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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
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.
Beachcat is a brand name, see http://www.beachcatboats.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddavis1954 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
the guide says that "pages=" is not for the total number of pages. But then, it there a field for this purpose?
Thank you. Rama ( talk) 07:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|page-count=
parameter is supported by citation templates in some other Wikipedias, and has often been suggested to be added to our templates as well in the past (clearly indicating that there is a demand for it among users regardless if it is essential informatin or not). It would help to format this information in a consistent way and show it in suitable places, instead of every editor having to invent his/her own style for it. I would therefore support the addition of such a parameter.Imho:
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493. 118 pages.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: postscript ( link)
... would be possible (this uses the |postscript=
parameter for the number of pages info). --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 11:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|others=Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri")
you mean that you are citing the appendix authored by Broz in Groote's work. For that, we have |contributor=
and |contribution=
so:
{{cite book |title=Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera |last=Groote |first=Inga Mai |year=2003 |publisher=Della Scala |location=Verona |isbn=8885099734 |lang=it |contributor=Broz, Barbara |contribution=Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri" |series=Sette note |volume=I |oclc=681975493 |postscript=. 118 pages.}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link)|postscript=. 118 pages.=
implies that the appendix is 118 pages. Is it?The Holoscene era began approximately 11 700 calendar years before AD 2000. [1]
References
- ^ Walker et al. 2009, p. 1.
Works cited
- Walker, Mike; Jonsen, Sigfus; Rasmussen, Sune Olander; Popp, Trevor; Steffensen, Jørgen-Peder; Gibbard, Phil; Hoek, Wim; Lowe, John; Andrews, John; Björck, Svante; Cwynar, Les C.; Hughen, Konrad; Kershaw, Peter; Kromer, Bernd; Litt, Thomas; Lowe, David J.; Nakagawa, Takeshi; Newnham, Rewi; Schwander, Jacob (2009). "Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core, and selected auxiliary records". Journal of Quaternary Science. 24 (1): 3–17. doi: 10.1002/jqs.1227.
...which would look quite silly for books:
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. pp. 1–118. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493.
Not the way "total number of pages" is made clear: looks like an excerpt of a larger publication. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
& I disagree that total number of pages, that is, for an entire book (as opposed to an excerpt like an article in a journal), is more than very exceptionally useful as information in references: if and when it is (e.g. two editions of the same pre-ISBN book in the same year, only different in number of pages), the |postscript=
parameter can be used to indicate the number of pages. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We might reconsider renaming |pages=
to try and reduce this problem. It is very common perhaps 15% to 20% of all book citations misuse |pages=
. It's an understandable mistake. --
Green
C 15:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|nopp=y
and the number of pages/kbytes with the appropriate suffix.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 15:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
parameter.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 16:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. 118 pages. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) ( help)
|format=
, and perhaps |via=
if the digital provider is not the official publisher.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 17:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
", ? p[p]."
appended at the end of the citation, similar to what I propose: " (? page[s])"
for |total-page[s]=?
in
#Question_about_page_parameter_in_Template:Cite_journal."XI+393 pages"
:
Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats explains its purpose via {{Inconsistent_citations}}
which I include, in part, here:
“ |
User:Citation bot helps editors to keep citations in a consistent format within a given article. If a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite xx}} templates are used, the bot will convert all citations to the dominant type (as they differ in details of punctuation). It will preserve the original formatting, in case it was intentional. However, in most cases, the editor did not realize that the added citation did not match the format in the article. Therefore, the bot adds a hidden comment and a category (via a template to avoid confusing
AWB) to any template that it changes. Human editors should check these comments and see whether the citations they are found in should genuinely have different punctuation to other citations on the page. They should then amend the |postscript= parameter accordingly, removing {{inconsistent citations}} .
|
” |
I had been cleaning up this maintenance category based on the explanation above.
{{Inconsistent_citations}}
applied by an editor to a CSn in an article with only or predominantly CSn{{Inconsistent_citations}}
applied by an editor to a CSn in an article with only or predominantly CSm{{Inconsistent_citations}}
applied by an editor to the article as a maintenance tag{{Inconsistent_citations}}
into a maintenance tag OR—¿philoserf? ( talk) 16:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
by default like CS2, then is the only remaining difference between the two the punctuation, couldn't that last item be harmonized at some point? If so, we'd have just a CS without need for the number, and there would be no need to worry if an article mixed the template families because they'd be one family. Again, just pondering aloud.
Imzadi 1979
→ 21:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No response to the recommendation yet. Reiterated below without the surrounding text.
{{Inconsistent_citations}}
into a maintenance tag OR—¿philoserf? ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Proposing the addition of a new argument |page-range=
to replace |pages=
.
Currently two problems relate to |pages=
:
Thus it is be possible to use both |page=
and |page-range=
in a citation. For example:
|page=42
with |page-range=40-50
would produce: 40-50 [42]
or something similar.And it resolves the ambiguity of "pages" which means a range of pages. -- Green C 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
|span-page[s]=
for this, and we also discussed possible output format notations. Alternatives could be |chapter-page[s]=
for books or |article-page[s]=
for journals and magazines, but they imply semantics which I tried to keep out of the parameter name in the more general |span-page[s]=
suggestion. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
are for. No citation style says to put the total number of pages in a book. I'd might be ok with something like |specific page(s)=
, but really that's why you write something like "See page 34 in {{
cite journal|...}}
" or similar.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
|page[s]=
parameters for things they were not designed for, and also allow us to provide the information in a consistent, centrally controlled format rather than letting every user invent his own style. So, if we would find a better notation in the future or want to introduce responsive templates or user-definable template output, we could easily switch to new output formats instead of having to maintain citations on an individual basis, only being able to guess which type of page information was meant by an original editor.|page[s]=
parameter as a parameter for individual pages. However, like you, I think to remain compatible with the existing usage of |page[s]=
, we would have to treat it as an alias for page ranges rather than individual pages, and instead introduce new parameter(s) for specific pages (which I called |cite-page[s]=
in my proposal, but |specific-page[s]=
would be another option). For orthogonality, I also proposed to introduce |span-page[s]=
, so that users could deliberately declare a specific type of page info, rather then having to rely on the old ambiguous |page[s]=
parameter for this.|pages=
. --
Green
C 15:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)40-50 [42]
42 (40-50)
40-50 [42-44]
42-44 (40-50)
42-43, 45-50 [43, 45-47, 49]
43, 45-47, 49 (42-43, 45-50)
42-44, 50 [42-44, 50]
42-44, 50 (42-44, 50)
42-44, 50
42-44, 50
43 [43]
43 (43)
43
43
|orig-year=
, |trans-*=
). Round brackets are already used for diverse purposes (dates, issue numbers, types, languages, comments) as part of the normal citation syntax. Also, using square brackets for the extra page info would avoid clashes with the occasional existing use of round brackets for other purposes (alternative page numbers, extra commentary regarding particular pages, etc.) seen in some citations.|page-range=
, strictly read, is problematic. Editors may legitimately cite multiple pages that are not contiguous; |page-range=
, strictly read, precludes that legitimate use.|pages=
. I do not support |page-range=
as that solution. Of course your question to me is: what is a better parameter name? Alas, I don't know. |pages-set=
because 6, 23
and 40–50
represent sets of pages?|dead-url=
, any decision resulting from this discussion will likely bring out the torches-and-pitchforks crew who will blame me.|page-ranges=
. Or whatever "ranges" is called. --
Green
C 15:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
|author-*=
, |editor-*=
, |chapter-*=
, |archive-*=
, |script-*=
, |trans-*=
, |orig-*=
, I think a parameter refining/altering the existing parameter |page[s]=
should be named |range-page[s]=
rather than |page-range[s]=
.|-page[s]=
rather than |-range[s]=
(unless the template could reliably auto-detect singular/plural of pages).|range-page[s]=
looks odd to me, whereas |span-page[s]=
does not, but YMMV. Also, I think, "set" is a bit too vague in general and could be easily misunderstood. Are there other suitable synonyms? "chapter" would be quite suitable for books, but would sound strange for journals/newspapers/magazines, vice versa for "article". That's why I was looking for a more abstract term, which could be used in all citation templates without looking out of place. Suggestions?|url-status=
so long as the template supports both the old and new at the same time, without emitting red warnings, bots have time to convert to the new, then turn on the warning messages - after a couple months for example. It was the sudden red lights that really upset everyone. I have no problem writing a bot for this, I have custom CS1|2 libraries. --
Green
C 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
. The suggested replacement is |page-range=
. I understand 'range' in this context to mean a contiguous series of page numbers from m to n where m is the lower bound and n is the upper bound; all page numbers between m and n are included in the 'range'. I do not understand 'range' to mean a discontinuous collection of individual page numbers and/or page-number ranges. |page-range=
is singular, not plural. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but if we are to create a new parameter to replace |pages=
, the name we choose for that parameter should describe what it is that the parameter will hold. So I suggested |pages-set=
because that name allows for a simple page-number range, a comma-separated list of page ranges, a comma-separated list of individual page numbers, or combinations of these. Perhaps too esoteric. So perhaps, because we are citing multiple pages of a source to support text in an en.wiki article, |multi-pages=
?|range-pages=
rather than |page-range=
we could also avoid the singular/plural issue.Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).We have tools, citoid etc, that scrape publisher websites and then populate
|pages=
with the page range that the publisher provides (I notice this most for journal cites). Very often, these sorts of citations are in-line and the editor does not override the tool to comply with the precision clause in WP:V to provide a precise page location for the one sentence or the one paragraph that supports the en.wiki article. The reader then has no recourse but to search through all however-many-pages are listed in |pages=m–n
. For bibliographic listings, this automatic publisher scraping method is fine as long as there is a short-cite pointing to the long-cite. In both forms (in-line and bibliographic) |page=
and |pages=
are sufficient to accomplish the task of identifying the in-source location for the reader. Because of the WP:V precision requirement, cs1|2 renders the value in |page=
when both it and |pages=
are present in a template.|pages=
to list the total number of pages in the source; that could be the whole book or whole chapter or whole article (I've also seen it used to hold the page number of the last page in the source article or the last page of interest).Proposing the addition of a new argument(emphasis mine) That is the proposal, so yes, there is a connection.|page-range=
to replace|pages=
.
m–n
is a single range citation. 3, 16–20
is not a range; it is a comma-separated list containing an individual page and a range of five contiguous pages; it is a multi-page citation.|page[s]=
being a parameter ambiguous enough to be used for several purposes depending on the article and citation in question as well as on the style guide an editor might be used to.|page=
or |pages=
is used, right? There is no auto-detection for this, or is it? --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 01:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
is ambiguous and a large percentage of editors are misusing it. You might say not our problem RTFM, but the template is designed to be self-documenting, editors are not required to be experts of the documentation page, the names of the arguments are the documentation. The word "pages" is misleading editors to think it means one thing and not another. It is creating a significant problem that can't be easily fixed by bot. The longer this goes on, the bigger the problem becomes. It's now impacting other bots and processes as well. --
Green
C 13:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|page*=
and just put whatever pages they want to put, regardless of which of |page=
, |pages=
, |page-range=
, |page(s)-directly-supporting-the-information-i'm-citing=
is used. Solution, KISS, and have |pages=16–32 [18]
to say page 18 in an article spanning pages 16 to 32. Or use {{
rp}}, {{
sfn}} etc... Breaking the existing designs will cause more problems than it solves.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
are routinely confused with and misused for each other. That would only grow worse with other parameters named page-something.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
would remain valid, most people would not even known |page-range=
exists, and no one (bibtex, scientific journals) calls this bibliographic information page range. Which means pretty much everyone would keep using pages for this.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)|page-range=
or |page span=
does not break anything. I don't think anyone is arguing that providing the number of pages in a book is useful bibliographic data (well in a very few cases it allows distinguishing editions of older works not otherwise having different bibliographic data, but that is quite rare). But some do argue that listing the range or set of p0ages that make up ma journal article or chapter is of value, and is common in some academic citation styles. (Indeed CMoS says to mdo so in bibliographies. But replacing or deprecating the |pages=
parameter would break many existing citations, and making pages an alias of page would lose a significant (and traditionally provided) bit of data, plural or singular number of pages actually being cited. Moreover, the parameters for the various CiteX templates are supposed to be as consistent as possible and in {{
cite book}} and {{
Cite News}} and others |pages=
always means the specific list of pages where the supporting info is to be found. We should not lose that consistency, nor be forced outside the template proper. Adding a |page-range=
(or similar, whatever we call it) would handle that case while leaving behavior unchanged for existing cases. Now if the tempalte orm the module it calls could be enhanced to detect that the content of |page=
indicated multiple pages, and emit "pp.", instead of "p.", then i could support making "pages" an alias of "page", and adding page-range to that. That would also allow bot conversion with no mloss of functionality or data.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
which is already the parameter to put page ranges in and creates even more confusion.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
the parameter to put page ranges in, nor should it be, because that means
|pages=
would be used for very different purposes in {{
cite news}} and other CiteX templates than in {{
cite journal}}, which is highly undesirable. According to the template documentation, |pages=
is now the parameter in which to put the exact pages where the cited info is to be found, when there is more than one such page. By "page range" other in this discussion mean "the total set of pages making up the article, even if the cited info is found on only one or a few of these". I think that pages should not be used for a page-range in that sense. Thus there is no redundancy, and those given to copying existing template uses will perhaps have better models to work from.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 20:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
for journals is to indicated the pages of the article being cited. It would also mean that millions of |pages=
would need to be converted to |page-range=
, and then cause huge confused about which of |page=
, |pages=
or |page-range=
to use, and they would all be badly used. Again, the solution is to use |pages=18–32 [26]=
. #32;
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)I don't know where to bring this up, so I'll do it here. When editing, above the text window there's a sort of menu bar that one can use to put text in bold or italics, to add one's signature, and so on, and then finally the word "Cite". If one clicks on that, then a bar appears just below that menu bar, with the word "Templates". If one puts the cursor on that, one gets a menu of "cite web", "cite news", "cite book", and "cite journal". I often use this. When I click on "cite journal", I get a pop-up box in which I can put the author, title, et cetera. But if there are a lot of authors, then I want to use "display-authors=etal". It would be very nice if there were an option in that pop-up box to tell it to include "display-authors=etal"! Can someone add that, or tell me where I should go to make this request? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
in it and it will be added to the resulting cite (after an empty |oclc=
). Even if a field is being used, you can usually add |display-authors=etal
after the field contents. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 09:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Citation needed|date=April 2020|reason=}}
. I've also used Auto-It in the past (and should probably again), which is more flexible in what it can do. Perhaps that can help you. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)There seems to be an issue with {{ Web kaynağı}}, and the template documentation suggests discussing here. The example in the documentation works nicely.
