesn't help; among
67 captures at Archive.org, it's no better (spot-checked a few). But that won't always be the case.)
I wish I had a better example, where the current website was a gray box, but Archive.org still had a valid capture showing the original page with complete data present (which I expect is a more common case), because that would be easier to deal with: the linked title should go to the archived page in that case instead of the url value; i.e., the action is similar to the status=dead-url, except "dead" is inaccurate since the original url is still live, just useless. In the example I gave, the action should actually be different, with the title being in plain-text, unlinked. It may be we need two new statuses then:
url-status=content-missing
– url is live and identifiably the correct page but needed data is absent; archive is good: link the title to the archive.org captureurl-status=content-inaccessible
– url is live and identifiably the correct page but needed data is absent; archive either doesn't exist, or exists but also has missing data: unlink the title.The actions required by these two cases may match actions associated with already existing values, and in that sense the new values (action-wise) are aliases of existing values. That would be a win for implementation, but the option of having new values would still be valuable in giving a clear and proper name to the cases. For example, the action for the first bullet is equivalent to the action for |url-status=dead
; but imho it would be confusing to use the word "dead" for this case merely to elicit the proper action when the url in that case is so clearly not dead, and would confuse citation template users no end. Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-status=unfit
? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
unfit
and usurped
(see
this comment by Trappist above), the actions don't match; but I could be mistaken. Also, the url is working, and it's decidedly not a blank page; it is identifiably the correct page. That's the whole point.
Mathglot (
talk) 08:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)|url-status=
has no meaning to cs1|2 without the citation also has |archive-url=
. Because what en.wiki cares about is source content, this citation is as good as dead. I was going to suggest that {{
failed verification}}
might be added to a citation with that url but that template requires at 4 that "the source still contains useful information on the topic". The example url does not meet that requirement. The advice at {{failed verification}}
when the source has "no relevance to any part of the article" is to delete the citation and add {{
citation needed}}
. The url may once have supported the article text (we don't know but
WP:AGF, it did). Marking the citation with {{
dead link}}
will, I think, bring it to the attention of
IABot or others which will dutifully find one of the several archived empty snapshots at archive.org, add |archive-url=
, delete {{dead link}}
. No benefit there.{{
dead link}}
(because the link isn't) and {{failed verification}}
(because no "useful information on the topic"). Until a new source can be found, we want to continue to say that once-upon-a-time this article text was sourced but now cannot be verified due to a form of link rot; perhaps: {{
content missing}}
(surely there is a better name); something that would not cause IABot and friends to add useless blank snapshots but would serve as a flag for editors who might be induced to find a working or archived source as a replacement.{{failed verification}}
? Although, if we could come up with a good name for the param, then we'd have the name for the new template. The other reason I like your suggestion, is because it avoids having to complicate an already complicated situation here.{{citation}}
and running into this situation, could be guided to the template, rather than performing contortions with {{citation}}
or using improper values of url-status
.
Mathglot (
talk) 22:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Usually called a soft 404. They should be status 404, but the site is poorly maintained, it reports 200 even though the original page no longer exists or works (redirects to homepage is common). They are difficult to detect with automated processes. The best action is treat as dead. -- Green C 01:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-status=usurped
, but then used |url-access=limited
. I agree that a special option like |url-access=regional
or |url-access=GDPR-blocked
(or something along that line) might be useful. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 23:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
which concerns limited for all readers (if we follow the given examples). Wikipedia is not designed to deal with policy blocks, such as Turkey and China. The permutations are endless and constantly changing. --
Green
C 02:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)I was about to recommend the use of |template-doc-demo=
for another user but it turns out that I had a faulty assumption in mind: It currently disables error categorization in the mainspace. I do not believe that is the intent of the parameter and do believe that placement in the mainspace should cause the parameter to be disabled (or emit its own error message). --
Izno (
talk) 23:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
|template-doc-demo=
in article space, for situations like this where the module has not yet been updated and a red error message should not be displayed. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
|template-doc-demo=
is do as its name indicates, then it certainly should not be used in article-space. If its aliases |no-cat=
, |nocat=
, |no-tracking=
, and |notracking=
are indicators then perhaps it could be used in article-space. The parameter's documentation is not a stellar example of clarity or, more importantly, accuracy:
|template-doc-demo=true
to disable categorization; mainly used for documentation where the error is demonstrated. Alias: no-cat.{{
citation error}}
nor does it use
Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax (it once did via {{
citation/core}}
). The first two sentences of the |template-doc-demo=
documentation should go away.|template-doc-demo=
and aliases will be disabled in article-space and |ignore-isbn-error=
goes away.I have removed support for the last few remaining deprecated parameters: |ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
(still supported by {{
cite arxiv}}
), |registration=
, and |subscription=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
url-status=unfit
to be used?I do not understand when url-status
should be set to unfit
. What is this setting for? The documentation doesn't seem to say what cases it is supposed to be used in. Thanks!
