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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
At Special:Permalink/982911547#PMID error, Nixinova was concerned that PMID 33022132 was outside the range specified at Help:CS1 errors#bad_pmid. This turns out not to be the case, as the limit specificed there is 33100000. However, it's awfully close, which led me to investigate it.
The PMIDs appear to be assigned sequentially and are documented to "not be re-used". Based on the highest numbers found in several daily files here, the rate is roughly 4000 per day. The latest PMID as of the 2020-10-10 file is 33038074, which means it will hit 33100000 in less than 16 days. Was there a reason for the (strangely specific) 33100000 limit, should it be increased (soon), and to what? —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 15:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
pmc-limit=8000000,pmid-limit=33200000,ssrn-limit=4000000,s2cid-limit=230000000,oclc-limit=9999999999,osti-limit=23000000,rfc-limit=9000
|pmc=
, |pmid=
, |ssrn=
or |s2cid=
parameters, they would retrieve the currently configured limit for an identifier through
{{#invoke:Cs1 documentation support|id_limits_get|<identifier>}}
Is there any guidance about how to handle instances where authors should be indexed by first rather than last name? E.g. Chinese names where family name comes first, or Thai names where given name (which comes first) is the polite term of address? For example, should I call a Thai given name "last=" so the correct name comes first, as you would see in an index? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
|given=
and |surname=
. --
Izno (
talk) 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)indexed?
|last=
or |surname=
will appear first in the rendered citation. |first=
or |given=
is always follows and is separated from |last=
or |surname=
with a comma and a space character. The only way to get cs1|2 to render a person's names in a particular order with particular punctuation is to do it manually with |author=
. This same applies to the other name lists (contributor names, editor names, interviewer names, translator names). But none of this has anything to do with indexing.indexed?
|author=
fits the bill.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
...existing guideline: present the author name the way you saw it published.Is there? Where?
|author=<given> <surname>
and |ref={{
sfnref|<given>|<year>}}
will do that. You might want to leave <!--<hidden comments>-->
so that editors who visit the article after you have finished with it know your intent.|given=
and |surname=
parameter variants rather than the |first=
and |last=
ones. While the order of display for names is "last, first" or "surname, given" at present, this does not necessarily remain so forever. Our style guide may change or we may introduce an |af=
('author format') parameter (as suggested by Headbomb) in the future to control the display order. (See also:
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive 71#First/last_or_given/surname_canonical_form?)|surname=
(or |last=
) and the part of the name that fits into the concept of an individual name into the |given=
(or |first=
) parameter variant, regardless of their order of display in citations. I think, this is also important for proper meta-data creation.-mask
parameter variant (like |author-given=Given
|author-surname=Surname
|author-mask=Given Surname
or |author-mask=Surname Given
). This is more complicated than just using |author=
, but better (at least for as long as the concept of a family and an individual name applies - not sure if this holds true everywhere on this planet).|surname=
or |author=
parameter. If it is true that, in the case of Thai names, it should better be derived from what's in the |given=
parameter, it might be worth considering a new option like |ref=thai
(or |ref=given
) for this. (Or, if this should still run under the |ref=harv
moniker, a new parameter like |ref-mask=given
could be used for this, or this could be even be combined with the proposed |af=
into something like |name-mode=Western/Eastern/Chinese/Japanese/Thai/Malay/Indian/Indian-surname/Icelandic/Hungarian/...