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009 | arşivurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20101015165324/http://yenisafak.com.tr:80/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |arşivtarihi= 15 Ekim 2010}}
→
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009 | arşivurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20101015165324/http://yenisafak.com.tr:80/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |arşivtarihi= 15 Ekim 2010}}
However, if you leave out |archive-url=
, you get the following error...
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009}}
→
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009}}
You can see this in every reference in Draft:Hakan Hançer. Could someone please tweak the template so it doesn't try to put the URL in the archive-url and generate the error? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
|archive-url=
to the module instead of trying to do the module's work for it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Hi,
There's a small glitch in the citation template code handling identifiers. Links from manifestations of ISMN numbers should go through the identifier redirect, but the citation templates still link to International Standard Music Number directly:
Since the configuration at Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration appears to be fine, this is probably a glitch in the code deciding where to link to ( Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_64#choosing_identifier_redirects) and could be down to prefix being set to '' for the ISMN identifier (not so for any of the other identifiers). -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
fixed in sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Reincken, J. A. (2008). "Preface, Critical commentary, Facsimiles". In Beckmann, Klaus (ed.). Complete Organ Works (2 ed.). Schott Music. ISMN 9790001137416. |
Sandbox | Reincken, J. A. (2008). "Preface, Critical commentary, Facsimiles". In Beckmann, Klaus (ed.). Complete Organ Works (2 ed.). Schott Music. ISMN 9790001137416. |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
enwiki
sitelink title referring to
International Standard Music Number so that should be the link the identifier link label uses here not some arbitrary redirect. —
Uzume (
talk) 17:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)I'm thinking about preparing an RfC:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
In this old version of Crossing number (graph theory), the Schaefer 2014 reference has parameter pages=#DS21. This causes {{harvtxt|Schaefer|2014}} to produce a big red error message "Lua error in Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list at line 700: attempt to index local 'template_name' (a nil value)" in place of the actual reference. Regardless of whether that is the right way to indicate the article number (not page number) of this reference, I don't think that error message is a particularly helpful way of behaving. Probably this used to work and has somehow been broken recently. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I have a reference in a draft I am working on whose publication date is "Fourth Quarter 1988". There appears to be no way of formatting this date without producing an error. I might reasonably guess that this means the same as "October–December 1988", but that's just a guess and citation metadata should not be based on guesswork; additionally, anyone trying to use this to look up the reference would have to work backwards from the guess to determine that it is the 4Q88 issue that should be accessed, so reformatting the date in this way would not serve one of the main purposes for which dates are included in references. What would be best, I think, would be some escape to tell the citation templates that a date format it cannot parse is nevertheless ok to include in a reference. The standard "accept-this-as-written markup", as documented on the help page, is to surround things in double parens, like |date=((Fourth Quarter 1988))
, but that doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
|date=1988
and |issue=Fourth Quarter 1988
. Will that work in this case? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
|date=
such dates would not contribute to the citation's metadata because
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation cannot construct an ISO 8601 format date from what amounts to an undefined date format. Similarly, such dates would not be available for construction of the anchor ID. Dates wrapped in accept-this-as-written markup would be treated as errors except that the error message would be suppressed.|date=Spring 2018
? Seasons have the same issue as quarters because they also have varying definitions.
Imzadi 1979
→ 18:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
{{cite journal |author=Author |title=Title |journal=Journal |date=Spring 2018}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)&rft.ssn=spring&rft.date=2018
CITEREFAuthor2018
|date=
is the seasonal date of the magazine / journal / ... issue. This is as it should be. Similarly, cs1|2 would not interpret quarterly dates. For the above example, substituting |date=Fourth Quarter 2018
for |date=Spring 2018
, cs1|2 would produce the same anchor ID but would have different metadata:
&rft.quarter=4&rft.date=2018
|date=
need not be verbatim as there are several acceptable ways to format a given date. Inserting the month range is fine. However |issue=
should be given exactly as is, or as close to it as possible.
172.254.241.58 (
talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
|year=
or |date=
= 2020 and |quarter=
=1 (this would be a new parameter). The presence of the quarter parameter would create a requirement that if date is specified, it be a year; specifying a month or day-of-month in the date would be an error when quarter is present.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 23:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
any application would lack the precision the OP requested.What? Editor David Eppstein wants is to be able to write
|date=Fourth Quarter 1988
because that is the date shown in the footer of the cited source so is exactly precise. There is no ambiguity and en.wiki's MOS has no control over how source publishers date their publications.|date=
, readers might draw their own conclusions as to what that means. But I remarked on this an aside, not material to verification. What was mentioned above was that seasonal dating should normally be avoided, not always. If the publication can be found when searching by date "Fourth Quarter 1988" then a citation with such |date=
is good enough.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 15:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)quarter
key/value pair is restricted to journal objects in COinS but may be used for all other objects in OpenURL).1st quarter 2020
into &rft.quarter=1&rft.date=2020
. We went to great effort to eliminate date parts from cs1|2 (|day=
, |month=
) so we should not return to that method with |quarter=1
.The remark about ambiguity here isn't that First Quarter 2020 or Summer 2019 are problematic when used in citations, but rather that these cannot be converted to months because of their ambiguity. If you get the Summer 2020 issue of Australia Monthly, it will be summer in the northern hemisphere. But if you search for the "Summer 2020" issue of Australian Monthly, there is no ambiguity about which issue that is. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerning [2], it's probably also a good idea to support Quarter 1/2/3/4, and Q1/2/3/4. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
|date=Quarter 1, 1988
or |date=Quarter 1 1988
?|date=Q1, 1988
of |date=Q1 1988
?|date=3rd Quarter 2005
|date=Summer 1988 |date-exact=1988-12-20
. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)In Round Top (Alpine County, California) I cite "Supplement to a Flora...", which was published in a journal with a nonstandard date format. In this case, the date is "Spring and Fall 1983". The citation template is showing an error. I am citing this source as follows:
<ref name="Smith 1983">{{Cite journal|title=Supplement to a Flora of the Tahoe Basin and Surrounding Areas|last=Smith|first=Gladys L.|url=https://digitalcollections.usfca.edu/digital/api/collection/p15129coll11/id/796/download|journal=The Wasmann Journal of Biology|volume=41|number=1 & 2|date=Spring and Fall 1983|format=pdf|page=25|access-date=May 23, 2020}}</ref>
Which renders as this: [1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
What's the right format to use here? CJK09 ( talk) 08:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
|number=1 & 2
'Spring and Fall' is not absolutely required so |date=1983
|date=Spring–Fall 1983
|number=
somehowMaybe there's an explanation that escapes me at the moment, but why does {{ cite book}} place the language indicator (i.e., "in German") in between the series title and the volume number? Here's an example from Balasagun:
In my opinion it should be:
It would make particular sense here because the series, Silk Road Studies, actually has volumes in English, French, and German, so labeling it as if the language is specific to the series instead of the volume would be misleading. I'm sure there are other series like this, too. -- bender235 ( talk) 03:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
|type=
also belongs after the more-specific title for the same reasons, in that they describe the source. So in a {{
cite news}} listing for an editorial: "Our Opinion on Stuff". Newspaper (Editorial). The annotation has the effect to describe the newspaper as an editorial, when it's the article that is the editorial.
Imzadi 1979
→ 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)the most-specific title. Were we to do that, wouldn't we also, for the sake of consistency, have to place the in-source location annotation (
|page(s)=
, |at=
) directly after the most-specific title? After all, specific in-source locations are supposed to be within the content that is defined by the most-specific title.
|chapter=
is used, the language would be displayed after the chapter or after the title, that is, it would seem to "move around".|trans-chapter=
and/or |trans-title=
parameters being used, should the language be placed after the translation or before it?|quote=
and, possibly, |total-page[s]=
)? Either way, being placed at the end of the citation, perhaps we could switch to use square-brackets and get rid of the "in". Examples:|format=
, |type=
and |language=
would be the items which would be merged into a single (pair of brackets) occasionally? Is this a complete list? While this looks nice in some cases, I'm not sure it makes sense in the generic case with all possible values users might put into |format=
and |type=
? After all, these parameters take free-flow strings, not tokens...|date=
would be merged into this set as well. That, I think, would be a really bad idea. While |format=
, |type=
and |language=
can be seen as optional "convenience annotation", the |date=
is a core property of a citation, which must be easily parsable at first sight (by location and syntactical elements), if this would sometimes be merged with other unrelated information, it would no longer stand out.How to avoid possible corner-cases like "(Date) (...)"
Your solutions to which are ugly.
I think you overblow the question of 'other unrelated information'. Rare is the case where you don't have the required other fields to keep the parentheticals separate, and the parameters aside from Date are all rarer than not given how English Wikipedia works. Date will still jump out if you've somehow managed to provide no author and no editor and a language/type/format, not least because that information is typically numerical in some sense and not least because it will always come first in the parenthetical statement.
Let me comment directly on "convenience annotation": If these are convenience annotations only, then why do we support them? -- Izno ( talk) 13:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems that using Cite interview doesn't work with visual editing: the output of the citation shows up as text rather than the usual structured list of fields, so it's not really possible to add an archiveurl for instance. At Peter_Bocage, I ended up deleting the citation, adding it again as a Cite web, filling in the changes I wanted (worked fine), saving, and then opening source editing to rename the updated template back to Cite interview. This is unnecessarily complicated and seems kind of silly just to get the archiveurl in there... Can it be fixed to get it to work in visual editing like Cite web does? Thanks! —{{u| Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)| Talk| Contributions 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
template. Apparently you did not save the version where the output of the citation shows up as text rather than the usual structured list of fieldsso I can't see from the article history what you describe. If the problem is as I suggested, ve's inability to create / edit
{{cite interview}}
, this help page may not be the best place to ask. There is a problem report link at
WP:VE that may be a better place to report this issue.The current system of |title=
, |script-title=
, |trans-title=
and |language=
(and the similar parameter set |chapter=
, |script-chapter=
, |trans-chapter=
) does not handle some cases in the best-possible way. The following suggestions would stay compatible with existing use but add support for some previously unsupported cases, also improve meta-data/screenreader support and assist editors in identifying foreign language citations lacking some important title or language information. Thereby, they would help to improve the quality of foreign language citations.
