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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
I’m reaching out from Semantic Scholar, a free, non-profit academic search and discovery engine developed by the Allen Institute for AI (AI2) which was first launched in 2015 and now indexes 180 million research papers from all scientific domains. From a content perspective, we have indexing licensing agreements to index scientific content from 550+ publishers, pre-print servers and academic societies and are integrated with multiple data partners including PubMed, Microsoft Academic, Unpaywall and others that provide us with high-quality metadata for our results (all of our content is publicly and freely available and we do not generate any revenue). We’ve been actively working with Citation Bot to add Semantic Scholar as a source for outbound links for licensed content and based on the discussion here, the Wikipedia community recommended that we submit a request to add links to Semantic Scholar IDs as a new identifier type in the Citation Template which can then be used by the Citation Bot.
For additional context, our goal in incorporating links to Semantic Scholar in Wikipedia citations is to provide an additional discovery entry point for Wikipedia users to explore our open literature graph and find additional relevant information for scientific articles that they are unlikely to find elsewhere. For example, in addition to citations/references, figures and tables we provide AI-based features such as citation classifications and high-quality supplemental content like videos, presentation slides, and links to code libraries (you can see an example here).
We are proposing to add our persistent Paper IDs in the following format: semanticscholar=1fa190b60988a4ad272e39e132bcc12b00429464 (with a persistent link in this format: http://api.semanticscholar.org/1fa190b60988a4ad272e39e132bcc12b00429464), but are open to suggestions (if the IDs are too long we can use our persistent corpus ID instead which looks like this: 134350433 - note: these are currently not shown our website, but will be made available in our API within the next 2 weeks). Once these IDs are made available we plan to work with the Citation Bot to integrate API calls using our DOI resolver to generate corresponding links to Semantic Scholar pages (for example, DOI=10.1038/nrn3241 resolves to semanticscholar=da82f8e6ff009432896730061247fa6653bed1f0). Please let us know what additional information we can provide for this request to be considered by the Wikipedia community or if anyone has any questions or feedback! Sebaskohl ( talk) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
https://domain/identifier
" that resolves to "
https://domain/identifier/Long-Description
" is probably better than one that resolves to "
https://domain/Long-Description/identifier
". For a bot, one format to another is very likely trivial, but for humans, it's both easier and more accessible to truncate after the identifier, rather than cut the middle part of the url.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
new IDs will be 9 digits or less in length. Does that mean that these IDs are randomly assigned? Sequentially assigned? What about leading zeros; permitted; not permitted? (modifying https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:37220927 to https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:037220927 suggests that leading zeros are permitted) Is there a minimum value? If
1 ≤ id:length() ≤ 9
is 'valid' then the only rationality checks that cs1|2 can do is max length check and a check to be sure that the ID is only digits.{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Kawchuk G, Prasad NG, Chamberlain RF, Klymkiv A, Peter L |title=The effect of a standardized massage application on spinal stiffness in asymptomatic subjects |journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |volume=12 |issue=Supp 1 |page=P147 |s2cid=37220927 |doi=10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P147 |doi-access=free}}
|s2cid-access=free
(not yet implemented). S2 already knows when articles are open access (see the linked page in the example citation above) so adding something to the s2cid ought not be an onerous endeavor. With that info encoded, access icons would come automatically according to the value in |s2cid=
(for identifiers, cs1|2 only cares about free-to-read) but other consumers of s2 via s2cid may want more/better granularity.|url=
which, as I understand it, en.wiki finds to be undesirable. What I meant to say and upon rereading what I wrote, apparently failed to say, is that the access-status might be encoded into the s2cid as a suffix; perhaps: |s2cid=37220927.oa
or some such. cs1|2 can then apply the free-to-read icon according to the suffix. You may have a use for more than one suffix; cs1|2 would only need whatever suffixes you choose that equate to free-to-read.|s2cid=37220927.oa
). If the .oa suffix is missing then that's an indicator that no link to an open access PDF is available. I will let you know when that work is complete and thank you also for the clarification with regards to the upper limit!
Sebaskohl (
talk) 21:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
.oa
suffix:
{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Kawchuk G, Prasad NG, Chamberlain RF, Klymkiv A, Peter L |title=The effect of a standardized massage application on spinal stiffness in asymptomatic subjects |journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |volume=12 |issue=Supp 1 |page=P147 |s2cid=37220927.oa |doi=10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P147 |doi-access=free}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |s2cid=
value (
help){"error":"Internal server error"}
CorpusID:
from the url; the rest of the url would be discarded. Any way to just get that?|s2cid=<identifier number>
to a cs1|2 template. The code that renders the template will concatenate https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
and <identifier number>
to get a working link into s2.{{#invoke:Sandbox/trappist the monk/check digit|main|37220927}}
→ 37220927.8I'm not sure that's a good idea, if the journal gets acquired and either games or loses open access status, that would mean the identifier changes as well. That's not good. The best way would simply to have an open access flag that can be accessed via API. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Where do we stand with |s2cid=
parameter support. Are we content to keep support for |s2cid=
or, since the Semantic Scholar representatives
Sebaskohl and
Jgorney appear to have abandoned this discussion, delete support for this parameter from the sandboxen?
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 14:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
|s2cid=
added to the citation template and are proceeding to make changes to our page design (scheduled to go out this week) based on your recommendations. This includes surfacing the IDs directly on the page as requested and changing the "W" icon to a "chain link" icon for the button. Please let us know if anything else is needed to add the |s2cid=
.
Sebaskohl (
talk) 17:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
|s2cid=
on our
paper detail pages and have have updated the share icon. Please let us know if anything else is needed to add the |s2cid=
to the citation template!
Sebaskohl (
talk) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
if it is appended to the base identifier.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
, but to automatically set |s2cid-access=free
if it's found.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
flag. See the examples earlier in this conversation.Sebaskohl: I chanced upon this citation:
Following the doi link shows that the publisher has that article behind a paywall. But, following the title link shows that there is an apparently free-to-read copy of the article hosted at s2. Wikipedia should not be linking to copyrighted works where it is not clear that the distributor (s2 in this case) has been properly licensed by the copyright owner (
WP:ELNEVER). It isn't clear to me that the s2 copy of this journal article is properly licensed. If it is, then en.wiki is allowed to link to it and the |s2cid=
rendering should show the free-to-read access icon.