to control the name display order and style as well as Harvard ref-ID composition and proper meta-data creation by a single parameter.)|author-mask=
parameter as well, but this is another possible "shortcoming" of the current implementation, whereas in a hypothetical future version it might be possible to have the template create a suitable display mask automatically if it knows it's a Thai name (
this proposal goes in this direction, although related to display styles not naming conventions in general). However, the problem is that on a global scale there are many different naming conventions and once we enhance the current implementation we should ideally find a solution that works good for all of them. Therefore, we are still in learning mode tinkering about possible solutions whenever such a topic comes up.)|ref=thai
for this purpose or combine this into something like a |name-mode=
parameter, which would allow us to select from a number of predefined combinations of display order and anchor composition styles.|script-=
and |trans-=
to be available as prefixes to name parameters (this has been requested many times already, we "just" need to implement it somewhen). This will ensure that the information can be provided accurately on a technical level.|-first=
/|-last=
/|-given=
/|-family=
/|-forename=
/|-surname=
the (one or) two that most accurately agree with the naming scheme present in an author's name. (This thread (
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive 71#First/last_or_given/surname_canonical_form?) has a bit on selecting the most suitable postfixes during data entry.)|script-=
parameters could be expanded from only supporting a number of non-Latin scripts to all language codes without introducing any backward-compatibility problems. We could then use these language prefixes to control, (like that hypothetical |name-mode=
parameter above, but) on a name-by-name basis, the various settings needed to display the name correctly (display order and possibly necessary
text decoration), to generate the correct meta-data for it, and to derive the name parts for an anchor in Harvard style from it.|script-=
). However, if a name would be entered with e.g. the language prefix zh
indicating a Chinese name, the internal assignments would become last=given and first=family, so that |script-author-given=zh:Given
and |script-author-surname=zh:Surname
would work just as well as |script-author-last=zh:Given
and |script-author-first=zh:Surname
and be rendered as "Surname Given" (no comma) (whereas the conventional |author-given=Given
and |author-surname=Surname
or |author-last=Surname
and |author-first=Given
would be rendered as "Surname, Given").|script-=
parameter variants would be mandantory. For Latin-based scripts, including translated Chinese names, things would be much simpler. As having to use the |script-=
variants just to give language codes appears to be too cumbersome in these easier cases, what about supporting the language prefixes also for the non-script parameter variants? This would reduce something like
|script-author-given=hu:Given
and |script-author-surname=hu:Surname
|author-given=hu:Given
and |author-surname=hu:Surname
|given=hu:Given
and |surname=hu:Surname
|script-author-last=hu:Given
and |script-author-first=hu:Surname
|author-last=hu:Given
and |author-first=hu:Surname
|last=hu:Given
and |first=hu:Surname
hu:
) would be internally configured to be rendered in "Eastern order", this would be rendered as "Surname Given" (without comma) (NB. This is only an example, the actual configuration for Hungarian names could be different, in fact, according to some style guides it is), whereas English names per
|given=en:Given
and |surname=en:Surname
|last=en:Surname
and |first=en:Given
|given=Given
and |surname=Surname
|last=Surname
and |first=Given
Template parameters supporting item lists such as |pages=
, |pp=
, |issue=
, |number=
(and now also |quote-pages=
) supported the
accept-this-as-is syntax to suppress the conversion of hyphens to dashes globally as well as for individual list items. However, a bug prevented the code from properly evaluating item lists, where the first and the last list items were using this syntax. Such combinations were erroneously interpreted as if the global accept-this-as-is markup was used, resulting in invalid list items (fifth and last example). This has been fixed now:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 02:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
|volume=
internally uses parts of the same code for list item evaluation, hyphen-to-dash conversion, and accept-this-as-is markup recognition as used for |issue=
, |pages=
, etc. above. However, a bug in the somewhat-heuristic code deciding if a volume value should be presented in boldface or not prevented this from being executed if the given argument was longer than 4 characters. This has now been fixed as well.((1))
, ((X))
, ((1-2))
, ((1–2))
.Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|volume=
was reclassified into the bipolar bin. As you state, many people have asked for a resolution either way (all bold font or all regular). It must be somebody's pet cause, because nothing has transpired. Other than that, if your edits cause no harm and correct a bug (personally I was not aware of it) then I don't see why they shouldn't stand.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 03:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Investigating the COinS metadata output I have spotted some areas for possible improvement on various levels. Since most of them are small and/or affect corner-cases only they aren't worth individual threads polluting the TOC, so I will combine them into this thread.