DemonDays64 (
talk) 00:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The classic use case is when a domain has expired and hijacked by spammers, malware or porn sites. We don't want those links displayed. They are no longer "fit" for Wikipedia. -- Green C 01:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
url-status-=usurped
A distinction without much difference in effect. And there is the related use case: The site is still valid, and is not porn or anything, but the content at the specified url has been changed so that it no longer supports the statement it is being cited for. This could use url-access=unfit, in that it is no longer fit for Wikipedia's purposes. Personally, I would like to see support for url-access=changed
(or perhaps "altered") for this specific use case, but I can't say that doing so is vital.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 19:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)I encounter a number of cited sources, particularly in medical refs cited via PMID, but in various other contexts as well, where a part of the source is made free for anyone to see (often a abstract for scholarly papers, or the first 2-3 paragraphs for a newspaper), but the full text is behind a paywall. Sometiems the visible part is all that is needed to support whatever content it is cited for, sometimes the paywalled part is needed. In any case it seems to me that we need a new value supported for |url-access=
. "subscription" is not right, because a significant part of the source is visible without a subscription. Would url-access=partial
work? Do we want to try to have different values depending on whether the part of the source being used is hidden or not?
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
works here IMO. --
Izno (
talk) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=subscription
is the one. It doesn't matter than an excerpt is freely available, what matters is the full source.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 22:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=limited
when an excerpt/abstract is available. "Limited" includes "partial" (among other cases), and is good enough. Proliferation of parameter options to cover every single case (or class of cases) that appears should imo be avoided.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|at=Abstract
, or "See abstract in {{
cite xxx}}
". Abstracts are always free, so there's no need to point out that the abstract is free while the rest of the article isn't.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|xxx-access=
is to describe what restrictions on accessing the full source. For instance, a source that requires free registration to read is limited access. Or a source that you can read 10 times before having to pay for is limited access. A free blurb is irrelevant to this. All blurbs are free.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose to update the cs1|2 module suite on the weekend of 11–12 January 2020.
|dead-url=
and |deadurl=
;|script-map=
;
discussion|language=<local language>
;
discussion
|script-title=
error report bug when used in {{
cite encyclopedia}}
;
discussion|script-param=
;
discussion|ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
, |registration=
, |subscription=
;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
|script-map=
;|language=<local language>
;|ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
, |registration=
, |subscription=
;|script-map=
;|ASIN-TLD=
, |class=
, |registration=
, |subscription=
;Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
|year=
with non-Latin script;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
this_wiki_code
from ~/Configuration;— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
add prop cat to evaluate 2-location-param use in article space; discussion
|location=
.
108.182.15.109 (
talk) 16:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There is something weird in the current {{
cite arxiv}} code that is causing the following to display an "ignored" error... while also displaying the parameter which is supposedly ignored (I noticed on my random trawl through the archives). See here where |publisher=Publisher
is displayed, as is |accessdate=
:
Wikitext | {{cite arXiv
|
---|---|
Live | Conte, Elio (2002).
"A Quantum Like Interpretation and Solution of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox in Quantum Mechanics". pp. 271–304.
arXiv:
0711.2260 [
quant-ph]. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |publisher= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Conte, Elio (2002).