Right now, the only way to display that icon is with the .oa
flag at the end of the s2cid. But, since this article is not open access, that flag is inappropriate. This suggests that if s2 may legitimately host some articles that the publisher has behind a paywall but are not open access, it is necessary to have some sort of other flag to indicate that the article is free-to-read (and appropriately licensed?) Or, we drop the whole notion of the .oa
flag altogether and require that editors here add |s2cid-access=free
when the linked article is OA or s2 is properly licensed to host the article (this latter requires that s2 make it obvious that the copy of the article that they host is properly licensed).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
to the s2cid and the link works:
{{cite journal/new |last=Bandura |first=A. |date=June 2000 |title=Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=75–78 |doi=10.1111/1467-8721.00064 |s2cid=186830.oa}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |s2cid=
value (
help).oa
suffix to give our citation the free-to-read icon. The editor might ask, "Why not? The Alternate sources dropdown shows that copies of the article are readily available and I can link to them. They must be free-to-read, right?") Am I making sense? I'm thinking that if we are to retain this .oa
suffix mechanism, s2 should intercept s2cids that have the .oa
suffix but s2 doesn't link to know OA hosts or s2 doesn't host an OA copy itself. When intercepted, perhaps s2 can put up a banner that says something like "We don't have an open access copy of the article you are requesting, redirecting to ..." You know what I mean, I think. That intercept should be readily identifiable by a bot, perhaps Citation bot, so that the bot can modify the s2cid in the template where it is used. Equally, for OA s2cids without the .oa
suffix, s2 should immediately redirect to the OA landing page as if the suffix were present – you do this already I think. As before, a bot should be able to easily identify redirected s2cids so that it can adjust the citation template here..oa
flag to the s2cid to get the free-to-read icon to render in the en.wiki-published citation. Because there is no apparent indication that the article copies linked from the alternate sources dropdown are properly licensed, en.wiki should not link them indirectly through s2 just as en.wiki should not link them directly. The free-to-read (.oa
) s2cid should only link to an s2 landing page that contains OA material or properly licensed OA links..oa
gone; new |s2cid-access=
created; and our favorite example:
{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Kawchuk G, Prasad NG, Chamberlain RF, Klymkiv A, Peter L |title=The effect of a standardized massage application on spinal stiffness in asymptomatic subjects |journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |volume=12 |issue=Supp 1 |page=P147 |s2cid=37220927 |s2cid-access=free |doi=10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P147 |doi-access=free}}
.oa
showing that it is no longer recognized. Here it is again without the .oa
:
.oa
. To do so would only cause confusion – there might have been confusion had we retained it because turning on the free-to-read for |s2cid=
would have been different from how it is turned on for other parameters. If this experiment created anything beneficial at your end for Citation bot, that should be retained.|s2cid=
so that we can follow up with the CitationBot and other collaborators? Thank you and appreciate the update!
Sebaskohl (
talk) 16:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Sebaskohl: it is live. See also User_talk:Citation_bot#Convert_semanticscholar_links_to_use_s2cid=. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This would have many benefits and very few if any drawbacks. No one raise substantial objects in that previous proposal, and now this is a blocker for
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AntiCompositeBot. |ref=harv
should be made default in CS1 just as it is in CS2.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
enabled. Or they use a mix of CS1 and CS2 that needs to be fixed anyway."
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
to all of the cs1 templates that it holds (there are no cs2 templates). You should look:
User:Trappist the monk/Barack Obama.{{harv}}
-family or {{
sfn}}
templates.|ref=harv
in CS1.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting that you should ask that question. Over the past couple of days I have been messing about in my sandbox; more about that in a moment. When we first added support for the {{use xxx dates}}
templates, I speculated that we could do something similar to unify rendering of the cs1|2 templates. The example I used was the |mode=
parameter but |ref=
is another that could be added to such a template. The discussion is buried in
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 54 § auto date formatting.
In response to comments
elsewhere, I've created some code in my
sandbox that reads raw cs1|2 citation templates and builds a table of CITEREFs that the {{
harv}}
and {{
sfn}}
families of templates (using
Module:Footnotes/sandbox) can read to determine if there is a matching target citation in the article. When the {{harv}}
or {{sfn}}
template finds its CITEREF in the table, no error message:
{{Harvard citation no brackets/sandbox|Red|Blue|Gold|Black and Silver|2020|p=20 |loc=at the bottom}}
→
Red et al. 2020, p. 20, at the bottom{{cite journal |journal=Journal |title=Title |vauthors=Red A, Blue B, Gold C, ((Black and Silver)), Yellow EF |date=2020 |ref=harv}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)But, if the CITEREF isn't in the table:
{{Harvard citation no brackets/sandbox|Yellow|Black |Brown|Red|2019}}
→
Yellow et al. 2019When there are multiple cs1|2 citations that produce the same CITEREF:
{{sfn/sandbox|Orange |2009|pp=34–45}}
– here is the sfn
[1] and two same-name / same-date c1|2
And it works with the {{
sfnmp}}
family:
{{Sfnmp/sandbox|1a1=Green|1a2=White|1a3=Violet|1y=2005|1p=15|2a1=White|2a2=Violet|2a3=Green|2y=2004|2p=50}}
– here is the sfnmp
[2]References
Downsides? Inevitably. This scheme does not work for wrapped templates because those kinds of templates hide a lot of parameters (author parameters, editor parameters, contributor parameters, |ref=
, |date=
, |year=
) under the bonnet so they aren't visible in an article's wiki source. Does not play well with ve because ve does not preview in the same way that the wiki-source editor previews (same reason the auto-date-formatting doesn't work while editing with ve). Benefits? Error messages are visible to editors who don't have
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js; the experiment detects both errors in the {{sfnmp}}
example; the script only finds one at a time; the experiment doesn't shout. Enhancements still to be done are support for error categories and help text. Another possible enhancement might add CITEREFs to the table when |ref=none
so that harv templates without a target but that match the citation template where |ref=none
could be annotated. Also, the {{harv}}
templates support their own |ref=
parameter. The content of that parameter overrides the normal CITEREF in the same way the cs1|2 templates with |ref=
assigned some other text than harv
, none
, CITEREF...
(as plain text or as created by {{
sfnref}}
) overrides the automatic CITEREF anchor creation. The table can hold that 'ref' text for comparison to 'ref' text in {{harv}}
templates. I don't know how common this custom ref use is; I have seen it used to just hold what looks like notes which misuses the parameter but I guess I would expect negative pushback for this enhancement.
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 19:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 21:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
In the sandbox:
{{harvnb|Brown|2020}}
→
Brown 2020{{harvnb|Green|2020}}
→
Green 2020{{cite book/new |title=Has ref harv |last=Brown |date=2020 |ref=harv}}
{{cite book/new |title=Does not have ref harv |last=Green |date=2020}}
New maint cat to identify cs1|2 templates with |ref=harv
. When that category is cleared, the code supporting |ref=harv
should be rewritten.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Module talk:Footnotes § broken harv link reporting where the above broken harv-link reporting scheme is proposed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
being the default option would still need to be default option for the number of errors to drastically go down.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
|ref=none
on the citation.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: replacement character in |first1=
at position 2 (
help)Emits code to have it populate Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters. This is not an invisible character, and the way to fix those is very different than with invisible characters. This should instead populate Category:CS1 errors: replacement characters. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
How would one cite something like a forum post (assuming that it’s an acceptable source)? Use {{ cite web}} with “Thread title”. Website forums.? Or is there a more fitting template? Or do it by hand? — 96.8.24.95 ( talk) 03:12, 29 April 2020 (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.