|trans-title=
without |title=
and |script-title=
throws an error message:
|trans-title= requires |title=
"|trans-title= requires |title= or |script-title
"|trans-chapter=
without |chapter=
and |script-chapter=
.){{cite journal |trans-title=Graphical aids to minimization in switching circuits |language=cs |author-first=Antonín |author-last=Svoboda |journal=Stroje na zpracování informací |publisher=Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Research Institute of Mathematical Machines |date=1958}}
|title=(unknown)
to get rid of the error message, which, however, is not desirable. Putting the translated title in |title=
is also common, but sub-optimal as well, because without |language=
the user has no way of knowing that the source is not in English at all - this can cause quite some confusion when actually trying to obtain the source.|trans-title=
(rather than |title=
) even if the original language title is not known. Therefore, instead of throwing an error message if |trans-title=
is provided without |title=
or |script-title=
, the template should just display the translated title. Since displaying the translated title in [square bracket] looks ugly if neither |title=
or |script-title=
is present as well, it should, in this case, be displayed without any format decoration like a so called "descriptive title". That is, it would be displayed without the usual [square brackets], but also without italics or quotes (as a normal |title=
would be rendered).|trans-title=
does not indicate that the citation is English, the presence of this parameter indicates a foreign language citation. Hence, if |trans-title=
is present without |title=
or |script-title=
, the citation should display a hint in article preview like
Foreign language citation missing original |title= or |script-title=
"|trans-chapter=
without |chapter=
and |script-chapter=
.)|title=
in a known language to |script-title=
(even without knowing anything else about the work). This would also assist translation tools and help screen readers to switch their pronunciation to the corresponding language.|script-title=
, the template at present only supports prefix codes for languages with non-Latin alphabets, unfortunately. I can't see a compelling reason which would forbid us to broaden the concept to any other languages as well and therefore propose to let |script-title=
support all language codes already supported by the |language=
parameter. However, in order to retain the original functionality of the |script-title=
parameter, the template would have to display |script-title=
differently depending on if the provided prefix code is from the short or the full list of codes:<bdi lang="??">script_title</bdi>
|title=
is not present at the same time, |script-title=
can be treated just as a syntax-enhanced substitute for |title=
, and consequently it should be displayed with the format decoration usually applied to |title=
rather than |script-title=
(that is, italics/quotes) plus language attributes. Depending on what would give the better HTML (TBD) we could still use the <bdi> element and just add (example here for italics) <i> like
<i><bdi lang="??">script_title</bdi></i>
<i title="?????? language text" lang="??">script_title</i>
|title=
is present in addition to |script-title=
, we would still have to distinguish between the two parameters in the output, that is, |title=
and |script-title=
would be treated just like before for as long as the language code provided with |script-title=
is in the short list. If it is in the full list, |script-title=
would still not get italics/quotes, and if it is safe to use <bdi> for Latin scripts (TBD, see above) it would be HTML framed like
<bdi lang="??">script_title</bdi>
<span lang="??">script_title</span>
|script-title=
using any language prefixes but that of the local Wikipedia ("en:"), the template could assume that the work is not in the local language (English).|language=
parameter is missing, the template could issue a hint in article preview:
Foreign language citation missing |language=
"|trans-title=
is not present, the template could display a hint in preview:
Foreign language citation missing |trans-title=
"|language=
or |trans-title=
are not actual errors, the template should not generate error messages for them.)|script-chapter=
, |chapter=
and |trans-chapter=
.)|title=
and |chapter=
as well.|script-title=
, whereas |title=
and |trans-title=
do not support any language prefixes. (In the case of |title=
this is probably down to potential conflicts with normal title strings, and in the case of |trans-title=
we assume that the translation is in the locale language (English) and therefore no language framing is required in the English Wikipedia.) The suggestion is to apply language attributation also to |title=
and |chapter=
where it can be derived with reasonable likelihood from other parameters.|trans-title=
does not necessarily indicate that a citation is in the local language (English), the presence of |trans-title=
can be used as an indicator that |title=
, if also present, is not in the local language. Likewise for |trans-chapter=
and |chapter=
.|script-chapter=
or |language=
for |chapter=
, and |script-title=
or (in absence of |chapter=
) also |language=
for |title=
. (If |chapter=
is present |language=
applies only to |chapter=
, in multilingual works not necessarily to |title=
.) |language=
defines the actual language the work or chapter is written in, whereas the |script-*=
parameters specify the language the title of the work or chapter is given in the citation. As discussed above, this is often the same, but not always. If they are equal, it is quite reliable to assume that this can be extended to |title=
or |chapter=
, so that we could provide a HTML language attribute for them as well. If they are not the same, I am not sure, if we should give one of them preference over the other. I guess, in most cases in the English and other Latin-script based Wikipedias, the language provided through the corresponding |script-*=
parameter would more likely match (in particular, if it is not in the short list for non-Latin scripts, that is, we don't have to put any possibly deviating legacy use into account), but I'm not sure if this holds also true for foreign Wikipedias in non-Latin scripts which also use our citation templates. Perhaps it would be better to play it safe and not apply language attributes to |title=
or |chapter=
in these cases.-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 09:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we get a trans-title parameter for the encyclopedia cited in addition to the one already in template:Cite encyclopedia for the encyclopedia entry title? It would be very helpful with citing entries in non-English language encyclopedias. Kges1901 ( talk) 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Cite encyclopedia |script-entry=ru:Павлоградский Гусарский Полк |script-title=ru:Отечественная война 1812. Энциклопедия |trans-title=Patriotic War of 1812: Encyclopedia |publisher=ROSSPEN |location=Moscow |last=Podmazo |first=Alexander |date=2004 |pages=539–540 |language=ru |trans-entry=Pavlograd Hussar Regiment |isbn=9785824303247}}
|trans-work=
some function in that template.
Glades12 (
talk) 18:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)I was wondering if a new parameter, Printer, has ever been considered for books. By Printer I mean, the company that printed the book on behalf of the author or publisher. I think people sometimes confuse or equate Printer with Publisher. OvertAnalyzer ( talk) 23:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|printer=
parameter help readers
locate sources to verify content in articles? Remember that the purpose of citations, quoting from that linked page, is to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found.– Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
|printer=
and |printing=
parameters. This would help to improve consistency in the output. Otherwise people typically try to squeeze this into the |publisher=
and |edition=
parameters, with varying success. It's better to allow us to centrally control how this information is rendered, if given, instead of letting each editor invent his/her own style for it. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
Self-published
. I would flag any citation that has something else there or that does not explicitly state it is a self-published work. The parameter |via=
can be used to specify the self-publishing company/platform or the distributor, who may or may not also be the printer. In any case I find it hard to believe that someone can be aided in finding a purported source by knowing who the printer is.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
|printer=
parameter. IMHO it would create more confusion than it would solve, e.g. I don't think this cite template would gain anything by including printer info:Bach, Johann Sebastian (1751–1752). Die Kunst der Fuge (in German). RISM 991013428 (first edition, 1751) and RISM 991013429 (second edition, with preface by Marpurg, 1752) – facsimiles: mu 6406.2030 H. & Fr. Rungs Musik-Arkiv No 226A, U 315 at Royal Library, Denmark (1751 edition, DK-Kk mu 6406.2030 H. & Fr. Rungs Musik-Arkiv No 226A, U 315 at Bach Digital website); Mus. O. 17364 at Berlin State Library (1752 edition, D-B Mus. O. 17364 Rara at Bach Digital website); BWV 1080 at Baldwin Wallace University (1752 edition, US-BER Kenney 1814, Vault: M 24.B2 at Bach Digital website).
{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Invalid
|postscript=
|ref=harv
( help); templatestyles stripmarker in|postscript=
at position 3 ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)
|printer=
parameter will do little or nothing to address self-publishing related issues. It will confuse those who don't know self-published sources are only exceptionally, i.e. when
WP:ABOUTSELF conditions are met, acceptable for WP:V purposes, and those who are aware about these policy requirements and want to circumvent it will not use the parameter (or whatever other quirk to avoid detection). So more a layer of additional complexity than a real practical advantage. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 17:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Re. "Distribution/marketing functions in the book industry, like in most endeavors did not separate from production until after the industrial revolution and the appearance of regular transport networks." – incorrect. But it was different. 18th-century (or earlier) "publishers" were what today would rather be called de facto "printers", while "editors" or even "authors" who said they sold the printed work from their home, and/or from the homes of relatives and friends in other cities, would be the "publishers" of today. Also bookshops could be marked as publishers (with or without printing the actual work). Much of that would be "self-publishing" by 21st-century standards. The proposed |printer=
would be of no use for the whole period. FYI,
RISM does not publish copies, digital or otherwise, of manuscripts or early prints: it is solely a repository of metadata (descriptions) about such documents. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 06:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I ran into a number of issues with the {{ cite conference}} template I would like to see addressed:
|chapter=
but should (perhaps in the form of |book-chapter=
). Currently, it just silently ignores |chapter=
which is no good at all as no information should be silently ignored by any template. Example:|title=
, only |trans-title=
. I think this is a case that should be supported by the templates in general (but since this is a generic issue, I will bring this up elsewhere), however, the error message provided by the template{{
cite conference}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); |trans-title=
requires |title=
or |script-title=
(
help)-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
has been problematic for a long time as I have noted in previous discussions. For your particular case, according to
https://dblp.org/db/conf/ifip/ifip1962, the paper that you are citing (Wells 1962) is one of 5 papers in chapter 14 (possibly six if the symposium – a paper? – is included). It seems unnecessary to name the chapter when you are citing a specific paper in that chapter:
{{cite conference |book-title=Information Processing, Proceedings of the 2nd IFIP Congress 1962, Munich, Germany, August 27 - September 1, 1962 |title=Application of a Finite Set Covering Theorem to the Simplification of Boolean Function Expressions |last=Wells |first=Mark B. |date=1962 |publisher=North-Holland |volume=2 |pages=731–735}}
{{cite conference/new |trans-title=Translation |author=Author |book-title=Book |volume=VI |publisher=Publisher |date=1958 |pages=35–53}}
{{
cite conference}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); |trans-title=
requires |title=
or |script-title=
(
help)Page numbers are always displayed with colons, never with p & pp. This always happens whether nopp is present or absent. nopp seems to be irrelevant for {{cite journal}}. The documentation says otherwise. — 65.78.11.84 ( talk) 22:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
is working as it should. {{cite journal}}
separates |page(s)=
from |issue=
with <colon><space>
and does not render p. or pp. page prefixes so |no-pp=
is meaningless.{{
cite magazine}}
is a better choice; it does render p. or pp. and does obey |no-pp=
:
{{cite magazine |title=Title |magazine=Magazine |volume=1 |issue=2 |page=3 |no-pp=yes}}
|nopp=
from that section of the {{
cite journal documentation}}. I am sure that further improvement is possible. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)I would like to cite this source (a review of Love and Information) in a section on reception. The review was written by John Del Signore. Should the "Del" be placed in the "first" parameter or the "last" one? AndrewOne ( talk) 21:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
|last=Del Signore
is correct. Others will say that |first=John Del
is correct. I choose the former because, assuming 'Del' is a preposition to the surname, it belongs before and there for with the surname; not after the given name. Of course, if 'Del' is a second given name then the second form is correct. Hard to know. If 'Signore' is Italian, John certainly is not so it is entirely possible that |first=John Del
are English or American given names for an English or American writer from an Italian family.|author=John Del Signore
. You also might ask the author. If you do and get a reply, note the author preference in the article with a hidden comment so that some editor here doesn't change the name to their preferred form sometime in future – of course, editors do ignore hidden comments...What should you do when the page number differs between different versions of the same document? An example is the manual for Metroid: Samus Returns, in which page 4 is page 11–12 in the PDF file. (Not currently planning to cite it, but noticed this issue at Talk:Metroid: Samus Returns#Checkpoints.) Glades12 ( talk) 13:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings!
Brevity is the soul of wit, is there any limitation on how many authors should one mention when referring to a source? I'm dealing with an article that mentions a dozen of authors (as typical to natural sciences): Lucy J. E. Cramp, Richard P. Evershed, Mika Lavento, Petri Halinen, Kristiina Mannermaa, Markku Oinonen, Johannes Kettunen, Markus Perola, Päivi Onkamo, and Volker Heyd.
Should I omit some of the authors, how should I cite the source in question? Thank you very much in advance! :-)
Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|display-authors=
if you choose to omit some or wish to have all in the wikitext but display some number fewer. --
Izno (
talk) 17:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Now, that CS1 also issues harv-style anchors by default, the differences between CS1 and CS2 citation styles are marginal (unless I miss something).
Since maintaining two systems where one would be sufficient complicates documentation and guidelines, error messages, parameter names etc. throughout Wikipedia, I think it is time to merge them to a point where it is no longer necessary to refer to them as two styles. The current system is difficult to grasp for newcomers. For them, it would be easier to have one system, and if they need special support for something that is not the default, to have a parameter for this.
Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to remove any functionality, I just want to remove artificially / historically created complexities / unnecessary hurdles in producing an easier to understand and document citation system for the majority of users.
|mode=
parameter which can be set to CS1 or CS2 style. Apparently, this only changes the usage of commas and dots between citation elements, if or if not a terminator will be placed after a citation, and if some messages are displayed in upper- or lowercase. If so, why don't we introduce dedicated parameters with self-explanatory names to control these behaviours and then deprecate (and much later remove support for) |mode=
? (Optionally, add corresponding parameters to the "Use xyz date" templates (like for auto-date formatting), so that citations can be brought into a consistent style easily.)|year=
parameter, which is apparently only needed in the rare cases, where references need an additional disambiguator like "a", "b". If so, why don't we introduce a specific self-expanatory parameter for this like |disambiguator=
and later remove support for |year=
? Right now, the documentation is quite long-winded to explain why the parameter is deprecated, but under which specific conditions it can still be used. Instead, with |disambiguator=
the documentation could simply explain how to use it when needed in a positive way.|year=
gone and |orig-year=
actually being a parameter to specify dates rather than only years, we could finally rename it into |orig-date=
for consistency.The first three points are independent of each other, but since we would have to run a bot, it would be good to let it address all three points in one go. Comments? Remarks? -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|year=
to at least be kept as an alias for |date=
. Who said it's deprecated? I personally find it useful. I do support making |orig-date=
work somehow, however.
Glades12 (
talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|date=
parameter as well, e.g. |date=2020
.|year=
was deprecated when we faded out the |month=
and |day=
parameters years ago. The only reason we kept it was its secondary use to specify an optional disambiguator for anchors like |year=2020b
, which, from a user's perspective trying to understand how to use our citation templates, would be better served by a dedicated parameter like |disambiguator=b
(prototypical name).|year=
is not, and never has been, deprecated. In cs1|2, to deprecate a parameter, the parameter's assigned value is changed from true
to false
in the
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist tables where the parameter name is listed (basic_arguments
and limited_basic_arguments
in this case). It is true that |date=
is the preferred parameter because that parameter name is more flexible.|year=
is not and should not be deprecated. It's very handy when you want only the years, and not the full dates of publication.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|date=
has the same length as |year=
, so what is so handy about |year=
?|year=
is only for years, why do we use it to specify citeref disambiguators, which have nothing at all to do with years (or dates)? They clearly belong into a different parameter...|date=
?|year=
is for years, why don't we reintroduce the |month=
and |day=
parameters?|year=
is a left-over from the distant past, when |month=
and |day=
were removed, and it is inconsistent with how we can specify dates today due to the improved "smartness" of the citation template making sense of dates given in a multitude of possible formats. It makes the documentation more complicated than necessary, it is a (small) special case in the code, it makes spiders and bots reading the source code (slightly) more complicated than necessary. Anyway, we could even keep it as an alias for |date=
, what I am "complaining" about is its usage for disambiguators. There really must be a better solution to this.|date=
undocumentedly supports the disambiguator thing as well |date=2020b
- it shouldn't, but even less a reason to keep |year=
.|date=
and |year=
support anchor ID disambiguation in a way that editors see as similar to the anchor link disambiguation used by the {{
harv}}
and {{
sfn}}
templates. Before we converted to Lua, |year=
was the only parameter that could accept an anchor ID disambiguator. I think that that was because appending the disambiguator to |date=
, at the time, caused #time
parser errors. Conversion to Lua muted the restriction. We elected at the time to make the anchor disambiguator a suffix character for dmy, mdy, my, and y (and the various ranges and season) formats and to not insert the anchor ID disambiguator into the middle of ymd dates (2020a-05-29) so |year=
was retained to support anchor ID disambiguation when the citation uses the ymd publication date format. No doubt, we could revisit that decision.|authors=
and |editors=
neither of which is deprecated – as an aside, I would like to see these two deprecated and removed because they do not contribute to the citation's metadata).|vauthors=
, as it encourages editors to be lazy. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 19:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)|postscript=
is used. That would also mean following the capitalization from CS2. Then we could have a discussion about the appropriateness of Vancouver style in the merged CS.