"A Quantum Like Interpretation and Solution of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox in Quantum Mechanics". pp. 271–304.
arXiv:
0711.2260 [
quant-ph]. {{
cite arXiv}} : Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |journal= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |publisher= ignored (
help)
|
-- Izno ( talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
; {{
cite arxiv}}
is a pre-print citation template that supports only those parameters that are relevant to a pre-print. {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, and {{
cite ssrn}}
are similar.|access-date=
and |publisher=
are valid for use in periodical templates but not valid for use in the pre-print templates. But, |access-date=
and |publisher=
escaped that 'unsetting' because they matched the patterns we have in
Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions. The code for that emitted the error messages but left the parameters intact so they were rendered by the periodical rendering code in the citation along with the error message.Seems a {{ Cite web}} discussion has creeped its way to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM. Interested parties are welcomed. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Using {{
cite web}}, if the |title=
ends on "?" or "!" and either |work=
or |series=
is used and the separator is set to the default ".", the rendered output looks odd as the "?" or "!" is immediately followed by a ".". This does not happen when the |title=
ends on "." because a trailing "." is automatically removed.
Since the "?" or "!" cannot reasonably be removed from a title, the "." preceding either |work=
or |series=
should be suppressed instead.
--
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 02:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Title?". Website. |
Sandbox | "Title?". Website. |
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live | "Title". Website. |
Sandbox | "Title". Website. |
As discussed before there are journals, magazines (and even books) which define values for |volume=
, |issue=
and |number=
- for example
Dr. Dobbs Journal, Minolta-Spiegel etc.
Right now, the usage of the |issue=
and |number=
parameters is mutually exclusive and will create an error message. Putting the |number=
value into another parameter like |id=
is an unsatisfactory solution given that we already have a suitably named parameter for this. Also, this makes the number look out of place in the output.
I understand that issuing an error message is a safety measure so that people don't accidently add one of the two parameters overlooking the other, but I wonder if this is really a frequent problem.
If not, I suggest to simply allow either or both of these parameters to be used at the same time. If both are used, |issue=
should be displayed following |volume=
, followed by the |number=
as follows:
or
If only one of the parameters is given, the display should be as follows (for journals):
or (for magazines):
If, however, the error condition is a frequent problem that needs to be catched by default, I suggest to add at least some means to override this error message, like putting the |number=
value in (()) in order to let the template accept it.
Assuming that there is only one "issue number" placeholder to be filled in metadata I'm open in regard to what value(s) should be passed on if both are given: It would be possible to only pass on |issue=
or to concat both parameters into one string like "<issue> #<number>" before passing it on. It would also be possible to make this selectable on (()) being used on either or both of |issue=
and |number=
.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 03:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
|num-issue=yes
and |issue-num=yes
to set the order and declare that both are actually relevant. See also
this.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)|issue=
and |number=
values, perhaps the template output should be given some more thought to remain as close to established rules for formatting as possible:|number=
to contain a number, but perhaps prefixed like "number 524". This could also apply to |issue=
, like in "issue 4", but it could also contain a text-only value like "summer issue", "special issue" etc.The {{
cite book}} and {{
cite web}} templates silently ignore the |issue=
and |number=
parameters, if they are specified. Additionally, {{
cite web}} ignores the |volume=
parameter. There might be more such cases, but these are the ones I run into quite frequently in articles.
In general, I don't think it is a good idea to suppress information provided. The contributing editor probably had a reason to add this information in the first place. Also, as has been discussed earlier, there are books which have volume, issue and number values assigned to them, hence this info should be displayed.
I don't know if {{ cite journal}}, {{ cite magazine}} etc. silently suppress some other parameters as well, but if not, {{ cite book}} and {{ cite web}} should display some message suggesting to switch to {{ cite journal}} or {{ cite magazine}} if unsupported parameters are used. (Not sure, if this should be an error message, a maintenance message or a message only displayed in edit mode.)