I am seeing nbsp invisible character errors in Les Frangines, but when I copy and paste one of the relevant title parameter values to https://r12a.github.io/app-conversion/ or to a text editor and show all of the invisible characters, a regular space or an HTML %20 is shown where an nbsp is indicated. Here's a sample cite web template that is giving an error, copied directly from that article:
"Donnez-moi - Single par Les Frangines sur Apple Music". 2019-03-08. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
It does not show me an error here. I am confused. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
<ref name=>
), even entirely using non-Latin scripts. Might have been automated? Anyway, they’re (hopefully) improved now. —
96.8.24.95 (
talk) 21:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the order in which "url=" or "date=" in a citation, for example, matters. The citation templates given in the editing bar and those given on here are in a different order. Is there a particular way I should be writing the parameters in a reference? Heartfox ( talk) 20:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, there a a few thousand incorrect dates of |date=1970-01-01
, |date=1 January 1970
and |date=January 1, 1970
around which is some marker rather than the actual date of publication. May be we could track this, probably in a seperate category to the
Category:CS1 errors: dates which is already large.
Keith D (
talk) 11:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
around which is some marker rather than the actual date of publication? Show me a page where you have seen this 'marker'?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/coronavirus-cruise-ship-turned-away-at-other-ports-docks-at-marina-bay-cruise
{{cite web|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/coronavirus-cruise-ship-turned-away-at-other-ports-docks-at-marina-bay-cruise |title=Coronavirus: 600 passengers disembarked from Costa Fortuna cruise ship as of noon, all found to be well, Health News & Top Stories |publisher=The Straits Times |date=1970-01-01 |accessdate=2020-03-12}}
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/record-142-new-covid-19-cases-in-spore-indian-national-later-confirmed-to-have
{{cite web|author=Jean Iau |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/record-142-new-covid-19-cases-in-spore-indian-national-later-confirmed-to-have |title=Record 142 new coronavirus cases in S'pore; Indian national later confirmed to have Covid-19 died while awaiting test result, Health News & Top Stories |publisher=The Straits Times |date=1970-01-01 |accessdate=2020-04-11}}
{{#time:c|@0}}
→ 1970-01-01T00:00:00+00:00).This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to get the following:
--[[--------------------------< W I K I D A T A _ A R T I C L E _ N A M E _ G E T >----------------------------
as an aid to internationalizing identifier-label wikilinks, gets identifier article names from wikidata.
returns :<lang code>:<article title> when <q> has an <article title> for <lang code>; nil else
for identifiers that do not have q, returns nil
for wikis that do not have mw.wikibase installed, returns nil
The call to mw.wikibase.getEntity() bumps the expensive parser function count
]]
local function wikidata_article_name_get (q)
if not is_set (q) or (q and not mw.wikibase) then -- when no q number or when a q number but mw.wikibase not installed on this wiki
return nil; -- abandon
end
local wd_article;
local this_wiki_code = cfg.this_wiki_code; -- wikipedia subdomain; 'en' for en.wikipedia.org
wd_article = mw.wikibase.getEntity (q):getSitelink (this_wiki_code .. 'wiki'); -- fetch article title from wd; nil when no title available at this wiki; bumps expensive parser function count
if wd_article then
wd_article = table.concat ({':', this_wiki_code, ':', wd_article}); -- interwiki-style link without brackets if taken from wd; leading colon required
end
return wd_article; -- article title from wd; nil else
end
changed to:
--[[--------------------------< W I K I D A T A _ A R T I C L E _ N A M E _ G E T >----------------------------
as an aid to internationalizing identifier-label wikilinks, gets identifier article names from wikidata.
returns :<lang code>:<article title> when <q> has an <article title> for <lang code>; nil else
for identifiers that do not have q, returns nil
for wikis that do not have mw.wikibase installed, returns nil
]]
local function wikidata_article_name_get (q)
if not is_set (q) or (q and not mw.wikibase) then -- when no q number or when a q number but mw.wikibase not installed on this wiki
return nil; -- abandon
end
local wd_article;
local this_wiki_code = cfg.this_wiki_code; -- wikipedia subdomain; 'en' for en.wikipedia.org
wd_article = mw.wikibase.getSitelink (q, this_wiki_code .. 'wiki'); -- fetch article title from wd; nil when no title available at this wiki
if wd_article then
wd_article = table.concat ({':', this_wiki_code, ':', wd_article}); -- interwiki-style link without brackets if taken from wd; leading colon required
end
return wd_article; -- article title from wd; nil else
end
I would have used the sandbox but it seems to be in the middle of being used for something else and this is a simplistic and straightforward change that avoids bumping the expensive parser function count. Thank you, — Uzume ( talk) 17:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This change probably also doesn't need special handling. Izno ( talk) 18:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That parameter is habitually filled by auto-generate tools with the entire page range for the journal. Ex. >Wałęga, Agnieszka (2019-03-10). "Lwowskie studia Stanisława Kota – droga do doktoratu". Biuletyn Historii Wychowania (26): 37–58. doi: 10.14746/bhw.2010.26.3. ISSN 1233-2224. . But recently another editor requested that I add a specific page to the citation of a journal publication. Ok, best practices and such, narrow ranges are good but - what parameter to use? I thought it is part of the MoS for journal citations to report their page ranges (it is commonly done in academic ciations). But where to add the specific page? I cannot use both page= and pages= in the template, they clash and generate an error. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=37–58 [53]
will work for a one time use. Alternatively, something like
Blah blah,{{sfn|Wałęga|2019|p=38}} blah blah... but also blah!{{sfn|Wałęga|2019|p=52}}
Blah blah, [1] blah blah... but also blah! [2]
will also work. WP:REFPAGE above also has other methods. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
|cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
to specify the individual page(s) used to support a statement in the article. The output would be like for the existing |page=
/|pages=
parameters, f.e. 5, 10–13, 17
.|span-page=
/|span-pages=
to specify the page(s) defining a chapter or journal / magazine article. This must be a superset of the individual pages used in the citation. Since the old |page=
/|pages=
parameters were used to specify both individual and span pages, we have to treat them as aliases to |span-page=
/|span-pages=
. If |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
is not specified or defines the same page range, the output would just display what was defined by |span-page=
/|span-pages=
/|page=
/|pages=
, f.e. 3–28
. If |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
defines a subset, the output would be like f.e. 5, 10–13, 17 (3–28)
.|total-page=
/|total-pages=
to specify the total page range of the book / work, or the count of pages. This would be a free-text parameter without error checking. If defined this would be appended at the very end of the citation output like " (? pages)
". Examples: (1–240 pages)
, (xii+240+iv pages)
, (256 pages)
.|quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
to specify the page/page range used for the quote in the |quote=
parameter. This information, if present, could be added in front of the quote, f.e. Page[s]
11–12: "Quoted text"
. Internet Archive Bot is adding links to pages of archived works, so it should be possible to specify page links. If |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
would be specified without |quote=
parameter, this would be treated as an error. |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
could either be treated individually or be added to the pages defined by |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
. The later case, however, would require some more sophisticated page list management in the template. In the minimal version, it would just append the string defining the pages after removing those subpatterns that are already in the list defined by |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
. I guess, this would be too complicated for the first implementation, so I suggest to just treat the |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
independently.|volume=
and |number=
parameters, this could still be decoded as pages (rather than issue numbers) due to the preceding colon ":" following the publisher.|quote-pages=
from |cite-pages=
, and citations do not need |total-pages=
.