There will be more, but so far there have been only two changes, both related to the
metadata generated for identifiers which have no predefined &rft.<id-name>
or &rft_id=
info.<id-name>
tags associated with them within COinS. For such identifiers, the template uses the &rft_id=<id-link>
tag to provide URLs to the external resource. The code assembling such URLs uses prefix and suffix definitions from a table defining the various properties for the identifiers. While the suffix was added to the visible URLs, there was a bug omitting to add the suffix to the identifier URLs for COinS as well. This has been fixed. However, this is an internal change only and has no impact on the actually generated metadata because none of the identifiers defined so far actually used a suffix.
On the receiver side, users of the identifier data passed through via URLs may want to retranslate it back into a human-readable form "<id-name> <id-number>". While it is sometimes possible to derive the identifier type from the URL, this is not always the case. For example, DOI and bioRxiv as well as JFM and Zbl identifiers both resolve to the same URLs, respectively:
&rft_id=//doi.org/<id-number>
" → ?&rft_id=//doi.org/<id-number>
" → ?&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>
" → ?&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>
" → ?This is not a problem in the DOI case, because a predefined
info:doi
tag exists and thus is used by the metadata generator instead of creating an URL for it.
&rft_id=info:doi/<id-number>
" → DOI <id-number>However, to make the URLs more useable on the receiver side, the generator now appends an URI #fragment to the URLs indicating the name of the identifier. This is transparent for browsers (would this metadata be copied and pasted into the address line of a browser), but is readable for humans and scripts which can thereby pick up the original name and translate the URL back into the "<id-name> <id-number>" form for storage in their database. Examples:
&rft_id=//doi.org/<id-number>#id-name=bioRxiv
" → bioRxiv <id-number>&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>#id-name=JFM
" → JFM <id-number>&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>#id-name=Zbl
" → Zbl <id-number>There are some interesting concepts how to further encode information in URI fragments to describe a resource or make it automatically actionable on the client's side. If we'd find a low-footprint scheme formally describing the URL as a link to information related to a specific entity of a named identifier, this could be further refined.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 17:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC) (updated 22:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC), updated 14:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC))
Bunce, Mrs. Oliver Bell (1 September 1897).
"The Turkish Compassionate Fund". The Decorator and Furnisher.
doi:
10.2307/25585322.
JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25585322. {{
cite web}}
: Check |jstor=
value (
help); External link in
(
help)
|JSTOR=
|JSTOR=
should emit an error. --
Izno (
talk) 18:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
|jstor=
is one of three external identifiers that don't get some sort of check (the others are |osti=
and |rfc=
). |jstor=
can hold a variety of identifiers:
|jstor=
identifiers, we may not be able to validate them.|osti=
and |rfc=
are simple numeric identifiers. Likely we have not bothered to check these because there are relatively few uses of these identifiers. |rfc=
seems to be max number between 8000 and 9000. |osti=
seems to be max number between 22000000 and 23000000. So these two could be given simple limit checks like we do for |pmc=
.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. RFC 1. |
Sandbox | Title. RFC 1. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title.
RFC
10000. {{
cite book}} : Check |rfc= value (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title.
RFC
10000. {{
cite book}} : Check |rfc= value (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title.
OSTI
1. {{
cite book}} : Check |osti= value (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title.
OSTI
1. {{
cite book}} : Check |osti= value (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. OSTI 23000001. |
Sandbox | Title. OSTI 23000001. |
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
While updating
Happy number, I tried to add "Cited in (an OEIS citation)", but noticed that every citation generates an id "CITEREFSloane" by default, which is incorrect HTML with more than one citation. When I tried to specify an explicit |ref=
I got a cite error "Unrecognised parameter". I could not immediately see why that was, so I created the link by
a bodge. This of course continued to annoy me, so I had another look this evening.
Apart from the constant id, there were two problems which are fixed in this (current) revision ( testcases). The link after the final refs testcase jumps to the test citation for the live template and there are now no errors for the ref parameter displayed.
We also need to correct the default ref id. I propose a default id of
CITEREF<editor-last>_"<sequenceno>"
for which the user would add something like
{{sfn|Sloane "A12345"}} or {{harvtxt|Sloane "A12345"}}
to link to this, which seems both reasonably simple and clear. The quotes around the sequence number correspond to the quotes around the full entry title in the citation. You can see this in the (current) sandbox. In the testcases, the link after the next-to-last testcase for dates jumps to the test citation, but the live citation still has the incorrect id. Of course, I will update the documentation accordingly.