Additionally, these citations should be put into some maintenance category so that they can be reviewed and reworked to use more suitable templates.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 04:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
|issue=
and |number=
are supported parameters? All I see is {cite news} accepts |issue= and |volume= parameters while {cite web} does not. Template documentation is supposed to list all supported parameters, and editors should not expect that other parameters will work.
|issue=
as a supported parameter. I will fix it. If this discussion results in that parameter gaining support, my edits can be reverted. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)|journal=
in {{
cite journal}}, a user might be tempted to switch to {{
cite web}}), not realizing that some of the other parameters will be ignored then. This is easy to miss, in particular if editing "foreign" citations.After a discussion at
WP:VPT, I have updated the documentation for |interviewer=
based on the documentation for the |author=
parameters. You can see the updates at {{
cite interview}}. Error corrections are welcome. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The parameter ssrn=
automatically displays the green free access lock, which is almost always a good thing (apparently this feature was added in 2016 - see
SSRN free access lock in this talk page's archives). I discovered today that SSRN hosts a few papers that require payment, such as
an NBER Working Paper I cited today (that's a wikilink to the footnote). ¶ Therefore, it seems we will (eventually) need a method to indicate that an SSRN paper is not free. (I tried ssrn-access=subscription
but that parameter doesn't exist.) I don't see this as a top priority—I simply wanted to bring it to the attention of folks who know how address little problems like this one. My solution today was to just leave out the SSRN link as interested readers will find it on the NBER page for the paper anyway. Thanks! - Mark ¶ P.S. My apologies if this is old news. I did search the archives but didn't find anything.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD
(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it would be helpful to have |accessdate=
(or something similar to that parameter) work with {{
cite sign}}, as signs are frequently removed, vandalised or become unreadable after exposure to the elements. This is just a suggestion; I could see it not being helpful due to how rarely signs are "archived" compared to web pages.
Glades12 (
talk) 18:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A quarry query reveals a few things. Namely
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – invalid directory{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – terminal punctuation{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – three-digit registrant{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – four digit leading zero with subcode{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – four digit leading zero{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – five digit leading zero with subcode{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – five digit leading zero{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – five digit does not begin with 1, 2, or 3; is there a 40000 registrant?{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – six+ digit registrant{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help) – test registrant10.d.d
, but not in 10.d
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
{{cite book |last=Metzinger |first=Thomas |year=2013 |title=Spirituality and Intellectual Honesty: An Essay |publisher=Self-Published |isbn=978-3-00-041539-5 |doi=10.978.300/0415395}}
is each10.d.d
, but not in10.d
d
three digits so, as regex, 10\.\d\d\d\.\d\d\d
, but not in 10\.\d\d\d
?
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers function doi()
updated.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | شاه, سيد يوسف (١٩٣٠). حالات مشوانی. لاھور: محمدی پریس. pp. ١٦٠-١٦١. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |year= (
help)
|
Sandbox | شاه, سيد يوسف (١٩٣٠). حالات مشوانی. لاھور: محمدی پریس. pp. ١٦٠-١٦١. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |year= (
help)
|
~/Date validation recognizes the Arabic digits as digit characters, but Lua's tonumber()
function only works with Latin characters. Fixed in the sandbox. Because this is a lua script error, I will likely update ~/Date validation within the next week.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation updated.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
For a while, there has been a copy-paste bug in the Visual Editor (VE) that caused code like templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"
to appear in articles' wikicode. The bug is described in
T209493. A bug fix was reportedly deployed on 15 January 2020.
This search shows articles currently affected by the bug. In theory, if we get them all cleaned up, we can find out if the bug is still present by watching to see if it shows up as a result of a future VE copy-paste edit.