Kanguole 14:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
|quote-pages=
may be a subset of |cite-pages=
. If both parameters would specify the same page range, the Page[s] 283:
prefix in front of the quote would be redundant information and could be silently muted.|total-pages=
, it is certainly not essential, but some users repeatedly asked for it, and there are valid uses of this. So it is best to have a proper place for this so that we can control how it is rendered rather than everyone inventing his own conventions. This will improve consistency. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
|total-pages=
, and I put little weight on user requests unless the user demonstrates he/she understands citations, both inside and outside Wikipedia.|chapter-pages=
or |article-pages=
etc., but I tried to avoid becoming too specific. I'm happy for suggestions.|span-pages=
parameter was meant to carry things like 11, 14–16, 102–107
as well, if necessary. And |cite-pages=
could then hold f.e. 15–16, 105
pointing to the actual pages supporting the (one or more) statements in an article. Combined this could look like 15–16, 105 (11, 14–16, 102–107)
.page range =
parameter for book chapters and journal articles, and leave page=
or pages=
for specific page numbers needed to satisfy
WP:V. If it looks too confusing (e.g. a newspaper article spread over many pages), then simply leave it out.
SarahSV
(talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources Google books is moving to a new format (book in the URL, not the hostname), so the examples suggesting changing "books.google.com/books" to just "books.google.com" is probably not a good idea anymore. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
|gbooks=
, and perhaps the sub-parameters for pages etc. could just be appended to the volume ID, like in |gbooks=vh8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT207
.|url=
in citation templates like in |url={{gbooks|plainurl=yes|id=vh8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT207}}
(currently still) resulting in |url=
https://books.google.com/books?id=vh8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT207
. Built-in support for this would help to free the |url=
parameter for other uses. (Although I don't support this RFC, if
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Auto-linking_titles_in_citations_of_works_with_free-to-read_DOIs succeeds, the title could be auto-linked to the |gbooks=
link (or one of the other identifiers discussed there), if |url=
is not present.)|url-status=
, |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters from citations when |url=
points to Google Books. Moving Google Books links into |gbooks=
would encourage them even more to do this. This also applies to a number of other identifier links, as we have multiple links which should better be archived to avoid potential link rot in the long-term future, but only one parameter to hold the archived link. I have some ideas how to possibly solve this but since this would be a general solution (not only related to Google Books), it better belongs into another thread, I guess.There is a discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Possible interaction of spam blacklist and citation archival-url. Apparently, the spam blacklist can be triggered by a url embedded in an archive.org snapshot url (and presumably in other achive urls that include the original url). This presents a problem to editors who try to fix cs1|2 template citations. One solution described at the aforementioned discussion is to percent encode the original url in the archive url; this:
becomes this:
I have hacked on
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and implemented this solution. Here for |url=
and |title=
:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000051-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">[https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ ''Title'']. Archived from the original on 2009-10-02.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+66" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: unfit URL ([[:Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL|link]])</span>
and here for |chapter-url=
and |chapter=
:
{{cite book/new |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=http://www.example.com |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000055-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">[https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ "Chapter"]. [http://www.example.com ''Title'']. Archived from the original on 2009-10-02.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Chapter&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+66" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: unfit URL ([[:Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL|link]])</span>
This code looks for the original url (|url=
) in the archive url (|achive-url=
). If found, the achive url is split at the beginning of the embedded original url. The embedded original url is then percent encoded and the two parts rejoined to make a new archive url. The same is true when |chapter=
and |chapter-url=
are set, and |chapter-url-status=unfit
(or usurped
).
For now this applies to all 'unfit' and 'usurped' urls. Presuming we keep this, I wonder if we ought not have another keyword for |url-status=
; perhaps blacklisted
. A separate maintenance category might also be in order.
Keep? Discard? Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
... editors who may wonder why a blacklisted url displays in the first place.I think that's not an issue because the title is not linked to the blacklisted url but to a (presumably) good snapshot of the website page before it was blacklisted. I presume here that the editor who chose the archive url did so in good faith and that the archived source does, indeed, support the Wikipedia article's text. I suppose that the argument might be made that a blacklisted url is a blacklisted url whether it's archived or not. Still, to your point, using
|url-status=unfit
or |url-status=usurped
disables the link to the original url in the rendered citation.Never mind. I have reverted this change per the linked discussion.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that the argument might be made that a blacklisted url is a blacklisted url whether it's archived or not.
|url-status
.url
has little to say about them. But we could, I suppose, assign (or reassign) the usurped value to case #2: that is, "The url was good once (and the archive may still retain a copy), but it isn't good anymore", which goes along with one set of display possibilities including a displayable |archive-url
. That might leave unfit to cover case #1, with a different set of display characteristics (including forbidding |archive-url
, if it was always bad). Or, if that's not what you intended unfit to be, then perhaps some new value (forbidden, blacklist, or whatever) to indicate that this was never a usable url and the |archive-url
should be suppressed if there is one.
unfit
and usurped
are at:
The url (or domain) was always malware/spam; it was never suitable for a reference, and still is not.
unfit
and usurped
to mean that the url links to:
unfit
– link farm or advertising or phishing or porn or other generally inappropriate contentusurped
– new domain owner with legitimate content; original owner with legitimate content unrelated to the originally cited url's contentusurped
– new domain owner with legitimate content; original owner with legitimate content unrelated to the originally cited url's content
|url-status
need solid, agreed-upon definitions. Just from the point of view of English usage, never mind specialized wiki vocabulary, usurped is much more like what IP 72 stated. The sense of a new domain owner with legit content is nothing like most native English speakers would imagine, I don't think, when seeing the word usurped.|url-status
to cover the different meanings that we seem to be alluding to for it, and trying to cram into two few values.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)...as can be seen from the original discussions of these parameter values, we struggled to get even these...Yeah, we know that these parameter keywords are less than optimal so there is no real need to spend a lot of words telling us what we already know. Suggest better definitions and / or suggest better keywords.
|url-status=reassigned
would be imo a good option to clarify there is a new registrant. Obviously trademarked domains (like say, newyorktimes.com) would not normally lapse, so in these cases |url-status=usurped
would be more accurate.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)I have faint recollection that this may have been covered before. If so forgive my laziness in searching.
The problem is with preemptively archived sources whose originals are subject to update, therefore causing the respective original/archived cited versions to differ. In general terms, any updatable database of information (take your pick) could fall in this category, as the archived snapshot could conceivably become stale with the next update. What to do in this case? Having just edited one such entry (from the Worldcat Identities database) I was forced to use a {{
link note}} to explain the discrepancy. A native solution imo would be one of the following: 1. Make |url-status=
context-sensitive to archive changes (with an additional option |url-status=superseded archive
or similar) 2. Add a new |archive-url-status=
.