Imzadi 1979
→ 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)|first=
and |last=
). --
Izno (
talk) 01:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Not sure what is wrong (from Arkansas State University):
{{cite web |url=https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2019-Endowment-Market-Values--Final-Feb-10.ashx?la=en&hash=9E941CF13A17783282F46626C72FE7AFB63F9D82 |title=U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Endowment Market Value and Change* in Endowment Market Value from FY18 to FY19 (Revised) |publisher=[[National Association of College and University Business Officers]] and [[TIAA]] |date=2020 |acccessdate=May 6, 2020}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |acccessdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)-- Green C 13:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
access-date
instead of accessdate
then spellcheck is more helpful catching these kinds of minor typographical errors. The benefits of unambiguous and correctly spelled names for template parameters should be increasingly clear to template programmers. --
109.77.203.218 (
talk) 01:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)In the thread at
Wikipedia:Teahouse#Question on Formatting (Note this willl no doubt be archived shortly, changign the location)
Tenryuu argued that When you are referencing a source, you have to mention all the pages it is found in the journal. If you want to specify which page it is from, you can use a template like {{
Rp}} or {{
Sfn}} to do so
and that this was true even when a particular journal was only being sited a single time in a given Wikipedia article. I believe this is incorrect, and I read the documentation for {{
cite journal}} to say so, specifically the part reading page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content.
and that a single citation should not require the use of {{
Rp}} or {{
Sfn}}. I say that the basic cite should, without any helper templates, point the reader to a specific place in the source where the fact being cited is supported, and that this is if anything more essential in Cite Journal than, in say, {{
cite news}}, because a journal article is often long and reading the entire article to verify a single fact is often impractical. Am I correct about the current usage of Cite Journal, or not? Pinging others involved in the Teahouse thread. @
Gyanda,
Usedtobecool,
GoingBatty, and
AlanM1:
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 13:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
have to mention all the pages(emphasis mine). WP:V § Responsibility for providing citations says:
Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).It is a disservice to our readers to make them search for one paragraph, for one sentence, for one tiny morsel in a multi-thousand-word source. That is just cruelty. When using
{{
rp}}
or {{
sfn}}
or {{
harv}}
then, the full-cite in §Bibliography probably should list the page-range covered by the source (journal articles, book chapters) but for in-line citations, just the page(s) that lead the reader to identify the location in the source.|pages=
saying it is for the specific pages supporting the statement and the examples showing it used for the whole journal article. The latter interpretation is clearly correct when {{
cite journal}}
occurs in a list of sources; the difficulty arises when it is used in a <ref> tag. Here both sets of pages are important, one for locating the support for the statement within the article, and the other for locating the article, but |pages=
has room for only one. As I noted, opinion is divided here. My personal practice (when not avoiding the issue by using short references) is to use |pages=
for the whole article and add the specific pages after the {{
cite journal}}
. (There is some discussion further up the page on having two separate parameters to deal with this issue.)
Kanguole 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|page=
that sentence is on, knowing they could read other pages if they wish. If I think the reader needs to review multiple pages to support the Wikipedia article, I would use |pages=
.
GoingBatty (
talk) 15:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
and |at=
to coexist in a reference.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|title=
is the in-source location (the article). When it comes to the relevant pages, it would be inexact to substitute the context subset for the entire range. It is not representative of what you are citing, with the discrepancy becoming fairly obvious when one looks at the source's table of contents, which likely gives an indication of the actual range, and where also likely, readers may turn to first. In similar fashion when one is citing a book chapter, where a page range should be given. Again there are options to add the context pages in that chapter with the current system. I wonder how often 50 or 100 page-articles were cited in general reference lay works like Wikipedia. Scientific papers up for peer review perhaps or similar? I don't think it is fair to compare the reference system in such works, with Wikipedia's own, which has a different purpose and target.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to another parm to contain the full page range, but in its absence, the specific page is more important.When you write
When it comes to the relevant pages, it would be inexact to substitute the context subset for the entire range.you seem to be disagreeing, and I disagree with you. More specifically I think that the actual page or pages where the info being cited may be found (which I think is what you mean by the "context subset") are far more important to show in a ref, and that failure to do so is what is inexact. As to past practice, Wikipedia has cited peer-reviewed academic journal articles since early in i8ts history, at least, Previous encyclopedias and other tertiary sources such as textbooks did not usually cite such sources, but they had named authors with reputations for each article, and that presumably made their selections from source literature more reliable, with no need (or much less need) for readers to verify sources. Even so, books and book chapters were cited by encyclopedia articles, so some of the same issues will have arisen. But Wikipedia's citation practices are more closely based on those of academic publications than those of older encyclopedias and similar publications. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
User:AlanM1 asked "Of what practical benefit to the reader is providing the full page range of an article when only a specific single page is necessary to verify the content for which we are providing the cite (which is the point of citations)?". In the days before the internet, if a reader's library didn't have a certain journal, it the reader's library would request a copy from a library that did have it. If the reader were able to specify the exact pages to be copied (for the whole article), the request would be more likely to be filled correctly. (The person filling the request might be a part-time student employee, who might or might not have partied the previous night.) It still conceivable that some Wikipedia reader requests may be filled in this fashion.
Of course it is also desirable to specify the exact pages which support the claim in the Wipedia article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
|at=
that can be used for this with a tweaking of the code. And definitely Wikipedia's citation styles should not be based on academic practice. They are different beasts with different needs and audiences.
64.9.249.161 (
talk) 14:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)definitely Wikipedia's citation styles should not be based on academic practice. They are different beasts with different needs and audiences– I agree that they don't have to be exactly the same, but given that this is an encyclopedia, and given that many scientific and technical articles make heavy use of academic sources, our style should not depart too far.
The CMoS says at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html
Chapter or other part of an edited book
In a note, cite specific pages. In the bibliography, include the page range for the chapter or part.
Journal article
In a note, cite specific page numbers. In the bibliography, include the page range for the whole article. For articles consulted online, include a URL or the name of the database. Many journal articles list a DOI (Digital Object Identifier). A DOI forms a permanent URL that begins https://doi.org/. This URL is preferable to the URL that appears in your browser’s address bar.
Now CS1 is not the CMoS, but it is probably based more on Chicago than on any other single style guide. Therefore the CMoS guidance is relevant, although not definitive. An ordinary <ref>...</ref>
tag functions as both a note and a bibliography entry, but mostly as a note. And use in simple <ref>...</ref>
tags is probably the primary use case for any of the CiteX templates, including {{
Cite Journal}}. Harvard style refs or the use of {{
sfn}} are far less common, to the best of my understanding. Therefore the template should be adapted to the note form fist, ideally with a way to handle the other forms also. But when used in a note context, the exact page or, pages where the info being cited appears should be listed, and not the page range for the entire article, if there is not a convenient way to list both (such as the proposed |page range=
or |page-span=
). The comment of 241.58 above has a good point about the probable audience as well.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tag does indeed combine the functions of a note and a bibliography entry. That is exactly why both page ranges are needed in the case of a journal article or chapter in a edited book. The audience for citations is people who want to examine the original source. If that is an academic journal or edited book, it will be convenient for the citation to follow academic conventions.
Kanguole 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Journal Article: Always include page numbers in notes when available.
|article-pages=
) so the meaning of the existing page(s) parms remains consistent (as the specific page(s)) across books, newspapers, etc.. Where should this new parm be shown in the rendered cite? E.g., |article-pages=247–256
in:
|article-pages=
and |cited-pages=
(each with singular variants), because |pages=
is currently being used for both purposes. There have been a few suggestions for rendering, e.g. adding the cited page(s) at the end, or putting it after the article pages in square brackets, but it's probably better to get the meaning sorted out before thinking about rendering.
Kanguole 09:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC) This came up again at
Wikipedia:Teahouse#In cite journal template, how to use page number as identifier, along with a question as to whether a page number should be used for the |id=
parameter for a pre-internet journal. I want to urge that the be some motion on this. I think it is a mistake to have a different use for the |page=
and |pages=
parameter on cite journal than on other citation templates. I think it is an even bigger mistake for people to urge the use of the template in a way contrary to its documentation. Either agree to change the documentation, or agree to use the template as documented. I think the {{
rp}} solution is clumsy and likely to be missed. A usage such as |pages=240-280 [257]
works now, and is better IMO than RP, but a new parameter, or even two new parameters would be better yet. But if we are to use |pages=240-280 [257]
let us have consensus that it is the form to use for this case, and modify the documentation to describe it and suggest its use.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 22:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
|pages=240-280 [257]
form would only be appropriate in a citation of a journal article or separately-authored book chapter that was within <ref> tags. For a citation of a book inside <ref> tags, one would specify only the pages supporting the statement. For a journal article or separately-authored book chapter in a list of works, one would specify the pages of the entire article only. (And for a book in a list of works, no pages would be specified.) So the usage would still vary depending on the kind of citation and its context.
Kanguole 09:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Wire services cannot sell content to themselves, so it's inaccurate to use |agency=
for content they publish on their own websites, such as apnews.com. When they do that, they are not acting as wire services. Propose change from:
agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content (if different from the work and publisher); examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. May be wikilinked if relevant.
to:
agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher. May be wikilinked if relevant.
― Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps that says the same thing, I don't know. But it says it clearer, and there is a clear need for clarification since many editors are not using the parameter that way. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Use of a two-em dash (—) is preferred for omission over two em dashes (——). 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)For some Springer publications and probably ACM & IEEE proceedings, the chapter or article has a DOI. For Springer the publication may also have a DOI. Would a general chapter-id or a specific chapter-doi be warranted. chapter-id could be used for arXiv values or NCBI NBK numbers for a chapter.
Waldhausen F. (1985) Algebraic K-theory of spaces. In: Ranicki A., Levitt N., Quinn F. (eds) Algebraic and Geometric Topology. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 1126. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0074449 Print ISBN 978-3-540-15235-4 Online ISBN 978-3-540-39413-6
The URL https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/BFb0074435 resolves to the book and the DOI portion resolves too. RDBrown ( talk) 03:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
|chapter-doi=
and |book-doi=
parameters, so that editors can specify which type of DOI they provide.I initiated {{ Citation Style documentation/Linking title}}, for use, for instance, in:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|title=
would be disallowed because they can spoil metadata, and that |title-link=
is to be used instead. Otherwise, what is the purpose of |title-link=
?|title=
at all.|title=
are actually allowed according to the documentation pages, which makes |title-link=
redundant. However, external links and templates seem to be disallowed. (These rules are absolutely ridiculous.)
Glades12 (
talk) 11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)|title=
do not spoil metadata; they do spoil the rendering when
|url=
has a value:
|title=
, what is the purpose of |title-link=
then? After all, internal and external links are mutually exclusive, anyway.|episodelink=
. |titlelink=
is not supported by {{
citation/core}}
. The current format is correct imo.|title=
provides the literal value. |title-link=
or |url=
provide links to or about the title. A wikilink is also a specially formatted url. Additionally, the parameter is consistent with similar: |author-link=
, |editor-link=
. For clarity, it is best to separate the literal value from links to it. Apart from the fact that it is good programming practice (different data types).
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
|date=
into |year=
, |month=
and |day=
it was no longer necessary to maintain separate parameters for them, thereby making it easier for users to enter dates. Similar, if we can reliably remove links from titles, we won't actually need |title-link=
any more. According to some tests, the currently implemented link stripping code works with all kinds of links, including links in subtitles, piped links, links to #hash targets, even multiple links in a single title. The fact that users can use the normal wikilink syntax is also a plus. |title-link=
is apparently restricted to the same characters as links in |title=
, so no advantage for |title-link=
here. Since bots had to cope with embedded links in titles all the time, this isn't a reason to keep |title-link=
, either. However, |title-link=
can be used to link to titles combined from |title=
and |script-title=
(similar to |author-link=
for |author-last=
and |author-first=
). Therefore, I have meanwhile come to the conclusion that we should not fade out |title-link=
(likewise for |author-link=
, |editor-link=
, |translator-link=
, |contributor-link=
and |interviewer-link=
). But what about |publisher-link=
and |series-link=
? Will we have |script-publisher=
and |script-series=
in the future? (At least I had a use for |script-publisher=
more than once.)Have now expanded with guidance for linking "chapter"; Re. "instruction creep" – incorrect: this proposal allows more options than current guidance (and would indeed replace part of the current "instruction creep" that has given some trouble lately). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:13, 9 June 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
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.
Beachcat is a brand name, see http://www.beachcatboats.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dddavis1954 ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
the guide says that "pages=" is not for the total number of pages. But then, it there a field for this purpose?
Thank you. Rama ( talk) 07:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|page-count=
parameter is supported by citation templates in some other Wikipedias, and has often been suggested to be added to our templates as well in the past (clearly indicating that there is a demand for it among users regardless if it is essential informatin or not). It would help to format this information in a consistent way and show it in suitable places, instead of every editor having to invent his/her own style for it. I would therefore support the addition of such a parameter.Imho:
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493. 118 pages.