There may be other cite wrappers with the same problem now that cite *
generate ids by default. Parameter check lists also need themselves to be checked.
Just as I finished preparing this, I notice that the testcases no longer display the missing error messages for the They appear in preview mode.
|foo=
and |date=
parameters. I can't see any reason for this at present.
Comments welcome, especially "yes, please do it" of course. -- Mirokado ( talk) 22:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Cite OEIS}}
is not a cs1|2 template. Problems with that template are best addressed at its talk page. If there is something wrong with the underlying {{
cite web}}
, then we want to know about it.cite *
generate ids by default" is certainly something relevant to this page, even if there is no really easy central solution. If someone is bored on a wet Saturday afternoon, here is something for them to look at. --
Mirokado (
talk) 00:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Cite OEIS}}
, must adapt if they haven't already done so. This is really no different from wrapper templates needing to adapt when old forms of parameter names that the wrappers use are deprecated and support for them withdrawn. The issue that you are complaining about, automatic CITEREF anchor creation, changed nothing because |ref=harv
was specified with
this edit to {{Cite OEIS}}
. That setting became superfluous when cs1|2 began creating automatic CITEREF anchors. With
this edit, {{Cite OEIS}}
lost the superfluous |ref=harv
setting and gained the ability to set the citation's CITEREF anchor externally.Per a discussion
elsewhere, in the sandbox I have separated
Category:CS1 maint: extra text into two separate categories, as well as promoted the two categories to errors from maintenance. The two categories are per parameter: one for |edition=
and one for |p/pp/page/pages=
.
This change is demonstrated at test_extra_text
test on
Module talk:Citation/CS1/testcases/errors. I did not implement sensitivity to the exact parameter name in the pages test since that's still a bit beyond me. I have no strong opinion on someone else doing so.
Secondly, I see "volume" text in |work=
in the wild often (and equivalents, esp. in the titles of encyclopedias and books). An example might be |title=Title, Volume X: Volume Name
, which I would envision as better being |title=Title
|volume=X: Volume Name
. I would like to entertain an "extra text" test for that pattern and an associated maintenance category, and invite discussion accordingly. --
Izno (
talk) 03:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
|volume=
parameter isn't used, this could be abused to move the part info into there, but what we'd actually need for this is a separate parameter |part=
(see also
Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests#Part/
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_58#Books_with_volumes_and_parts, there even is a
COinS tag for this, &rft.part=
, although, as odd as it is, this appears to be defined only for periodicals, not books).|edition=
as extra text:Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|page=
/|pages=
and |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
now also checks for pattern "pg(s)(.)" etc. in addition to ""p(p)(.)" etc.:Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author1; et al. (2020). Title. {{
cite book}} : |author1= has generic name (
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Author1; et al. (2020). Title. {{
cite book}} : |author1= has generic name (
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
We presently capture citations that have no authorship information, besides |others=
, in
Category:CS1 maint: others (with some 20k pages). Due to prominence in the documentation of the templates {{
cite AV media}} and {{
cite AV media notes}}, these templates often have |others=
exclusively, which makes it hard for other cases where this is an issue.
I am considering separating these out into a separate category (something like Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes)) so that someone interested in working through slightly-less painful categories can do so.