Is there any traction on this? 98.0.246.242 ( talk) 02:39, 8 May 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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
I’m reaching out from Semantic Scholar, a free, non-profit academic search and discovery engine developed by the Allen Institute for AI (AI2) which was first launched in 2015 and now indexes 180 million research papers from all scientific domains. From a content perspective, we have indexing licensing agreements to index scientific content from 550+ publishers, pre-print servers and academic societies and are integrated with multiple data partners including PubMed, Microsoft Academic, Unpaywall and others that provide us with high-quality metadata for our results (all of our content is publicly and freely available and we do not generate any revenue). We’ve been actively working with Citation Bot to add Semantic Scholar as a source for outbound links for licensed content and based on the discussion here, the Wikipedia community recommended that we submit a request to add links to Semantic Scholar IDs as a new identifier type in the Citation Template which can then be used by the Citation Bot.
For additional context, our goal in incorporating links to Semantic Scholar in Wikipedia citations is to provide an additional discovery entry point for Wikipedia users to explore our open literature graph and find additional relevant information for scientific articles that they are unlikely to find elsewhere. For example, in addition to citations/references, figures and tables we provide AI-based features such as citation classifications and high-quality supplemental content like videos, presentation slides, and links to code libraries (you can see an example here).
We are proposing to add our persistent Paper IDs in the following format: semanticscholar=1fa190b60988a4ad272e39e132bcc12b00429464 (with a persistent link in this format: http://api.semanticscholar.org/1fa190b60988a4ad272e39e132bcc12b00429464), but are open to suggestions (if the IDs are too long we can use our persistent corpus ID instead which looks like this: 134350433 - note: these are currently not shown our website, but will be made available in our API within the next 2 weeks). Once these IDs are made available we plan to work with the Citation Bot to integrate API calls using our DOI resolver to generate corresponding links to Semantic Scholar pages (for example, DOI=10.1038/nrn3241 resolves to semanticscholar=da82f8e6ff009432896730061247fa6653bed1f0). Please let us know what additional information we can provide for this request to be considered by the Wikipedia community or if anyone has any questions or feedback! Sebaskohl ( talk) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
https://domain/identifier
" that resolves to "
https://domain/identifier/Long-Description
" is probably better than one that resolves to "
https://domain/Long-Description/identifier
". For a bot, one format to another is very likely trivial, but for humans, it's both easier and more accessible to truncate after the identifier, rather than cut the middle part of the url.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
new IDs will be 9 digits or less in length. Does that mean that these IDs are randomly assigned? Sequentially assigned? What about leading zeros; permitted; not permitted? (modifying https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:37220927 to https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:037220927 suggests that leading zeros are permitted) Is there a minimum value? If
1 ≤ id:length() ≤ 9
is 'valid' then the only rationality checks that cs1|2 can do is max length check and a check to be sure that the ID is only digits.{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Kawchuk G, Prasad NG, Chamberlain RF, Klymkiv A, Peter L |title=The effect of a standardized massage application on spinal stiffness in asymptomatic subjects |journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |volume=12 |issue=Supp 1 |page=P147 |s2cid=37220927 |doi=10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P147 |doi-access=free}}
|s2cid-access=free
(not yet implemented). S2 already knows when articles are open access (see the linked page in the example citation above) so adding something to the s2cid ought not be an onerous endeavor. With that info encoded, access icons would come automatically according to the value in |s2cid=
(for identifiers, cs1|2 only cares about free-to-read) but other consumers of s2 via s2cid may want more/better granularity.|url=
which, as I understand it, en.wiki finds to be undesirable. What I meant to say and upon rereading what I wrote, apparently failed to say, is that the access-status might be encoded into the s2cid as a suffix; perhaps: |s2cid=37220927.oa
or some such. cs1|2 can then apply the free-to-read icon according to the suffix. You may have a use for more than one suffix; cs1|2 would only need whatever suffixes you choose that equate to free-to-read.|s2cid=37220927.oa
). If the .oa suffix is missing then that's an indicator that no link to an open access PDF is available. I will let you know when that work is complete and thank you also for the clarification with regards to the upper limit!
Sebaskohl (
talk) 21:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
.oa
suffix:
{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Kawchuk G, Prasad NG, Chamberlain RF, Klymkiv A, Peter L |title=The effect of a standardized massage application on spinal stiffness in asymptomatic subjects |journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |volume=12 |issue=Supp 1 |page=P147 |s2cid=37220927.oa |doi=10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P147 |doi-access=free}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |s2cid=
value (
help){"error":"Internal server error"}
CorpusID:
from the url; the rest of the url would be discarded. Any way to just get that?|s2cid=<identifier number>
to a cs1|2 template. The code that renders the template will concatenate https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
and <identifier number>
to get a working link into s2.{{#invoke:Sandbox/trappist the monk/check digit|main|37220927}}
→ 37220927.8I'm not sure that's a good idea, if the journal gets acquired and either games or loses open access status, that would mean the identifier changes as well. That's not good. The best way would simply to have an open access flag that can be accessed via API. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Where do we stand with |s2cid=
parameter support. Are we content to keep support for |s2cid=
or, since the Semantic Scholar representatives
Sebaskohl and
Jgorney appear to have abandoned this discussion, delete support for this parameter from the sandboxen?
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 14:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
|s2cid=
added to the citation template and are proceeding to make changes to our page design (scheduled to go out this week) based on your recommendations. This includes surfacing the IDs directly on the page as requested and changing the "W" icon to a "chain link" icon for the button. Please let us know if anything else is needed to add the |s2cid=
.
Sebaskohl (
talk) 17:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
|s2cid=
on our
paper detail pages and have have updated the share icon. Please let us know if anything else is needed to add the |s2cid=
to the citation template!
Sebaskohl (
talk) 21:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
if it is appended to the base identifier.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
, but to automatically set |s2cid-access=free
if it's found.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
flag. See the examples earlier in this conversation.Sebaskohl: I chanced upon this citation:
Following the doi link shows that the publisher has that article behind a paywall. But, following the title link shows that there is an apparently free-to-read copy of the article hosted at s2. Wikipedia should not be linking to copyrighted works where it is not clear that the distributor (s2 in this case) has been properly licensed by the copyright owner (
WP:ELNEVER). It isn't clear to me that the s2 copy of this journal article is properly licensed. If it is, then en.wiki is allowed to link to it and the |s2cid=
rendering should show the free-to-read access icon.