{{ cite book}}
: CS1 maint: postscript ( link)
... would be possible (this uses the |postscript=
parameter for the number of pages info). --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 11:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|others=Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri")
you mean that you are citing the appendix authored by Broz in Groote's work. For that, we have |contributor=
and |contribution=
so:
{{cite book |title=Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera |last=Groote |first=Inga Mai |year=2003 |publisher=Della Scala |location=Verona |isbn=8885099734 |lang=it |contributor=Broz, Barbara |contribution=Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri" |series=Sette note |volume=I |oclc=681975493 |postscript=. 118 pages.}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link)|postscript=. 118 pages.=
implies that the appendix is 118 pages. Is it?The Holoscene era began approximately 11 700 calendar years before AD 2000. [1]
References
- ^ Walker et al. 2009, p. 1.
Works cited
- Walker, Mike; Jonsen, Sigfus; Rasmussen, Sune Olander; Popp, Trevor; Steffensen, Jørgen-Peder; Gibbard, Phil; Hoek, Wim; Lowe, John; Andrews, John; Björck, Svante; Cwynar, Les C.; Hughen, Konrad; Kershaw, Peter; Kromer, Bernd; Litt, Thomas; Lowe, David J.; Nakagawa, Takeshi; Newnham, Rewi; Schwander, Jacob (2009). "Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core, and selected auxiliary records". Journal of Quaternary Science. 24 (1): 3–17. doi: 10.1002/jqs.1227.
...which would look quite silly for books:
Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. pp. 1–118. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493.
Not the way "total number of pages" is made clear: looks like an excerpt of a larger publication. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
& I disagree that total number of pages, that is, for an entire book (as opposed to an excerpt like an article in a journal), is more than very exceptionally useful as information in references: if and when it is (e.g. two editions of the same pre-ISBN book in the same year, only different in number of pages), the |postscript=
parameter can be used to indicate the number of pages. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
We might reconsider renaming |pages=
to try and reduce this problem. It is very common perhaps 15% to 20% of all book citations misuse |pages=
. It's an understandable mistake. --
Green
C 15:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|nopp=y
and the number of pages/kbytes with the appropriate suffix.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 15:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
parameter.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 16:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Groote, Inga Mai (2003). Pietro Torri, un musicista veronese alla corte di Baviera. Sette note (in Italian). Vol. I. Broz, Barbara (Appendix: "I musicisti veneti in Europa ai tempi del Torri"). Verona: Della Scala. 118 pages. ISBN 8885099734. OCLC 681975493.
{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) ( help)
|format=
, and perhaps |via=
if the digital provider is not the official publisher.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 17:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
", ? p[p]."
appended at the end of the citation, similar to what I propose: " (? page[s])"
for |total-page[s]=?
in
#Question_about_page_parameter_in_Template:Cite_journal."XI+393 pages"
:
Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats explains its purpose via {{Inconsistent_citations}}
which I include, in part, here:
“ |
User:Citation bot helps editors to keep citations in a consistent format within a given article. If a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite xx}} templates are used, the bot will convert all citations to the dominant type (as they differ in details of punctuation). It will preserve the original formatting, in case it was intentional. However, in most cases, the editor did not realize that the added citation did not match the format in the article. Therefore, the bot adds a hidden comment and a category (via a template to avoid confusing
AWB) to any template that it changes. Human editors should check these comments and see whether the citations they are found in should genuinely have different punctuation to other citations on the page. They should then amend the |postscript= parameter accordingly, removing {{inconsistent citations}} .
|
” |
I had been cleaning up this maintenance category based on the explanation above.
{{Inconsistent_citations}}
applied by an editor to a CSn in an article with only or predominantly CSn{{Inconsistent_citations}}
applied by an editor to a CSn in an article with only or predominantly CSm{{Inconsistent_citations}}
applied by an editor to the article as a maintenance tag{{Inconsistent_citations}}
into a maintenance tag OR—¿philoserf? ( talk) 16:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
|ref=harv
by default like CS2, then is the only remaining difference between the two the punctuation, couldn't that last item be harmonized at some point? If so, we'd have just a CS without need for the number, and there would be no need to worry if an article mixed the template families because they'd be one family. Again, just pondering aloud.
Imzadi 1979
→ 21:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
No response to the recommendation yet. Reiterated below without the surrounding text.
{{Inconsistent_citations}}
into a maintenance tag OR—¿philoserf? ( talk) 01:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Proposing the addition of a new argument |page-range=
to replace |pages=
.
Currently two problems relate to |pages=
:
Thus it is be possible to use both |page=
and |page-range=
in a citation. For example:
|page=42
with |page-range=40-50
would produce: 40-50 [42]
or something similar.And it resolves the ambiguity of "pages" which means a range of pages. -- Green C 13:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
|span-page[s]=
for this, and we also discussed possible output format notations. Alternatives could be |chapter-page[s]=
for books or |article-page[s]=
for journals and magazines, but they imply semantics which I tried to keep out of the parameter name in the more general |span-page[s]=
suggestion. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
are for. No citation style says to put the total number of pages in a book. I'd might be ok with something like |specific page(s)=
, but really that's why you write something like "See page 34 in {{
cite journal|...}}
" or similar.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
|page[s]=
parameters for things they were not designed for, and also allow us to provide the information in a consistent, centrally controlled format rather than letting every user invent his own style. So, if we would find a better notation in the future or want to introduce responsive templates or user-definable template output, we could easily switch to new output formats instead of having to maintain citations on an individual basis, only being able to guess which type of page information was meant by an original editor.|page[s]=
parameter as a parameter for individual pages. However, like you, I think to remain compatible with the existing usage of |page[s]=
, we would have to treat it as an alias for page ranges rather than individual pages, and instead introduce new parameter(s) for specific pages (which I called |cite-page[s]=
in my proposal, but |specific-page[s]=
would be another option). For orthogonality, I also proposed to introduce |span-page[s]=
, so that users could deliberately declare a specific type of page info, rather then having to rely on the old ambiguous |page[s]=
parameter for this.|pages=
. --
Green
C 15:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)40-50 [42]
42 (40-50)
40-50 [42-44]
42-44 (40-50)
42-43, 45-50 [43, 45-47, 49]
43, 45-47, 49 (42-43, 45-50)
42-44, 50 [42-44, 50]
42-44, 50 (42-44, 50)
42-44, 50
42-44, 50
43 [43]
43 (43)
43
43
|orig-year=
, |trans-*=
). Round brackets are already used for diverse purposes (dates, issue numbers, types, languages, comments) as part of the normal citation syntax. Also, using square brackets for the extra page info would avoid clashes with the occasional existing use of round brackets for other purposes (alternative page numbers, extra commentary regarding particular pages, etc.) seen in some citations.|page-range=
, strictly read, is problematic. Editors may legitimately cite multiple pages that are not contiguous; |page-range=
, strictly read, precludes that legitimate use.|pages=
. I do not support |page-range=
as that solution. Of course your question to me is: what is a better parameter name? Alas, I don't know. |pages-set=
because 6, 23
and 40–50
represent sets of pages?|dead-url=
, any decision resulting from this discussion will likely bring out the torches-and-pitchforks crew who will blame me.|page-ranges=
. Or whatever "ranges" is called. --
Green
C 15:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
|author-*=
, |editor-*=
, |chapter-*=
, |archive-*=
, |script-*=
, |trans-*=
, |orig-*=
, I think a parameter refining/altering the existing parameter |page[s]=
should be named |range-page[s]=
rather than |page-range[s]=
.|-page[s]=
rather than |-range[s]=
(unless the template could reliably auto-detect singular/plural of pages).|range-page[s]=
looks odd to me, whereas |span-page[s]=
does not, but YMMV. Also, I think, "set" is a bit too vague in general and could be easily misunderstood. Are there other suitable synonyms? "chapter" would be quite suitable for books, but would sound strange for journals/newspapers/magazines, vice versa for "article". That's why I was looking for a more abstract term, which could be used in all citation templates without looking out of place. Suggestions?|url-status=
so long as the template supports both the old and new at the same time, without emitting red warnings, bots have time to convert to the new, then turn on the warning messages - after a couple months for example. It was the sudden red lights that really upset everyone. I have no problem writing a bot for this, I have custom CS1|2 libraries. --
Green
C 20:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
. The suggested replacement is |page-range=
. I understand 'range' in this context to mean a contiguous series of page numbers from m to n where m is the lower bound and n is the upper bound; all page numbers between m and n are included in the 'range'. I do not understand 'range' to mean a discontinuous collection of individual page numbers and/or page-number ranges. |page-range=
is singular, not plural. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but if we are to create a new parameter to replace |pages=
, the name we choose for that parameter should describe what it is that the parameter will hold. So I suggested |pages-set=
because that name allows for a simple page-number range, a comma-separated list of page ranges, a comma-separated list of individual page numbers, or combinations of these. Perhaps too esoteric. So perhaps, because we are citing multiple pages of a source to support text in an en.wiki article, |multi-pages=
?|range-pages=
rather than |page-range=
we could also avoid the singular/plural issue.Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).We have tools, citoid etc, that scrape publisher websites and then populate
|pages=
with the page range that the publisher provides (I notice this most for journal cites). Very often, these sorts of citations are in-line and the editor does not override the tool to comply with the precision clause in WP:V to provide a precise page location for the one sentence or the one paragraph that supports the en.wiki article. The reader then has no recourse but to search through all however-many-pages are listed in |pages=m–n
. For bibliographic listings, this automatic publisher scraping method is fine as long as there is a short-cite pointing to the long-cite. In both forms (in-line and bibliographic) |page=
and |pages=
are sufficient to accomplish the task of identifying the in-source location for the reader. Because of the WP:V precision requirement, cs1|2 renders the value in |page=
when both it and |pages=
are present in a template.|pages=
to list the total number of pages in the source; that could be the whole book or whole chapter or whole article (I've also seen it used to hold the page number of the last page in the source article or the last page of interest).Proposing the addition of a new argument(emphasis mine) That is the proposal, so yes, there is a connection.|page-range=
to replace|pages=
.
m–n
is a single range citation. 3, 16–20
is not a range; it is a comma-separated list containing an individual page and a range of five contiguous pages; it is a multi-page citation.|page[s]=
being a parameter ambiguous enough to be used for several purposes depending on the article and citation in question as well as on the style guide an editor might be used to.|page=
or |pages=
is used, right? There is no auto-detection for this, or is it? --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 01:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
is ambiguous and a large percentage of editors are misusing it. You might say not our problem RTFM, but the template is designed to be self-documenting, editors are not required to be experts of the documentation page, the names of the arguments are the documentation. The word "pages" is misleading editors to think it means one thing and not another. It is creating a significant problem that can't be easily fixed by bot. The longer this goes on, the bigger the problem becomes. It's now impacting other bots and processes as well. --
Green
C 13:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|page*=
and just put whatever pages they want to put, regardless of which of |page=
, |pages=
, |page-range=
, |page(s)-directly-supporting-the-information-i'm-citing=
is used. Solution, KISS, and have |pages=16–32 [18]
to say page 18 in an article spanning pages 16 to 32. Or use {{
rp}}, {{
sfn}} etc... Breaking the existing designs will cause more problems than it solves.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
are routinely confused with and misused for each other. That would only grow worse with other parameters named page-something.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
would remain valid, most people would not even known |page-range=
exists, and no one (bibtex, scientific journals) calls this bibliographic information page range. Which means pretty much everyone would keep using pages for this.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)|page-range=
or |page span=
does not break anything. I don't think anyone is arguing that providing the number of pages in a book is useful bibliographic data (well in a very few cases it allows distinguishing editions of older works not otherwise having different bibliographic data, but that is quite rare). But some do argue that listing the range or set of p0ages that make up ma journal article or chapter is of value, and is common in some academic citation styles. (Indeed CMoS says to mdo so in bibliographies. But replacing or deprecating the |pages=
parameter would break many existing citations, and making pages an alias of page would lose a significant (and traditionally provided) bit of data, plural or singular number of pages actually being cited. Moreover, the parameters for the various CiteX templates are supposed to be as consistent as possible and in {{
cite book}} and {{
Cite News}} and others |pages=
always means the specific list of pages where the supporting info is to be found. We should not lose that consistency, nor be forced outside the template proper. Adding a |page-range=
(or similar, whatever we call it) would handle that case while leaving behavior unchanged for existing cases. Now if the tempalte orm the module it calls could be enhanced to detect that the content of |page=
indicated multiple pages, and emit "pp.", instead of "p.", then i could support making "pages" an alias of "page", and adding page-range to that. That would also allow bot conversion with no mloss of functionality or data.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)|pages=
which is already the parameter to put page ranges in and creates even more confusion.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
the parameter to put page ranges in, nor should it be, because that means
|pages=
would be used for very different purposes in {{
cite news}} and other CiteX templates than in {{
cite journal}}, which is highly undesirable. According to the template documentation, |pages=
is now the parameter in which to put the exact pages where the cited info is to be found, when there is more than one such page. By "page range" other in this discussion mean "the total set of pages making up the article, even if the cited info is found on only one or a few of these". I think that pages should not be used for a page-range in that sense. Thus there is no redundancy, and those given to copying existing template uses will perhaps have better models to work from.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 20:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
for journals is to indicated the pages of the article being cited. It would also mean that millions of |pages=
would need to be converted to |page-range=
, and then cause huge confused about which of |page=
, |pages=
or |page-range=
to use, and they would all be badly used. Again, the solution is to use |pages=18–32 [26]=
. #32;
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)I don't know where to bring this up, so I'll do it here. When editing, above the text window there's a sort of menu bar that one can use to put text in bold or italics, to add one's signature, and so on, and then finally the word "Cite". If one clicks on that, then a bar appears just below that menu bar, with the word "Templates". If one puts the cursor on that, one gets a menu of "cite web", "cite news", "cite book", and "cite journal". I often use this. When I click on "cite journal", I get a pop-up box in which I can put the author, title, et cetera. But if there are a lot of authors, then I want to use "display-authors=etal". It would be very nice if there were an option in that pop-up box to tell it to include "display-authors=etal"! Can someone add that, or tell me where I should go to make this request? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
in it and it will be added to the resulting cite (after an empty |oclc=
). Even if a field is being used, you can usually add |display-authors=etal
after the field contents. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 09:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Citation needed|date=April 2020|reason=}}
. I've also used Auto-It in the past (and should probably again), which is more flexible in what it can do. Perhaps that can help you. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)There seems to be an issue with {{ Web kaynağı}}, and the template documentation suggests discussing here. The example in the documentation works nicely.