Has anyone seen another of the core CS1 template set cause such inclusion in this maintenance category? Does anyone have an issue with that path? -- Izno ( talk) 05:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, is there something we can do about those templates? Provide still-more named parameters?... -- Izno ( talk) 05:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
|artist=
as a template-specific parameter for {{cite av media notes}}
. Instead of keeping it separate, the content of |artist=
might be concatenated as a prefix to |title=
so this:
{{cite av media notes |title=Dark Side of the Moon |artist=Pink Floyd}}
&rft.btitle=Pink+Floyd%3A+Dark+Side+of+the+Moon
{{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite av media notes}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite serial}}
templates all deserve reworking. These are the templates that are the primary users of |people=
, an alias of |authors=
so none of the names listed in that parameter make it into the citation's metadata. All kinds of extraneous text is added to that parameter, mostly roles (director, producer, actor, voice-over, narrator, etc) none of which belongs in the metadata. Now that cs1|2 supports template-specific parameters, we could introduce specific role parameters for these templates so that the names are annotated in the rendering, and the names without annotation are included in the metadata. In the meantime, |people=
, can be constrained to these templates only, and once the template specific parameters are available, deprecated and withdrawn.|artist=
. However, this may better be a free-form parameter since artist names maybe idiosyncratic, and of course we have cases of compilation works, collaborations etc.|others=
.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 22:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Has anyone analysed what are the commonest types of role added as |others=
?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 10:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
|others=
for author names and for editor names (without role being specified). That is the problem with free-form parameters; editors and tools can put just about anything there. There are approximately 52k-ish uses of |others=
[
search results|illustrator=
?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I suggest author of foreword (P2679) is another likely candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
|others=
. cs1|2 book citations support forewords, afterwords, and other contributions to an author's book:
|contribution=
with |contributorn=
and it is good that the feature supports |contributor-first=
and |contributor-last=
as well as n-enumerated variants, I don't like the fact that only one |contribution=
is allowed and that it is impossible to specify different types of contributions for different contributors (unless lumping them all together in |contribution=
). What also looks odd most of the time is that the contributors are listed in front of the authors as this draws too much attention to them:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |contributor-first1=CF1 |contributor-last1=CL1 |contributor-first2=CF2 |contributor-last2=CL2 |contributor-first3=CF3 |contributor-last3=CL3 |contributor-first4=CF4 |contributor-last4=CL4 |contribution=Illustration/Foreword/Afterword |others=Others}}
|others=
for this, but this does not support enumerated and -first
/-last
parameter variants, and the article editor has to invent his/her own notation to list multiple contributors and their roles as in the following three examples:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |others=CL1, CF1 (Illustration). CL2, CF2; CL3, CF3 (Foreword). CL4, CF4 (Afterword). Others}}
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |others=Illustration: CL1, CF1. Foreword: CL2, CF2; CL3, CF3. Afterword: CL4, CF4. Others}}
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |others=Illustrated by CL1, CF1. Foreword by CL2, CF2; CL3, CF3. Afterword by CL4, CF4. Others}}
|contributor=
and |others=
:-first
/-last
and enumerated forms), but listed after the list of authors, editors and translators (and before |others=
). This could be achieved by adding |contributor-role=
(and enumerated forms). If the role would be specified, it would be listed alongside the corresponding contributor. In order to allow multiple contributors contributing to the same type of contribution, the role should occur either before all or after the last contributor of a specific group (as in the example renderings above). The markup for this could be like this:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |contributor-first1=CF1 |contributor-last1=CL1 |contribution-role1=Illustration |contributor-first2=CF2 |contributor-last2=CL2 |contributor-role2=Foreword |contributor-first3=CF3 |contributor-last3=CL3 |contributor-role3=Foreword |contributor-first4=CF4 |contributor-last4=CL4 |contributor-role4=Afterword |others=Others}}
|contributor-role=
parameters optional if they would specify the same role as that of the preceding contributor (|contributor-role3=
here):
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |contributor-first1=CF1 |contributor-last1=CL1 |contribution-role1=Illustration |contributor-first2=CF2 |contributor-last2=CL2 |contributor-role2=Foreword |contributor-first3=CF3 |contributor-last3=CL3 |contributor-first4=CF4 |contributor-last4=CL4 |contributor-role4=Afterword |others=Others}}
|contribution=
, by the existence of a |contributor-role=
parameter, by introducing |others-first/-last/-role=
instead of |contributor-first/-last/-role=
or some mix of it.I don't like the fact that only one |contribution=
is allowed...