Right now, the only way to display that icon is with the .oa
flag at the end of the s2cid. But, since this article is not open access, that flag is inappropriate. This suggests that if s2 may legitimately host some articles that the publisher has behind a paywall but are not open access, it is necessary to have some sort of other flag to indicate that the article is free-to-read (and appropriately licensed?) Or, we drop the whole notion of the .oa
flag altogether and require that editors here add |s2cid-access=free
when the linked article is OA or s2 is properly licensed to host the article (this latter requires that s2 make it obvious that the copy of the article that they host is properly licensed).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
.oa
to the s2cid and the link works:
{{cite journal/new |last=Bandura |first=A. |date=June 2000 |title=Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=75–78 |doi=10.1111/1467-8721.00064 |s2cid=186830.oa}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |s2cid=
value (
help).oa
suffix to give our citation the free-to-read icon. The editor might ask, "Why not? The Alternate sources dropdown shows that copies of the article are readily available and I can link to them. They must be free-to-read, right?") Am I making sense? I'm thinking that if we are to retain this .oa
suffix mechanism, s2 should intercept s2cids that have the .oa
suffix but s2 doesn't link to know OA hosts or s2 doesn't host an OA copy itself. When intercepted, perhaps s2 can put up a banner that says something like "We don't have an open access copy of the article you are requesting, redirecting to ..." You know what I mean, I think. That intercept should be readily identifiable by a bot, perhaps Citation bot, so that the bot can modify the s2cid in the template where it is used. Equally, for OA s2cids without the .oa
suffix, s2 should immediately redirect to the OA landing page as if the suffix were present – you do this already I think. As before, a bot should be able to easily identify redirected s2cids so that it can adjust the citation template here..oa
flag to the s2cid to get the free-to-read icon to render in the en.wiki-published citation. Because there is no apparent indication that the article copies linked from the alternate sources dropdown are properly licensed, en.wiki should not link them indirectly through s2 just as en.wiki should not link them directly. The free-to-read (.oa
) s2cid should only link to an s2 landing page that contains OA material or properly licensed OA links..oa
gone; new |s2cid-access=
created; and our favorite example:
{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Kawchuk G, Prasad NG, Chamberlain RF, Klymkiv A, Peter L |title=The effect of a standardized massage application on spinal stiffness in asymptomatic subjects |journal=BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine |volume=12 |issue=Supp 1 |page=P147 |s2cid=37220927 |s2cid-access=free |doi=10.1186/1472-6882-12-S1-P147 |doi-access=free}}
.oa
showing that it is no longer recognized. Here it is again without the .oa
:
.oa
. To do so would only cause confusion – there might have been confusion had we retained it because turning on the free-to-read for |s2cid=
would have been different from how it is turned on for other parameters. If this experiment created anything beneficial at your end for Citation bot, that should be retained.|s2cid=
so that we can follow up with the CitationBot and other collaborators? Thank you and appreciate the update!
Sebaskohl (
talk) 16:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Sebaskohl: it is live. See also User_talk:Citation_bot#Convert_semanticscholar_links_to_use_s2cid=. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This would have many benefits and very few if any drawbacks. No one raise substantial objects in that previous proposal, and now this is a blocker for
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AntiCompositeBot. |ref=harv
should be made default in CS1 just as it is in CS2.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 00:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
enabled. Or they use a mix of CS1 and CS2 that needs to be fixed anyway."
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 05:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
to all of the cs1 templates that it holds (there are no cs2 templates). You should look:
User:Trappist the monk/Barack Obama.{{harv}}
-family or {{
sfn}}
templates.|ref=harv
in CS1.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 01:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting that you should ask that question. Over the past couple of days I have been messing about in my sandbox; more about that in a moment. When we first added support for the {{use xxx dates}}
templates, I speculated that we could do something similar to unify rendering of the cs1|2 templates. The example I used was the |mode=
parameter but |ref=
is another that could be added to such a template. The discussion is buried in
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 54 § auto date formatting.
In response to comments
elsewhere, I've created some code in my
sandbox that reads raw cs1|2 citation templates and builds a table of CITEREFs that the {{
harv}}
and {{
sfn}}
families of templates (using
Module:Footnotes/sandbox) can read to determine if there is a matching target citation in the article. When the {{harv}}
or {{sfn}}
template finds its CITEREF in the table, no error message:
{{Harvard citation no brackets/sandbox|Red|Blue|Gold|Black and Silver|2020|p=20 |loc=at the bottom}}
→
Red et al. 2020, p. 20, at the bottom{{cite journal |journal=Journal |title=Title |vauthors=Red A, Blue B, Gold C, ((Black and Silver)), Yellow EF |date=2020 |ref=harv}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)But, if the CITEREF isn't in the table:
{{Harvard citation no brackets/sandbox|Yellow|Black |Brown|Red|2019}}
→
Yellow et al. 2019When there are multiple cs1|2 citations that produce the same CITEREF:
{{sfn/sandbox|Orange |2009|pp=34–45}}
– here is the sfn
[1] and two same-name / same-date c1|2
And it works with the {{
sfnmp}}
family:
{{Sfnmp/sandbox|1a1=Green|1a2=White|1a3=Violet|1y=2005|1p=15|2a1=White|2a2=Violet|2a3=Green|2y=2004|2p=50}}
– here is the sfnmp
[2]References
Downsides? Inevitably. This scheme does not work for wrapped templates because those kinds of templates hide a lot of parameters (author parameters, editor parameters, contributor parameters, |ref=
, |date=
, |year=
) under the bonnet so they aren't visible in an article's wiki source. Does not play well with ve because ve does not preview in the same way that the wiki-source editor previews (same reason the auto-date-formatting doesn't work while editing with ve). Benefits? Error messages are visible to editors who don't have
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js; the experiment detects both errors in the {{sfnmp}}
example; the script only finds one at a time; the experiment doesn't shout. Enhancements still to be done are support for error categories and help text. Another possible enhancement might add CITEREFs to the table when |ref=none
so that harv templates without a target but that match the citation template where |ref=none
could be annotated. Also, the {{harv}}
templates support their own |ref=
parameter. The content of that parameter overrides the normal CITEREF in the same way the cs1|2 templates with |ref=
assigned some other text than harv
, none
, CITEREF...
(as plain text or as created by {{
sfnref}}
) overrides the automatic CITEREF anchor creation. The table can hold that 'ref' text for comparison to 'ref' text in {{harv}}
templates. I don't know how common this custom ref use is; I have seen it used to just hold what looks like notes which misuses the parameter but I guess I would expect negative pushback for this enhancement.
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 19:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 21:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
In the sandbox:
{{harvnb|Brown|2020}}
→
Brown 2020{{harvnb|Green|2020}}
→
Green 2020{{cite book/new |title=Has ref harv |last=Brown |date=2020 |ref=harv}}
{{cite book/new |title=Does not have ref harv |last=Green |date=2020}}
New maint cat to identify cs1|2 templates with |ref=harv
. When that category is cleared, the code supporting |ref=harv
should be rewritten.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Module talk:Footnotes § broken harv link reporting where the above broken harv-link reporting scheme is proposed.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
being the default option would still need to be default option for the number of errors to drastically go down.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 18:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
|ref=none
on the citation.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: replacement character in |first1=
at position 2 (
help)Emits code to have it populate Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters. This is not an invisible character, and the way to fix those is very different than with invisible characters. This should instead populate Category:CS1 errors: replacement characters. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
How would one cite something like a forum post (assuming that it’s an acceptable source)? Use {{ cite web}} with “Thread title”. Website forums.? Or is there a more fitting template? Or do it by hand? — 96.8.24.95 ( talk) 03:12, 29 April 2020 (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.
I am seeing nbsp invisible character errors in Les Frangines, but when I copy and paste one of the relevant title parameter values to https://r12a.github.io/app-conversion/ or to a text editor and show all of the invisible characters, a regular space or an HTML %20 is shown where an nbsp is indicated. Here's a sample cite web template that is giving an error, copied directly from that article:
"Donnez-moi - Single par Les Frangines sur Apple Music". 2019-03-08. Retrieved 2020-02-28.