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009 | arşivurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20101015165324/http://yenisafak.com.tr:80/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |arşivtarihi= 15 Ekim 2010}}
→
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009 | arşivurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20101015165324/http://yenisafak.com.tr:80/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |arşivtarihi= 15 Ekim 2010}}
However, if you leave out |archive-url=
, you get the following error...
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009}}
→
{{Web kaynağı | url = http://yenisafak.com.tr/Cumartesi/Default.aspx?t=24.10.2009&i=218687 |başlık= Açılımdan nemalanmadık! |erişimtarihi = 30 Aralık 2009 |yayımcı = [[Yeni Şafak]] |tarih= 24 Ekim 2009}}
You can see this in every reference in Draft:Hakan Hançer. Could someone please tweak the template so it doesn't try to put the URL in the archive-url and generate the error? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
|archive-url=
to the module instead of trying to do the module's work for it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Hi,
There's a small glitch in the citation template code handling identifiers. Links from manifestations of ISMN numbers should go through the identifier redirect, but the citation templates still link to International Standard Music Number directly:
Since the configuration at Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration appears to be fine, this is probably a glitch in the code deciding where to link to ( Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_64#choosing_identifier_redirects) and could be down to prefix being set to '' for the ISMN identifier (not so for any of the other identifiers). -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
fixed in sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Reincken, J. A. (2008). "Preface, Critical commentary, Facsimiles". In Beckmann, Klaus (ed.). Complete Organ Works (2 ed.). Schott Music. ISMN 9790001137416. |
Sandbox | Reincken, J. A. (2008). "Preface, Critical commentary, Facsimiles". In Beckmann, Klaus (ed.). Complete Organ Works (2 ed.). Schott Music. ISMN 9790001137416. |
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
enwiki
sitelink title referring to
International Standard Music Number so that should be the link the identifier link label uses here not some arbitrary redirect. —
Uzume (
talk) 17:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)I'm thinking about preparing an RfC:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
In this old version of Crossing number (graph theory), the Schaefer 2014 reference has parameter pages=#DS21. This causes {{harvtxt|Schaefer|2014}} to produce a big red error message "Lua error in Module:Footnotes/anchor_id_list at line 700: attempt to index local 'template_name' (a nil value)" in place of the actual reference. Regardless of whether that is the right way to indicate the article number (not page number) of this reference, I don't think that error message is a particularly helpful way of behaving. Probably this used to work and has somehow been broken recently. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I have a reference in a draft I am working on whose publication date is "Fourth Quarter 1988". There appears to be no way of formatting this date without producing an error. I might reasonably guess that this means the same as "October–December 1988", but that's just a guess and citation metadata should not be based on guesswork; additionally, anyone trying to use this to look up the reference would have to work backwards from the guess to determine that it is the 4Q88 issue that should be accessed, so reformatting the date in this way would not serve one of the main purposes for which dates are included in references. What would be best, I think, would be some escape to tell the citation templates that a date format it cannot parse is nevertheless ok to include in a reference. The standard "accept-this-as-written markup", as documented on the help page, is to surround things in double parens, like |date=((Fourth Quarter 1988))
, but that doesn't work. Why doesn't it work? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
|date=1988
and |issue=Fourth Quarter 1988
. Will that work in this case? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
|date=
such dates would not contribute to the citation's metadata because
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation cannot construct an ISO 8601 format date from what amounts to an undefined date format. Similarly, such dates would not be available for construction of the anchor ID. Dates wrapped in accept-this-as-written markup would be treated as errors except that the error message would be suppressed.|date=Spring 2018
? Seasons have the same issue as quarters because they also have varying definitions.
Imzadi 1979
→ 18:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
{{cite journal |author=Author |title=Title |journal=Journal |date=Spring 2018}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)&rft.ssn=spring&rft.date=2018
CITEREFAuthor2018
|date=
is the seasonal date of the magazine / journal / ... issue. This is as it should be. Similarly, cs1|2 would not interpret quarterly dates. For the above example, substituting |date=Fourth Quarter 2018
for |date=Spring 2018
, cs1|2 would produce the same anchor ID but would have different metadata:
&rft.quarter=4&rft.date=2018
|date=
need not be verbatim as there are several acceptable ways to format a given date. Inserting the month range is fine. However |issue=
should be given exactly as is, or as close to it as possible.
172.254.241.58 (
talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
|year=
or |date=
= 2020 and |quarter=
=1 (this would be a new parameter). The presence of the quarter parameter would create a requirement that if date is specified, it be a year; specifying a month or day-of-month in the date would be an error when quarter is present.
Jc3s5h (
talk) 23:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
any application would lack the precision the OP requested.What? Editor David Eppstein wants is to be able to write
|date=Fourth Quarter 1988
because that is the date shown in the footer of the cited source so is exactly precise. There is no ambiguity and en.wiki's MOS has no control over how source publishers date their publications.|date=
, readers might draw their own conclusions as to what that means. But I remarked on this an aside, not material to verification. What was mentioned above was that seasonal dating should normally be avoided, not always. If the publication can be found when searching by date "Fourth Quarter 1988" then a citation with such |date=
is good enough.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 15:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)quarter
key/value pair is restricted to journal objects in COinS but may be used for all other objects in OpenURL).1st quarter 2020
into &rft.quarter=1&rft.date=2020
. We went to great effort to eliminate date parts from cs1|2 (|day=
, |month=
) so we should not return to that method with |quarter=1
.The remark about ambiguity here isn't that First Quarter 2020 or Summer 2019 are problematic when used in citations, but rather that these cannot be converted to months because of their ambiguity. If you get the Summer 2020 issue of Australia Monthly, it will be summer in the northern hemisphere. But if you search for the "Summer 2020" issue of Australian Monthly, there is no ambiguity about which issue that is. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerning [2], it's probably also a good idea to support Quarter 1/2/3/4, and Q1/2/3/4. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
|date=Quarter 1, 1988
or |date=Quarter 1 1988
?|date=Q1, 1988
of |date=Q1 1988
?|date=3rd Quarter 2005
|date=Summer 1988 |date-exact=1988-12-20
. —[
AlanM1 (
talk)]— 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)In Round Top (Alpine County, California) I cite "Supplement to a Flora...", which was published in a journal with a nonstandard date format. In this case, the date is "Spring and Fall 1983". The citation template is showing an error. I am citing this source as follows:
<ref name="Smith 1983">{{Cite journal|title=Supplement to a Flora of the Tahoe Basin and Surrounding Areas|last=Smith|first=Gladys L.|url=https://digitalcollections.usfca.edu/digital/api/collection/p15129coll11/id/796/download|journal=The Wasmann Journal of Biology|volume=41|number=1 & 2|date=Spring and Fall 1983|format=pdf|page=25|access-date=May 23, 2020}}</ref>
Which renders as this: [1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
What's the right format to use here? CJK09 ( talk) 08:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
|number=1 & 2
'Spring and Fall' is not absolutely required so |date=1983
|date=Spring–Fall 1983
|number=
somehowMaybe there's an explanation that escapes me at the moment, but why does {{ cite book}} place the language indicator (i.e., "in German") in between the series title and the volume number? Here's an example from Balasagun:
In my opinion it should be:
It would make particular sense here because the series, Silk Road Studies, actually has volumes in English, French, and German, so labeling it as if the language is specific to the series instead of the volume would be misleading. I'm sure there are other series like this, too. -- bender235 ( talk) 03:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
|type=
also belongs after the more-specific title for the same reasons, in that they describe the source. So in a {{
cite news}} listing for an editorial: "Our Opinion on Stuff". Newspaper (Editorial). The annotation has the effect to describe the newspaper as an editorial, when it's the article that is the editorial.
Imzadi 1979
→ 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)the most-specific title. Were we to do that, wouldn't we also, for the sake of consistency, have to place the in-source location annotation (
|page(s)=
, |at=
) directly after the most-specific title? After all, specific in-source locations are supposed to be within the content that is defined by the most-specific title.
|chapter=
is used, the language would be displayed after the chapter or after the title, that is, it would seem to "move around".|trans-chapter=
and/or |trans-title=
parameters being used, should the language be placed after the translation or before it?|quote=
and, possibly, |total-page[s]=
)? Either way, being placed at the end of the citation, perhaps we could switch to use square-brackets and get rid of the "in". Examples:|format=
, |type=
and |language=
would be the items which would be merged into a single (pair of brackets) occasionally? Is this a complete list? While this looks nice in some cases, I'm not sure it makes sense in the generic case with all possible values users might put into |format=
and |type=
? After all, these parameters take free-flow strings, not tokens...|date=
would be merged into this set as well. That, I think, would be a really bad idea. While |format=
, |type=
and |language=
can be seen as optional "convenience annotation", the |date=
is a core property of a citation, which must be easily parsable at first sight (by location and syntactical elements), if this would sometimes be merged with other unrelated information, it would no longer stand out.How to avoid possible corner-cases like "(Date) (...)"
Your solutions to which are ugly.
I think you overblow the question of 'other unrelated information'. Rare is the case where you don't have the required other fields to keep the parentheticals separate, and the parameters aside from Date are all rarer than not given how English Wikipedia works. Date will still jump out if you've somehow managed to provide no author and no editor and a language/type/format, not least because that information is typically numerical in some sense and not least because it will always come first in the parenthetical statement.
Let me comment directly on "convenience annotation": If these are convenience annotations only, then why do we support them? -- Izno ( talk) 13:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It seems that using Cite interview doesn't work with visual editing: the output of the citation shows up as text rather than the usual structured list of fields, so it's not really possible to add an archiveurl for instance. At Peter_Bocage, I ended up deleting the citation, adding it again as a Cite web, filling in the changes I wanted (worked fine), saving, and then opening source editing to rename the updated template back to Cite interview. This is unnecessarily complicated and seems kind of silly just to get the archiveurl in there... Can it be fixed to get it to work in visual editing like Cite web does? Thanks! —{{u| Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)| Talk| Contributions 20:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
template. Apparently you did not save the version where the output of the citation shows up as text rather than the usual structured list of fieldsso I can't see from the article history what you describe. If the problem is as I suggested, ve's inability to create / edit
{{cite interview}}
, this help page may not be the best place to ask. There is a problem report link at
WP:VE that may be a better place to report this issue.The current system of |title=
, |script-title=
, |trans-title=
and |language=
(and the similar parameter set |chapter=
, |script-chapter=
, |trans-chapter=
) does not handle some cases in the best-possible way. The following suggestions would stay compatible with existing use but add support for some previously unsupported cases, also improve meta-data/screenreader support and assist editors in identifying foreign language citations lacking some important title or language information. Thereby, they would help to improve the quality of foreign language citations.