Here's how I fixed one article. Helpfully, the edit that placed the bug-infected code in the article had a nice edit summary that led me to the original wikicode, which I was able to copy and paste to replace the badly formatted references. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Since the last update, I have been engaged in discussions with the editor who maintains the cs1|2 modules at sq.wiki. Those discussions have led to some changes that, I hope, will aid editors at other wikis when they update their module suites.
cfg.defaults
table is disableddefaults
table because it only supported |url-status=
and the code never actually looks for the assigned default value (dead
); rather, it looks for live
, unfit
, usurped
, and bot: unknown
err_msg_supl
to hold supplementary error message text for archive url, bibcode, isbn, and Vancouver style error messages— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I have had several sources which have both a paper book and an e-book available, and they naturally have both their own ISBN numbers. Should the template:Cite book have parametres for inputting both (to be used only in case they are releases of the same edition), like the journal and magazine templates have the possibility of inputting both ISSN and eISSN parametres? -- XoravaX ( talk) 19:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just spotted that a date without a space between the day & month is not flagged as an error.
For example {{cite web |url=https://www.goethe.de/ins/ca/en/kul/sup/dsk/dstu/fvp.html |title=PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL“ |date=11July 1998 |publisher=Goethe |access-date=26November 2019 }}
"PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL"". Goethe. 11July 1998. Retrieved 26November 2019. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
and |date=
(
help)
Keith D ( talk) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
|date=
above, removing the space to show that this is not just a problem with |access-date=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
^([1-9]%d?) *(%D-) +((%d%d%d%d?)%a?)$
in
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox have + instead of * in the 13th character position? I made that change and got the output below. I have done no further testing, which could be risky. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL"". Goethe. 11July 1998. Retrieved 26November 2019. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"PEDESTAL OF THE SOCALLED "PEACE MEMORIAL"". Goethe. 11July 1998. Retrieved 26November 2019. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (
help)
|
Hello, is it possible that a dev add the ability to have multiple |chapter= in Template talk:Cite book? It would be useful if,for example, one is to use sources from the same book but from different chapters. Veverve ( talk) 01:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Are there particularly significant reasons behind why we bold volume numbers in CS1? Although it may help parse volume versus issue, it also over-emphasiseds the volume in a way that's not really very helpful. It seems to have been more common in very compact citation styles where often the title would be omitted or before the ability to link to an item. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
|issue/number=
and |page(s)=
in {{
cite journal}} particularly also) comes up every couple months or so and mostly just needs an RFC to decide what we want to do. I imagine a couple questions:
From the above, we have three styles for rendering volumes and pages:
Book | Journal | |
---|---|---|
Current | 3, pp. 12–56. | 3: 12–56. |
Proposal 1 | vol. 3, pp. 12–56. | 3: 12–56. |
Proposal 2 | vol. 3, pp. 12–56. |
and maybe variants of the first two without bolding. In my view the volume needs to be set off in some way, if not by bolding then with a prefix. Kanguole 19:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help); |volume=
has extra text (
help) If we are going to do an RFC, that existing condition needs to be thrown into the soup. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)I am not sure if this is intended, but
this edit clears the "extra punctuation" category. Should |ref=
actually be checked for extra punctuation? --
Izno (
talk) 20:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
, which is intended to have dashes, as with
here. I do not know about the correct solution in this case either, though I have found a preferable solution in the context of these templates. --
Izno (
talk) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
. {{
long dash}} renders as <span style="letter-spacing:-.25em;">———</span>
– note the ending semicolon, which places the citation in the "extra punctuation" category. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 22:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
usage is not compliant with the documentation, but I could go either way.<
, >
, &
, "
, and
html entities as the final 'character' in a parameter. Here are the two templates mentioned above:{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)|author=
will no longer be detected:{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)|author=
not to be caught would be unfortunate. What I didn't try is to put the Mask parameters in the whitelist. Do you think that's possible with the current code? Or do we think it is not worth it and users should be instructed to provide an alphanumeric directly in |author-mask=
et al, and to continue checking it like it is today? I think I tend toward continuing to check it and instructing users--which might lead to a stronger parameter check than currently (because this kind of check is fairly soft). --
Izno (
talk) 17:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Ref
to that whitelist 'works' but we lose the ability to detect stray comma-colon-semicolon punctuation.|author=
problem is; MediaWiki repeatedly dies, returns nothing, or times out when I try to search for |author=
. 