From that, can I take it that you don't like the fact that a single cs1|2 template allows only one |chapter=
or one |section=
or one |entry=
or one |article=
?|contribution=
and |contributor=
pair are intended to cite the contributor's contribution to the work written by |author=
as, for example,
Anna Quindlen's introduction to
Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice,
here where Quindlen is the writer who is being cited, not Austen, so it is correct that Quindlen is listed ahead of Austen in the citation. So, yes, [this] is okay if the goal is to cite something from a foreword or afterword and draw particular attention to this specificallybecause that is the defined purpose.
the writer of a foreword ... specifically "advertised" on the book cover, there is no need to clutter the citation with that extraneous detail; we don't need to distract or confuse the reader.
introduce individual parameters for all possible roles. If any such parameters are added they should only be added after careful consideration and when it can be shown that the new parameter is needed.
|others=
, which, however, is unsatisfactory for most of the same reasons for why we are fading out |editors=
and |authors=
in the long term).|contribution=
and |contributor=
. I described this use case as well in my reply above. But it does not cover the more common use case where the afterword, foreword, illustrations, etc., are not by itself the subject to be cited, but they are nevertheless part of the contributions to a work and thus may be listed in a citation. (This is also why this (
[1]) won't have the desired effect.) In this case, the contributions would be clutter when displayed before the main contributors. They should rather be listed following the main contributors like authors, editors and translators - basically they should be at the position where we show |others=
. I could have worded my proposal to introduce |other-firstn=
/|other-lastn=
/|other-linkn=
/|other-maskn=
plus |other-rolen=
(and fade out |others=
in the long term). However, if we can combine this with the parameters for contributors we could just use the existing |contributor-firstn=
/|contributor-lastn=
/|contributor-linkn=
/|contributor-maskn=
for this as well and just add |contributor-rolen=
.Before we now introduce individual parameters for all possible roles, what I would like to see is a mix of both,reads, to me, like this|contributor=
and|others=
: ...
mix of bothis merely a prelude to the
[introduction of] individual parameters for all possible roleswhich is something that we should not do.
|people=
and |credits=
which are predominantly used in {{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, and {{
cite serial}}
. These new role parameters would be constrained to these templates.But it does not cover the more common use case where the afterword, foreword, illustrations, etc., are not by itself the subject to be cited, but they are nevertheless part of the contributions to a work and thus may be listed in a citation.You're right, it doesn't and it shouldn't. When an afterword, foreword, introduction, preface, etc is not the
subject to be cited, such contributions, noteworthy though they may be, are superfluous to the purpose of the citation which is to identify for the reader the
subject to be cited. Including mention of afterwords, forewords, introductions, prefaces when they are not the
subject to be citedmerely obfuscates the
subject to be citedwithin the citation and so does not benefit the reader. cs1|2 is not a repository for all possible bibliographic data associated with a source. If you want that, go write a template series to do that. It may be that in bibliographic lists of an author's works, for example, such a bibliographic information template might be desirable. Citations need only the bibliographic detail that is sufficient to identify the portion of the source that is the
subject to be cited.
My experience with "others" is that it is usually used incorrectly, for instance for authors after the first one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Tangent Why is that talk page un-redirected? -- Izno ( talk) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if articles with "Subscribe to read" in the reference title could be added to Category:CS1 errors: generic title. There are currently over 1,000 usages of these in titles. Thanks. Keith D ( talk) 14:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"Subscribe to read". Financial Times. {{
cite web}} : Cite uses generic title (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Subscribe to read". Financial Times. {{
cite web}} : Cite uses generic title (
help)
|
This
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); External link in |doi=
(
help)should emit an error. The DOI format is 10.[4 or 5 digits]/foobar
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Colbert; Edwin, Harris (1946). "Hypsognathus, a Triassic reptile from New Jersey". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.
doi:
10.http://hdl.handle.net/2246/390. {{
cite journal}} : Check |doi= value (
help); External link in (
help)
|
Sandbox | Colbert; Edwin, Harris (1946). "Hypsognathus, a Triassic reptile from New Jersey". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.