|trans-title=
without |title=
and |script-title=
throws an error message:
|trans-title= requires |title=
"|trans-title= requires |title= or |script-title
"|trans-chapter=
without |chapter=
and |script-chapter=
.){{cite journal |trans-title=Graphical aids to minimization in switching circuits |language=cs |author-first=Antonín |author-last=Svoboda |journal=Stroje na zpracování informací |publisher=Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Research Institute of Mathematical Machines |date=1958}}
|title=(unknown)
to get rid of the error message, which, however, is not desirable. Putting the translated title in |title=
is also common, but sub-optimal as well, because without |language=
the user has no way of knowing that the source is not in English at all - this can cause quite some confusion when actually trying to obtain the source.|trans-title=
(rather than |title=
) even if the original language title is not known. Therefore, instead of throwing an error message if |trans-title=
is provided without |title=
or |script-title=
, the template should just display the translated title. Since displaying the translated title in [square bracket] looks ugly if neither |title=
or |script-title=
is present as well, it should, in this case, be displayed without any format decoration like a so called "descriptive title". That is, it would be displayed without the usual [square brackets], but also without italics or quotes (as a normal |title=
would be rendered).|trans-title=
does not indicate that the citation is English, the presence of this parameter indicates a foreign language citation. Hence, if |trans-title=
is present without |title=
or |script-title=
, the citation should display a hint in article preview like
Foreign language citation missing original |title= or |script-title=
"|trans-chapter=
without |chapter=
and |script-chapter=
.)|title=
in a known language to |script-title=
(even without knowing anything else about the work). This would also assist translation tools and help screen readers to switch their pronunciation to the corresponding language.|script-title=
, the template at present only supports prefix codes for languages with non-Latin alphabets, unfortunately. I can't see a compelling reason which would forbid us to broaden the concept to any other languages as well and therefore propose to let |script-title=
support all language codes already supported by the |language=
parameter. However, in order to retain the original functionality of the |script-title=
parameter, the template would have to display |script-title=
differently depending on if the provided prefix code is from the short or the full list of codes:<bdi lang="??">script_title</bdi>
|title=
is not present at the same time, |script-title=
can be treated just as a syntax-enhanced substitute for |title=
, and consequently it should be displayed with the format decoration usually applied to |title=
rather than |script-title=
(that is, italics/quotes) plus language attributes. Depending on what would give the better HTML (TBD) we could still use the <bdi> element and just add (example here for italics) <i> like
<i><bdi lang="??">script_title</bdi></i>
<i title="?????? language text" lang="??">script_title</i>
|title=
is present in addition to |script-title=
, we would still have to distinguish between the two parameters in the output, that is, |title=
and |script-title=
would be treated just like before for as long as the language code provided with |script-title=
is in the short list. If it is in the full list, |script-title=
would still not get italics/quotes, and if it is safe to use <bdi> for Latin scripts (TBD, see above) it would be HTML framed like
<bdi lang="??">script_title</bdi>
<span lang="??">script_title</span>
|script-title=
using any language prefixes but that of the local Wikipedia ("en:"), the template could assume that the work is not in the local language (English).|language=
parameter is missing, the template could issue a hint in article preview:
Foreign language citation missing |language=
"|trans-title=
is not present, the template could display a hint in preview:
Foreign language citation missing |trans-title=
"|language=
or |trans-title=
are not actual errors, the template should not generate error messages for them.)|script-chapter=
, |chapter=
and |trans-chapter=
.)|title=
and |chapter=
as well.|script-title=
, whereas |title=
and |trans-title=
do not support any language prefixes. (In the case of |title=
this is probably down to potential conflicts with normal title strings, and in the case of |trans-title=
we assume that the translation is in the locale language (English) and therefore no language framing is required in the English Wikipedia.) The suggestion is to apply language attributation also to |title=
and |chapter=
where it can be derived with reasonable likelihood from other parameters.|trans-title=
does not necessarily indicate that a citation is in the local language (English), the presence of |trans-title=
can be used as an indicator that |title=
, if also present, is not in the local language. Likewise for |trans-chapter=
and |chapter=
.|script-chapter=
or |language=
for |chapter=
, and |script-title=
or (in absence of |chapter=
) also |language=
for |title=
. (If |chapter=
is present |language=
applies only to |chapter=
, in multilingual works not necessarily to |title=
.) |language=
defines the actual language the work or chapter is written in, whereas the |script-*=
parameters specify the language the title of the work or chapter is given in the citation. As discussed above, this is often the same, but not always. If they are equal, it is quite reliable to assume that this can be extended to |title=
or |chapter=
, so that we could provide a HTML language attribute for them as well. If they are not the same, I am not sure, if we should give one of them preference over the other. I guess, in most cases in the English and other Latin-script based Wikipedias, the language provided through the corresponding |script-*=
parameter would more likely match (in particular, if it is not in the short list for non-Latin scripts, that is, we don't have to put any possibly deviating legacy use into account), but I'm not sure if this holds also true for foreign Wikipedias in non-Latin scripts which also use our citation templates. Perhaps it would be better to play it safe and not apply language attributes to |title=
or |chapter=
in these cases.-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 09:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we get a trans-title parameter for the encyclopedia cited in addition to the one already in template:Cite encyclopedia for the encyclopedia entry title? It would be very helpful with citing entries in non-English language encyclopedias. Kges1901 ( talk) 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
{{Cite encyclopedia |script-entry=ru:Павлоградский Гусарский Полк |script-title=ru:Отечественная война 1812. Энциклопедия |trans-title=Patriotic War of 1812: Encyclopedia |publisher=ROSSPEN |location=Moscow |last=Podmazo |first=Alexander |date=2004 |pages=539–540 |language=ru |trans-entry=Pavlograd Hussar Regiment |isbn=9785824303247}}
|trans-work=
some function in that template.
Glades12 (
talk) 18:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)I was wondering if a new parameter, Printer, has ever been considered for books. By Printer I mean, the company that printed the book on behalf of the author or publisher. I think people sometimes confuse or equate Printer with Publisher. OvertAnalyzer ( talk) 23:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|printer=
parameter help readers
locate sources to verify content in articles? Remember that the purpose of citations, quoting from that linked page, is to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and (in the case of inline citations) indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found.– Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
|printer=
and |printing=
parameters. This would help to improve consistency in the output. Otherwise people typically try to squeeze this into the |publisher=
and |edition=
parameters, with varying success. It's better to allow us to centrally control how this information is rendered, if given, instead of letting each editor invent his/her own style for it. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
Self-published
. I would flag any citation that has something else there or that does not explicitly state it is a self-published work. The parameter |via=
can be used to specify the self-publishing company/platform or the distributor, who may or may not also be the printer. In any case I find it hard to believe that someone can be aided in finding a purported source by knowing who the printer is.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
|printer=
parameter. IMHO it would create more confusion than it would solve, e.g. I don't think this cite template would gain anything by including printer info:Bach, Johann Sebastian (1751–1752). Die Kunst der Fuge (in German). RISM 991013428 (first edition, 1751) and RISM 991013429 (second edition, with preface by Marpurg, 1752) – facsimiles: mu 6406.2030 H. & Fr. Rungs Musik-Arkiv No 226A, U 315 at Royal Library, Denmark (1751 edition, DK-Kk mu 6406.2030 H. & Fr. Rungs Musik-Arkiv No 226A, U 315 at Bach Digital website); Mus. O. 17364 at Berlin State Library (1752 edition, D-B Mus. O. 17364 Rara at Bach Digital website); BWV 1080 at Baldwin Wallace University (1752 edition, US-BER Kenney 1814, Vault: M 24.B2 at Bach Digital website).
{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Invalid
|postscript=
|ref=harv
( help); templatestyles stripmarker in|postscript=
at position 3 ( help)CS1 maint: postscript ( link)
|printer=
parameter will do little or nothing to address self-publishing related issues. It will confuse those who don't know self-published sources are only exceptionally, i.e. when
WP:ABOUTSELF conditions are met, acceptable for WP:V purposes, and those who are aware about these policy requirements and want to circumvent it will not use the parameter (or whatever other quirk to avoid detection). So more a layer of additional complexity than a real practical advantage. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 17:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Re. "Distribution/marketing functions in the book industry, like in most endeavors did not separate from production until after the industrial revolution and the appearance of regular transport networks." – incorrect. But it was different. 18th-century (or earlier) "publishers" were what today would rather be called de facto "printers", while "editors" or even "authors" who said they sold the printed work from their home, and/or from the homes of relatives and friends in other cities, would be the "publishers" of today. Also bookshops could be marked as publishers (with or without printing the actual work). Much of that would be "self-publishing" by 21st-century standards. The proposed |printer=
would be of no use for the whole period. FYI,
RISM does not publish copies, digital or otherwise, of manuscripts or early prints: it is solely a repository of metadata (descriptions) about such documents. --
Francis Schonken (
talk) 06:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I ran into a number of issues with the {{ cite conference}} template I would like to see addressed:
|chapter=
but should (perhaps in the form of |book-chapter=
). Currently, it just silently ignores |chapter=
which is no good at all as no information should be silently ignored by any template. Example:|title=
, only |trans-title=
. I think this is a case that should be supported by the templates in general (but since this is a generic issue, I will bring this up elsewhere), however, the error message provided by the template{{
cite conference}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); |trans-title=
requires |title=
or |script-title=
(
help)-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 17:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
has been problematic for a long time as I have noted in previous discussions. For your particular case, according to
https://dblp.org/db/conf/ifip/ifip1962, the paper that you are citing (Wells 1962) is one of 5 papers in chapter 14 (possibly six if the symposium – a paper? – is included). It seems unnecessary to name the chapter when you are citing a specific paper in that chapter:
{{cite conference |book-title=Information Processing, Proceedings of the 2nd IFIP Congress 1962, Munich, Germany, August 27 - September 1, 1962 |title=Application of a Finite Set Covering Theorem to the Simplification of Boolean Function Expressions |last=Wells |first=Mark B. |date=1962 |publisher=North-Holland |volume=2 |pages=731–735}}
{{cite conference/new |trans-title=Translation |author=Author |book-title=Book |volume=VI |publisher=Publisher |date=1958 |pages=35–53}}
{{
cite conference}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); |trans-title=
requires |title=
or |script-title=
(
help)Page numbers are always displayed with colons, never with p & pp. This always happens whether nopp is present or absent. nopp seems to be irrelevant for {{cite journal}}. The documentation says otherwise. — 65.78.11.84 ( talk) 22:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
is working as it should. {{cite journal}}
separates |page(s)=
from |issue=
with <colon><space>
and does not render p. or pp. page prefixes so |no-pp=
is meaningless.{{
cite magazine}}
is a better choice; it does render p. or pp. and does obey |no-pp=
:
{{cite magazine |title=Title |magazine=Magazine |volume=1 |issue=2 |page=3 |no-pp=yes}}
|nopp=
from that section of the {{
cite journal documentation}}. I am sure that further improvement is possible. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)I would like to cite this source (a review of Love and Information) in a section on reception. The review was written by John Del Signore. Should the "Del" be placed in the "first" parameter or the "last" one? AndrewOne ( talk) 21:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
|last=Del Signore
is correct. Others will say that |first=John Del
is correct. I choose the former because, assuming 'Del' is a preposition to the surname, it belongs before and there for with the surname; not after the given name. Of course, if 'Del' is a second given name then the second form is correct. Hard to know. If 'Signore' is Italian, John certainly is not so it is entirely possible that |first=John Del
are English or American given names for an English or American writer from an Italian family.|author=John Del Signore
. You also might ask the author. If you do and get a reply, note the author preference in the article with a hidden comment so that some editor here doesn't change the name to their preferred form sometime in future – of course, editors do ignore hidden comments...What should you do when the page number differs between different versions of the same document? An example is the manual for Metroid: Samus Returns, in which page 4 is page 11–12 in the PDF file. (Not currently planning to cite it, but noticed this issue at Talk:Metroid: Samus Returns#Checkpoints.) Glades12 ( talk) 13:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings!
Brevity is the soul of wit, is there any limitation on how many authors should one mention when referring to a source? I'm dealing with an article that mentions a dozen of authors (as typical to natural sciences): Lucy J. E. Cramp, Richard P. Evershed, Mika Lavento, Petri Halinen, Kristiina Mannermaa, Markku Oinonen, Johannes Kettunen, Markus Perola, Päivi Onkamo, and Volker Heyd.
Should I omit some of the authors, how should I cite the source in question? Thank you very much in advance! :-)
Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|display-authors=
if you choose to omit some or wish to have all in the wikitext but display some number fewer. --
Izno (
talk) 17:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Now, that CS1 also issues harv-style anchors by default, the differences between CS1 and CS2 citation styles are marginal (unless I miss something).
Since maintaining two systems where one would be sufficient complicates documentation and guidelines, error messages, parameter names etc. throughout Wikipedia, I think it is time to merge them to a point where it is no longer necessary to refer to them as two styles. The current system is difficult to grasp for newcomers. For them, it would be easier to have one system, and if they need special support for something that is not the default, to have a parameter for this.
Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to remove any functionality, I just want to remove artificially / historically created complexities / unnecessary hurdles in producing an easier to understand and document citation system for the majority of users.
|mode=
parameter which can be set to CS1 or CS2 style. Apparently, this only changes the usage of commas and dots between citation elements, if or if not a terminator will be placed after a citation, and if some messages are displayed in upper- or lowercase. If so, why don't we introduce dedicated parameters with self-explanatory names to control these behaviours and then deprecate (and much later remove support for) |mode=
? (Optionally, add corresponding parameters to the "Use xyz date" templates (like for auto-date formatting), so that citations can be brought into a consistent style easily.)|year=
parameter, which is apparently only needed in the rare cases, where references need an additional disambiguator like "a", "b". If so, why don't we introduce a specific self-expanatory parameter for this like |disambiguator=
and later remove support for |year=
? Right now, the documentation is quite long-winded to explain why the parameter is deprecated, but under which specific conditions it can still be used. Instead, with |disambiguator=
the documentation could simply explain how to use it when needed in a positive way.|year=
gone and |orig-year=
actually being a parameter to specify dates rather than only years, we could finally rename it into |orig-date=
for consistency.The first three points are independent of each other, but since we would have to run a bot, it would be good to let it address all three points in one go. Comments? Remarks? -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|year=
to at least be kept as an alias for |date=
. Who said it's deprecated? I personally find it useful. I do support making |orig-date=
work somehow, however.
Glades12 (
talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|date=
parameter as well, e.g. |date=2020
.|year=
was deprecated when we faded out the |month=
and |day=
parameters years ago. The only reason we kept it was its secondary use to specify an optional disambiguator for anchors like |year=2020b
, which, from a user's perspective trying to understand how to use our citation templates, would be better served by a dedicated parameter like |disambiguator=b
(prototypical name).|year=
is not, and never has been, deprecated. In cs1|2, to deprecate a parameter, the parameter's assigned value is changed from true
to false
in the
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist tables where the parameter name is listed (basic_arguments
and limited_basic_arguments
in this case). It is true that |date=
is the preferred parameter because that parameter name is more flexible.|year=
is not and should not be deprecated. It's very handy when you want only the years, and not the full dates of publication.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
|date=
has the same length as |year=
, so what is so handy about |year=
?|year=
is only for years, why do we use it to specify citeref disambiguators, which have nothing at all to do with years (or dates)? They clearly belong into a different parameter...|date=
?|year=
is for years, why don't we reintroduce the |month=
and |day=
parameters?|year=
is a left-over from the distant past, when |month=
and |day=
were removed, and it is inconsistent with how we can specify dates today due to the improved "smartness" of the citation template making sense of dates given in a multitude of possible formats. It makes the documentation more complicated than necessary, it is a (small) special case in the code, it makes spiders and bots reading the source code (slightly) more complicated than necessary. Anyway, we could even keep it as an alias for |date=
, what I am "complaining" about is its usage for disambiguators. There really must be a better solution to this.|date=
undocumentedly supports the disambiguator thing as well |date=2020b
- it shouldn't, but even less a reason to keep |year=
.|date=
and |year=
support anchor ID disambiguation in a way that editors see as similar to the anchor link disambiguation used by the {{
harv}}
and {{
sfn}}
templates. Before we converted to Lua, |year=
was the only parameter that could accept an anchor ID disambiguator. I think that that was because appending the disambiguator to |date=
, at the time, caused #time
parser errors. Conversion to Lua muted the restriction. We elected at the time to make the anchor disambiguator a suffix character for dmy, mdy, my, and y (and the various ranges and season) formats and to not insert the anchor ID disambiguator into the middle of ymd dates (2020a-05-29) so |year=
was retained to support anchor ID disambiguation when the citation uses the ymd publication date format. No doubt, we could revisit that decision.|authors=
and |editors=
neither of which is deprecated – as an aside, I would like to see these two deprecated and removed because they do not contribute to the citation's metadata).|vauthors=
, as it encourages editors to be lazy. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 19:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)|postscript=
is used. That would also mean following the capitalization from CS2. Then we could have a discussion about the appropriateness of Vancouver style in the merged CS.