,
, etc) with or without ascii space characters mixed in. When these strings of html whitespace characters are detected, the whole parameter value would be set to nil
and the module would emit an error message or maint cat.This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The styles in Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css define a few new link icons, but they use low-resolution images, which look ugly on high-resolution screens (or when zooming in), particularly when shown next to default MediaWiki link icons, which are high-resolution.
For example, look at reference 2 on It (novel)#References.
I recommend using the same approach as MediaWiki to load SVG images on browsers that support them: https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/master/resources/src/mediawiki.less/mediawiki.mixins.less#L31
Namely, please make these changes to Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css:
Extended content
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Matma Rex talk 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I have just normalised a book citation, which cited a specific footnote. So I inserted a 'footnote = ' in front. It is an unrecognised parameter. Can this be added? And I suppose we better have endnote= too. The context for this is when the cited book itself cites an inaccessible source. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
|at=p. 117, footnote 77
.
Kanguole 19:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite book| url = https://academic.oup.com/past/article/149/1/95/1460442 | title= Calendar Reform in eighteenth-century England | last= Poole | first= Robert | date= 1995 | series= Oxford Academic Past & Present | at = p. 117, footnote 77}}
{{cite journal | title = 'Give us back our eleven days!': Calendar Reform in eighteenth-century England | last= Poole | first= Robert | date= 1995 | journal= Past & Present | volume = 149 | issue = 1 | pages = 95–139 | doi = 10.1093/past/149.1.95 }} p. 117, footnote 77.
|page=
(even in journal citations) is supposed to be used for according to its documentation. :^) There is nothing to prevent JMF from having the specific page and I'm sure I would not be alone in recommending he add the specific page number. --
Izno (
talk) 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)The Wikipedia article in question appears to be " Calendar (New Style) Act 1750". It's a hopeless mix of {{ Citation}}, Cite xxx, short footnotes, cites to books without using short footnotes as an intermediary, citations using special purpose templates, and citations that do not use templates. It seems to me you need to figure out what the citation system will be for the article before trying to improve individual endnotes. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
{{sfn|Poole|1995|p=117|loc=footnote 77}}
.
Kanguole 20:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
If this is actually a footnote, add "n" at the end of the page number: |p=117n
. If there is more than one footnote in the same page, these are usually numbered (or otherwise separated), so you should include that number/separator: |p=117n2
. This has been the way to signify footnotes, since … forever. If it is a note at the end of a chapter or a book, these are usually in a separate, titled section. In this case you are citing a note in that section. Input the section title after the chapter title |chapter=Chapter: Section
(most likely, "Notes"), or if at the end, |chapter=Section
or and |chapter=
End matter
|at=
End matter, p. [number], n. [number]
. Edit: I moved "End matter" to |at=
because only a limited number of special front/back sections are not quoted by the module.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 22:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
As Jc3s5h observes, the article where this question arose is indeed a mess of various citation styles. I made the mistake of thinking I could clean them up using a mobile (cell phone). Not a good idea. Thank you all for the suggestions, I will review the whole article when I have time to do it properly. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The template provides an archive-url parameter but does not provide an equivalent parameter for the archive of the chapter-url. It would be useful to provide an archive for the referenced chapter when chapter-url is present. Adding chapter-archive-url would need chapter-archive-date, chapter-url-status, and chapter-access-date parameters. Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 20:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
|archive-url=
is the placeholder. Suggest extra archives added to {{
webarchive}}
which can hold up to 10. --
Green
C 20:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)I need to cite several webpages with modern (2011) scholarly translations into Russian of mediaeval Italian chronicles written in Latin, translated from their 19-century publication in book series form printed in Germany. GregZak ( talk) 09:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Module:Citation/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I've tweaked |language=
handling so that it accepts ISO 639-2, -3 codes with IETF tags (yue-HK
); ISO 639-1 with IETF tags already accepted.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (in Cantonese). |
Sandbox | Title (in Cantonese). |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
yue-HK
IETF language tag).Because there are different language versions of wikisource, en.wikisource should not be hard-coded into Module:Citation/CS1. Tweaked the sandbox to use the local language's language code (from Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration) as the second-level domain name.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)