It does not show me an error here. I am confused. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
<ref name=>
), even entirely using non-Latin scripts. Might have been automated? Anyway, they’re (hopefully) improved now. —
96.8.24.95 (
talk) 21:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the order in which "url=" or "date=" in a citation, for example, matters. The citation templates given in the editing bar and those given on here are in a different order. Is there a particular way I should be writing the parameters in a reference? Heartfox ( talk) 20:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, there a a few thousand incorrect dates of |date=1970-01-01
, |date=1 January 1970
and |date=January 1, 1970
around which is some marker rather than the actual date of publication. May be we could track this, probably in a seperate category to the
Category:CS1 errors: dates which is already large.
Keith D (
talk) 11:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
around which is some marker rather than the actual date of publication? Show me a page where you have seen this 'marker'?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/coronavirus-cruise-ship-turned-away-at-other-ports-docks-at-marina-bay-cruise
{{cite web|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/coronavirus-cruise-ship-turned-away-at-other-ports-docks-at-marina-bay-cruise |title=Coronavirus: 600 passengers disembarked from Costa Fortuna cruise ship as of noon, all found to be well, Health News & Top Stories |publisher=The Straits Times |date=1970-01-01 |accessdate=2020-03-12}}
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/record-142-new-covid-19-cases-in-spore-indian-national-later-confirmed-to-have
{{cite web|author=Jean Iau |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/record-142-new-covid-19-cases-in-spore-indian-national-later-confirmed-to-have |title=Record 142 new coronavirus cases in S'pore; Indian national later confirmed to have Covid-19 died while awaiting test result, Health News & Top Stories |publisher=The Straits Times |date=1970-01-01 |accessdate=2020-04-11}}
{{#time:c|@0}}
→ 1970-01-01T00:00:00+00:00).This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to get the following:
--[[--------------------------< W I K I D A T A _ A R T I C L E _ N A M E _ G E T >----------------------------
as an aid to internationalizing identifier-label wikilinks, gets identifier article names from wikidata.
returns :<lang code>:<article title> when <q> has an <article title> for <lang code>; nil else
for identifiers that do not have q, returns nil
for wikis that do not have mw.wikibase installed, returns nil
The call to mw.wikibase.getEntity() bumps the expensive parser function count
]]
local function wikidata_article_name_get (q)
if not is_set (q) or (q and not mw.wikibase) then -- when no q number or when a q number but mw.wikibase not installed on this wiki
return nil; -- abandon
end
local wd_article;
local this_wiki_code = cfg.this_wiki_code; -- wikipedia subdomain; 'en' for en.wikipedia.org
wd_article = mw.wikibase.getEntity (q):getSitelink (this_wiki_code .. 'wiki'); -- fetch article title from wd; nil when no title available at this wiki; bumps expensive parser function count
if wd_article then
wd_article = table.concat ({':', this_wiki_code, ':', wd_article}); -- interwiki-style link without brackets if taken from wd; leading colon required
end
return wd_article; -- article title from wd; nil else
end
changed to:
--[[--------------------------< W I K I D A T A _ A R T I C L E _ N A M E _ G E T >----------------------------
as an aid to internationalizing identifier-label wikilinks, gets identifier article names from wikidata.
returns :<lang code>:<article title> when <q> has an <article title> for <lang code>; nil else
for identifiers that do not have q, returns nil
for wikis that do not have mw.wikibase installed, returns nil
]]
local function wikidata_article_name_get (q)
if not is_set (q) or (q and not mw.wikibase) then -- when no q number or when a q number but mw.wikibase not installed on this wiki
return nil; -- abandon
end
local wd_article;
local this_wiki_code = cfg.this_wiki_code; -- wikipedia subdomain; 'en' for en.wikipedia.org
wd_article = mw.wikibase.getSitelink (q, this_wiki_code .. 'wiki'); -- fetch article title from wd; nil when no title available at this wiki
if wd_article then
wd_article = table.concat ({':', this_wiki_code, ':', wd_article}); -- interwiki-style link without brackets if taken from wd; leading colon required
end
return wd_article; -- article title from wd; nil else
end
I would have used the sandbox but it seems to be in the middle of being used for something else and this is a simplistic and straightforward change that avoids bumping the expensive parser function count. Thank you, — Uzume ( talk) 17:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This change probably also doesn't need special handling. Izno ( talk) 18:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
That parameter is habitually filled by auto-generate tools with the entire page range for the journal. Ex. >Wałęga, Agnieszka (2019-03-10). "Lwowskie studia Stanisława Kota – droga do doktoratu". Biuletyn Historii Wychowania (26): 37–58. doi: 10.14746/bhw.2010.26.3. ISSN 1233-2224. . But recently another editor requested that I add a specific page to the citation of a journal publication. Ok, best practices and such, narrow ranges are good but - what parameter to use? I thought it is part of the MoS for journal citations to report their page ranges (it is commonly done in academic ciations). But where to add the specific page? I cannot use both page= and pages= in the template, they clash and generate an error. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=37–58 [53]
will work for a one time use. Alternatively, something like
Blah blah,{{sfn|Wałęga|2019|p=38}} blah blah... but also blah!{{sfn|Wałęga|2019|p=52}}
Blah blah, [1] blah blah... but also blah! [2]
will also work. WP:REFPAGE above also has other methods. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
|cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
to specify the individual page(s) used to support a statement in the article. The output would be like for the existing |page=
/|pages=
parameters, f.e. 5, 10–13, 17
.|span-page=
/|span-pages=
to specify the page(s) defining a chapter or journal / magazine article. This must be a superset of the individual pages used in the citation. Since the old |page=
/|pages=
parameters were used to specify both individual and span pages, we have to treat them as aliases to |span-page=
/|span-pages=
. If |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
is not specified or defines the same page range, the output would just display what was defined by |span-page=
/|span-pages=
/|page=
/|pages=
, f.e. 3–28
. If |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
defines a subset, the output would be like f.e. 5, 10–13, 17 (3–28)
.|total-page=
/|total-pages=
to specify the total page range of the book / work, or the count of pages. This would be a free-text parameter without error checking. If defined this would be appended at the very end of the citation output like " (? pages)
". Examples: (1–240 pages)
, (xii+240+iv pages)
, (256 pages)
.|quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
to specify the page/page range used for the quote in the |quote=
parameter. This information, if present, could be added in front of the quote, f.e. Page[s]
11–12: "Quoted text"
. Internet Archive Bot is adding links to pages of archived works, so it should be possible to specify page links. If |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
would be specified without |quote=
parameter, this would be treated as an error. |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
could either be treated individually or be added to the pages defined by |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
. The later case, however, would require some more sophisticated page list management in the template. In the minimal version, it would just append the string defining the pages after removing those subpatterns that are already in the list defined by |cite-page=
/|cite-pages=
. I guess, this would be too complicated for the first implementation, so I suggest to just treat the |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
independently.|volume=
and |number=
parameters, this could still be decoded as pages (rather than issue numbers) due to the preceding colon ":" following the publisher.|quote-pages=
from |cite-pages=
, and citations do not need |total-pages=
.