Imzadi 1979
→ 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)|first=
and |last=
). --
Izno (
talk) 01:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Not sure what is wrong (from Arkansas State University):
{{cite web |url=https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2019-Endowment-Market-Values--Final-Feb-10.ashx?la=en&hash=9E941CF13A17783282F46626C72FE7AFB63F9D82 |title=U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Endowment Market Value and Change* in Endowment Market Value from FY18 to FY19 (Revised) |publisher=[[National Association of College and University Business Officers]] and [[TIAA]] |date=2020 |acccessdate=May 6, 2020}}
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |acccessdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)-- Green C 13:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
access-date
instead of accessdate
then spellcheck is more helpful catching these kinds of minor typographical errors. The benefits of unambiguous and correctly spelled names for template parameters should be increasingly clear to template programmers. --
109.77.203.218 (
talk) 01:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)In the thread at
Wikipedia:Teahouse#Question on Formatting (Note this willl no doubt be archived shortly, changign the location)
Tenryuu argued that When you are referencing a source, you have to mention all the pages it is found in the journal. If you want to specify which page it is from, you can use a template like {{
Rp}} or {{
Sfn}} to do so
and that this was true even when a particular journal was only being sited a single time in a given Wikipedia article. I believe this is incorrect, and I read the documentation for {{
cite journal}} to say so, specifically the part reading page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content.
and that a single citation should not require the use of {{
Rp}} or {{
Sfn}}. I say that the basic cite should, without any helper templates, point the reader to a specific place in the source where the fact being cited is supported, and that this is if anything more essential in Cite Journal than, in say, {{
cite news}}, because a journal article is often long and reading the entire article to verify a single fact is often impractical. Am I correct about the current usage of Cite Journal, or not? Pinging others involved in the Teahouse thread. @
Gyanda,
Usedtobecool,
GoingBatty, and
AlanM1:
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 13:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
have to mention all the pages(emphasis mine). WP:V § Responsibility for providing citations says:
Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).It is a disservice to our readers to make them search for one paragraph, for one sentence, for one tiny morsel in a multi-thousand-word source. That is just cruelty. When using
{{
rp}}
or {{
sfn}}
or {{
harv}}
then, the full-cite in §Bibliography probably should list the page-range covered by the source (journal articles, book chapters) but for in-line citations, just the page(s) that lead the reader to identify the location in the source.|pages=
saying it is for the specific pages supporting the statement and the examples showing it used for the whole journal article. The latter interpretation is clearly correct when {{
cite journal}}
occurs in a list of sources; the difficulty arises when it is used in a <ref> tag. Here both sets of pages are important, one for locating the support for the statement within the article, and the other for locating the article, but |pages=
has room for only one. As I noted, opinion is divided here. My personal practice (when not avoiding the issue by using short references) is to use |pages=
for the whole article and add the specific pages after the {{
cite journal}}
. (There is some discussion further up the page on having two separate parameters to deal with this issue.)
Kanguole 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|page=
that sentence is on, knowing they could read other pages if they wish. If I think the reader needs to review multiple pages to support the Wikipedia article, I would use |pages=
.
GoingBatty (
talk) 15:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|pages=
and |at=
to coexist in a reference.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|title=
is the in-source location (the article). When it comes to the relevant pages, it would be inexact to substitute the context subset for the entire range. It is not representative of what you are citing, with the discrepancy becoming fairly obvious when one looks at the source's table of contents, which likely gives an indication of the actual range, and where also likely, readers may turn to first. In similar fashion when one is citing a book chapter, where a page range should be given. Again there are options to add the context pages in that chapter with the current system. I wonder how often 50 or 100 page-articles were cited in general reference lay works like Wikipedia. Scientific papers up for peer review perhaps or similar? I don't think it is fair to compare the reference system in such works, with Wikipedia's own, which has a different purpose and target.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 23:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to another parm to contain the full page range, but in its absence, the specific page is more important.When you write
When it comes to the relevant pages, it would be inexact to substitute the context subset for the entire range.you seem to be disagreeing, and I disagree with you. More specifically I think that the actual page or pages where the info being cited may be found (which I think is what you mean by the "context subset") are far more important to show in a ref, and that failure to do so is what is inexact. As to past practice, Wikipedia has cited peer-reviewed academic journal articles since early in i8ts history, at least, Previous encyclopedias and other tertiary sources such as textbooks did not usually cite such sources, but they had named authors with reputations for each article, and that presumably made their selections from source literature more reliable, with no need (or much less need) for readers to verify sources. Even so, books and book chapters were cited by encyclopedia articles, so some of the same issues will have arisen. But Wikipedia's citation practices are more closely based on those of academic publications than those of older encyclopedias and similar publications. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
User:AlanM1 asked "Of what practical benefit to the reader is providing the full page range of an article when only a specific single page is necessary to verify the content for which we are providing the cite (which is the point of citations)?". In the days before the internet, if a reader's library didn't have a certain journal, it the reader's library would request a copy from a library that did have it. If the reader were able to specify the exact pages to be copied (for the whole article), the request would be more likely to be filled correctly. (The person filling the request might be a part-time student employee, who might or might not have partied the previous night.) It still conceivable that some Wikipedia reader requests may be filled in this fashion.
Of course it is also desirable to specify the exact pages which support the claim in the Wipedia article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 01:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
|at=
that can be used for this with a tweaking of the code. And definitely Wikipedia's citation styles should not be based on academic practice. They are different beasts with different needs and audiences.
64.9.249.161 (
talk) 14:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)definitely Wikipedia's citation styles should not be based on academic practice. They are different beasts with different needs and audiences– I agree that they don't have to be exactly the same, but given that this is an encyclopedia, and given that many scientific and technical articles make heavy use of academic sources, our style should not depart too far.
The CMoS says at https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html
Chapter or other part of an edited book
In a note, cite specific pages. In the bibliography, include the page range for the chapter or part.
Journal article
In a note, cite specific page numbers. In the bibliography, include the page range for the whole article. For articles consulted online, include a URL or the name of the database. Many journal articles list a DOI (Digital Object Identifier). A DOI forms a permanent URL that begins https://doi.org/. This URL is preferable to the URL that appears in your browser’s address bar.
Now CS1 is not the CMoS, but it is probably based more on Chicago than on any other single style guide. Therefore the CMoS guidance is relevant, although not definitive. An ordinary <ref>...</ref>
tag functions as both a note and a bibliography entry, but mostly as a note. And use in simple <ref>...</ref>
tags is probably the primary use case for any of the CiteX templates, including {{
Cite Journal}}. Harvard style refs or the use of {{
sfn}} are far less common, to the best of my understanding. Therefore the template should be adapted to the note form fist, ideally with a way to handle the other forms also. But when used in a note context, the exact page or, pages where the info being cited appears should be listed, and not the page range for the entire article, if there is not a convenient way to list both (such as the proposed |page range=
or |page-span=
). The comment of 241.58 above has a good point about the probable audience as well.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tag does indeed combine the functions of a note and a bibliography entry. That is exactly why both page ranges are needed in the case of a journal article or chapter in a edited book. The audience for citations is people who want to examine the original source. If that is an academic journal or edited book, it will be convenient for the citation to follow academic conventions.
Kanguole 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Journal Article: Always include page numbers in notes when available.
|article-pages=
) so the meaning of the existing page(s) parms remains consistent (as the specific page(s)) across books, newspapers, etc.. Where should this new parm be shown in the rendered cite? E.g., |article-pages=247–256
in:
|article-pages=
and |cited-pages=
(each with singular variants), because |pages=
is currently being used for both purposes. There have been a few suggestions for rendering, e.g. adding the cited page(s) at the end, or putting it after the article pages in square brackets, but it's probably better to get the meaning sorted out before thinking about rendering.
Kanguole 09:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC) This came up again at
Wikipedia:Teahouse#In cite journal template, how to use page number as identifier, along with a question as to whether a page number should be used for the |id=
parameter for a pre-internet journal. I want to urge that the be some motion on this. I think it is a mistake to have a different use for the |page=
and |pages=
parameter on cite journal than on other citation templates. I think it is an even bigger mistake for people to urge the use of the template in a way contrary to its documentation. Either agree to change the documentation, or agree to use the template as documented. I think the {{
rp}} solution is clumsy and likely to be missed. A usage such as |pages=240-280 [257]
works now, and is better IMO than RP, but a new parameter, or even two new parameters would be better yet. But if we are to use |pages=240-280 [257]
let us have consensus that it is the form to use for this case, and modify the documentation to describe it and suggest its use.
DES
(talk)
DESiegel Contribs 22:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
|pages=240-280 [257]
form would only be appropriate in a citation of a journal article or separately-authored book chapter that was within <ref> tags. For a citation of a book inside <ref> tags, one would specify only the pages supporting the statement. For a journal article or separately-authored book chapter in a list of works, one would specify the pages of the entire article only. (And for a book in a list of works, no pages would be specified.) So the usage would still vary depending on the kind of citation and its context.
Kanguole 09:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Wire services cannot sell content to themselves, so it's inaccurate to use |agency=
for content they publish on their own websites, such as apnews.com. When they do that, they are not acting as wire services. Propose change from:
agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content (if different from the work and publisher); examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. May be wikilinked if relevant.
to:
agency: The news agency (wire service) that provided the content; examples: Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse. Do not use for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher. May be wikilinked if relevant.
― Mandruss ☎ 17:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps that says the same thing, I don't know. But it says it clearer, and there is a clear need for clarification since many editors are not using the parameter that way. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Use of a two-em dash (—) is preferred for omission over two em dashes (——). 🖖 ChristTrekker 🗣 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (
help)For some Springer publications and probably ACM & IEEE proceedings, the chapter or article has a DOI. For Springer the publication may also have a DOI. Would a general chapter-id or a specific chapter-doi be warranted. chapter-id could be used for arXiv values or NCBI NBK numbers for a chapter.
Waldhausen F. (1985) Algebraic K-theory of spaces. In: Ranicki A., Levitt N., Quinn F. (eds) Algebraic and Geometric Topology. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 1126. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0074449 Print ISBN 978-3-540-15235-4 Online ISBN 978-3-540-39413-6
The URL https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/BFb0074435 resolves to the book and the DOI portion resolves too. RDBrown ( talk) 03:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
|chapter-doi=
and |book-doi=
parameters, so that editors can specify which type of DOI they provide.I initiated {{ Citation Style documentation/Linking title}}, for use, for instance, in:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
|title=
would be disallowed because they can spoil metadata, and that |title-link=
is to be used instead. Otherwise, what is the purpose of |title-link=
?|title=
at all.|title=
are actually allowed according to the documentation pages, which makes |title-link=
redundant. However, external links and templates seem to be disallowed. (These rules are absolutely ridiculous.)
Glades12 (
talk) 11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)|title=
do not spoil metadata; they do spoil the rendering when
|url=
has a value:
|title=
, what is the purpose of |title-link=
then? After all, internal and external links are mutually exclusive, anyway.|episodelink=
. |titlelink=
is not supported by {{
citation/core}}
. The current format is correct imo.|title=
provides the literal value. |title-link=
or |url=
provide links to or about the title. A wikilink is also a specially formatted url. Additionally, the parameter is consistent with similar: |author-link=
, |editor-link=
. For clarity, it is best to separate the literal value from links to it. Apart from the fact that it is good programming practice (different data types).
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
|date=
into |year=
, |month=
and |day=
it was no longer necessary to maintain separate parameters for them, thereby making it easier for users to enter dates. Similar, if we can reliably remove links from titles, we won't actually need |title-link=
any more. According to some tests, the currently implemented link stripping code works with all kinds of links, including links in subtitles, piped links, links to #hash targets, even multiple links in a single title. The fact that users can use the normal wikilink syntax is also a plus. |title-link=
is apparently restricted to the same characters as links in |title=
, so no advantage for |title-link=
here. Since bots had to cope with embedded links in titles all the time, this isn't a reason to keep |title-link=
, either. However, |title-link=
can be used to link to titles combined from |title=
and |script-title=
(similar to |author-link=
for |author-last=
and |author-first=
). Therefore, I have meanwhile come to the conclusion that we should not fade out |title-link=
(likewise for |author-link=
, |editor-link=
, |translator-link=
, |contributor-link=
and |interviewer-link=
). But what about |publisher-link=
and |series-link=
? Will we have |script-publisher=
and |script-series=
in the future? (At least I had a use for |script-publisher=
more than once.)Have now expanded with guidance for linking "chapter"; Re. "instruction creep" – incorrect: this proposal allows more options than current guidance (and would indeed replace part of the current "instruction creep" that has given some trouble lately). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)