Kanguole 14:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
|quote-pages=
may be a subset of |cite-pages=
. If both parameters would specify the same page range, the Page[s] 283:
prefix in front of the quote would be redundant information and could be silently muted.|total-pages=
, it is certainly not essential, but some users repeatedly asked for it, and there are valid uses of this. So it is best to have a proper place for this so that we can control how it is rendered rather than everyone inventing his own conventions. This will improve consistency. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
|total-pages=
, and I put little weight on user requests unless the user demonstrates he/she understands citations, both inside and outside Wikipedia.|chapter-pages=
or |article-pages=
etc., but I tried to avoid becoming too specific. I'm happy for suggestions.|span-pages=
parameter was meant to carry things like 11, 14–16, 102–107
as well, if necessary. And |cite-pages=
could then hold f.e. 15–16, 105
pointing to the actual pages supporting the (one or more) statements in an article. Combined this could look like 15–16, 105 (11, 14–16, 102–107)
.page range =
parameter for book chapters and journal articles, and leave page=
or pages=
for specific page numbers needed to satisfy
WP:V. If it looks too confusing (e.g. a newspaper article spread over many pages), then simply leave it out.
SarahSV
(talk) 17:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources Google books is moving to a new format (book in the URL, not the hostname), so the examples suggesting changing "books.google.com/books" to just "books.google.com" is probably not a good idea anymore. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 23:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
|gbooks=
, and perhaps the sub-parameters for pages etc. could just be appended to the volume ID, like in |gbooks=vh8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT207
.|url=
in citation templates like in |url={{gbooks|plainurl=yes|id=vh8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT207}}
(currently still) resulting in |url=
https://books.google.com/books?id=vh8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT207
. Built-in support for this would help to free the |url=
parameter for other uses. (Although I don't support this RFC, if
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Auto-linking_titles_in_citations_of_works_with_free-to-read_DOIs succeeds, the title could be auto-linked to the |gbooks=
link (or one of the other identifiers discussed there), if |url=
is not present.)|url-status=
, |archive-url=
and |archive-date=
parameters from citations when |url=
points to Google Books. Moving Google Books links into |gbooks=
would encourage them even more to do this. This also applies to a number of other identifier links, as we have multiple links which should better be archived to avoid potential link rot in the long-term future, but only one parameter to hold the archived link. I have some ideas how to possibly solve this but since this would be a general solution (not only related to Google Books), it better belongs into another thread, I guess.There is a discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Possible interaction of spam blacklist and citation archival-url. Apparently, the spam blacklist can be triggered by a url embedded in an archive.org snapshot url (and presumably in other achive urls that include the original url). This presents a problem to editors who try to fix cs1|2 template citations. One solution described at the aforementioned discussion is to percent encode the original url in the archive url; this:
becomes this:
I have hacked on
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and implemented this solution. Here for |url=
and |title=
:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000051-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">[https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ ''Title'']. Archived from the original on 2009-10-02.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+66" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: unfit URL ([[:Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL|link]])</span>
and here for |chapter-url=
and |chapter=
:
{{cite book/new |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=http://www.example.com |title=Title |url=http://www.example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=2009-10-02 |url-status=unfit}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000055-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">[https://web.archive.org/web/20091002033137/http://www.example.com/ "Chapter"]. [http://www.example.com ''Title'']. Archived from the original on 2009-10-02.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Chapter&rft.btitle=Title&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+66" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: unfit URL ([[:Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL|link]])</span>
This code looks for the original url (|url=
) in the archive url (|achive-url=
). If found, the achive url is split at the beginning of the embedded original url. The embedded original url is then percent encoded and the two parts rejoined to make a new archive url. The same is true when |chapter=
and |chapter-url=
are set, and |chapter-url-status=unfit
(or usurped
).
For now this applies to all 'unfit' and 'usurped' urls. Presuming we keep this, I wonder if we ought not have another keyword for |url-status=
; perhaps blacklisted
. A separate maintenance category might also be in order.
Keep? Discard? Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
... editors who may wonder why a blacklisted url displays in the first place.I think that's not an issue because the title is not linked to the blacklisted url but to a (presumably) good snapshot of the website page before it was blacklisted. I presume here that the editor who chose the archive url did so in good faith and that the archived source does, indeed, support the Wikipedia article's text. I suppose that the argument might be made that a blacklisted url is a blacklisted url whether it's archived or not. Still, to your point, using
|url-status=unfit
or |url-status=usurped
disables the link to the original url in the rendered citation.Never mind. I have reverted this change per the linked discussion.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that the argument might be made that a blacklisted url is a blacklisted url whether it's archived or not.
|url-status
.url
has little to say about them. But we could, I suppose, assign (or reassign) the usurped value to case #2: that is, "The url was good once (and the archive may still retain a copy), but it isn't good anymore", which goes along with one set of display possibilities including a displayable |archive-url
. That might leave unfit to cover case #1, with a different set of display characteristics (including forbidding |archive-url
, if it was always bad). Or, if that's not what you intended unfit to be, then perhaps some new value (forbidden, blacklist, or whatever) to indicate that this was never a usable url and the |archive-url
should be suppressed if there is one.
unfit
and usurped
are at:
The url (or domain) was always malware/spam; it was never suitable for a reference, and still is not.
unfit
and usurped
to mean that the url links to:
unfit
– link farm or advertising or phishing or porn or other generally inappropriate contentusurped
– new domain owner with legitimate content; original owner with legitimate content unrelated to the originally cited url's contentusurped
– new domain owner with legitimate content; original owner with legitimate content unrelated to the originally cited url's content
|url-status
need solid, agreed-upon definitions. Just from the point of view of English usage, never mind specialized wiki vocabulary, usurped is much more like what IP 72 stated. The sense of a new domain owner with legit content is nothing like most native English speakers would imagine, I don't think, when seeing the word usurped.|url-status
to cover the different meanings that we seem to be alluding to for it, and trying to cram into two few values.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)...as can be seen from the original discussions of these parameter values, we struggled to get even these...Yeah, we know that these parameter keywords are less than optimal so there is no real need to spend a lot of words telling us what we already know. Suggest better definitions and / or suggest better keywords.
|url-status=reassigned
would be imo a good option to clarify there is a new registrant. Obviously trademarked domains (like say, newyorktimes.com) would not normally lapse, so in these cases |url-status=usurped
would be more accurate.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)I have faint recollection that this may have been covered before. If so forgive my laziness in searching.
The problem is with preemptively archived sources whose originals are subject to update, therefore causing the respective original/archived cited versions to differ. In general terms, any updatable database of information (take your pick) could fall in this category, as the archived snapshot could conceivably become stale with the next update. What to do in this case? Having just edited one such entry (from the Worldcat Identities database) I was forced to use a {{
link note}} to explain the discrepancy. A native solution imo would be one of the following: 1. Make |url-status=
context-sensitive to archive changes (with an additional option |url-status=superseded archive
or similar) 2. Add a new |archive-url-status=
.
Is there any traction on this? 98.0.246.242 ( talk) 02:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)