doi:
10.http://hdl.handle.net/2246/390. {{
cite journal}} : Check |doi= value (
help); External link in (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Someone has made a proposal to allow a more Wikimedia-wide usage of these CS templates. Putting a notice here in case folks are interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The {{ Cite_OED}} template is in need of an update, and it would be great if someone could take a look. I've asked several times on the talk page at Template_talk:Cite_OED#Template_needs_updating, but that page probably doesn't get much exposure. Asking here following a recommendation at WP:VP/T. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Further reading § Should further reading sections have "retrieved by" dates?. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
During the ongoing FA review for
Biblical criticism, I noticed that some ISBNs in the citations with dashes (e.g. Bauckham, currently ref 114) break onto multiple lines. This makes them marginally harder to read, so I think it would be preferable if they were non-breaking. Would it be possible to place a {{
no wrap}} around the input for |ISBN=
and other parameters that might have the same issue? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 18:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
unnamed refs | 69 | ||
---|---|---|---|
named refs | 132 | ||
self closed | 229 | ||
Refn templates | 8 | ||
cs1 refs | 208 | ||
cs1 templates | 215 | ||
rp templates | 296 | ||
webarchive templates | 9 | ||
use xxx dates | dmy | ||
cs1|2 dmy dates | 11 | ||
cs1|2 ymd dates | 3 | ||
cs1|2 last/first | 196 | ||
cs1|2 author | 4 | ||
| |||
explanations |
|isbn=
with hyphenated isbns; the category has 6,479 articles of which 4,774 have hyphenated isbns; see this
search.{{
citation}}
.<bdi>
.|orig-date=
parameter) in suitable date formats non-wrapping. If this wouldn't grow the length of the non-wrapping string too long, this would ideally include the identifier names as well, but at the minimum we should keep the numbers from wrapping.
in the message fragments used to display " et al.
", " ed.
" (for edition) and "§
" and "§§
" (sections).<span class="nowrap">...</span>
before it starts to scroll or truncate. For non-dedicated browsers, couldn't this be solved on Timeless skin-level (CSS)?Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
CS1 templates are very complex and ever changing, and writing a bot to enhance certain references, such as book references, to make them more easily accessible to readers can have unintended side-effects, consequences that may actually make things worse. I propose adding two new parameters to the CS1 templates. The first one is iaident. When this is populated, the module can figure out where to put the link to archive.org. If a URL is lacking, it go where any URL would normally go, if it isn't, it can perhaps append it to the citation in some way like "View at archive.org" or something like that. The URL would be https://archive.org/details/<iaident>. The second parameter would be iaoffset. In certain cases where pages don't link properly, iaoffset would be used to direct the server to the correct page/location of the media being viewed. This is the raw location. When used the URL simply becomes https://archive.org/details/<iaident>/page/n<iaoffset>.
These two additions will have no impact on existing citations and will allow a more harmonious addition of readable page previews to citations without stepping on anyone's toes, or accidentally breaking something in an existing reference.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|via=
can inform the reader that the version of the work they are reading is published in an archive. If the work is only found in an online archive, then what is cited is the archive, likely via {{cite web}}. The particulars of the citation will make this obvious. I don't know what this has to do with bots "enhancing references" or how complexity can be reduced by adding even more specialized parameters.
65.204.10.231 (
talk) 14:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There are over 600,000 citations that link scanned books.
Examples. It does seem kind of silly we don't use the ID system for this, it is one of the most frequently linked things on enwiki. There are 3.7 million {{
cite book}}
templates and if all these were in cite books (most are) that is 16%. --
Green
C
|ol=
into the metadata to make it easier for third-parties to correlate the data. (The technical reason for why we don't include it already is because different OL identifiers require different prefixes and this doesn't fit very well into the current implementation.)|url=
by itself but only be considered by the template when |url=
is not specified as well. This would free |url=
for other uses. If this is what you propose, I would support it. Ideally, though, this parameter would not take a complete URL such as "
https://archive.org/details/sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog" as a value, but just an id (like "Identifier=sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog"). How does this correspond with the "Identifier-ark=ark:/13960/t40s07c8h"? Is it possible to derive the former from the latter (
ark)?|url=
with its |archive-url=
companion for links which actually need |archive-url=
to prevent link-rot.|id=
an editor can insert the source's own identifying scheme, if any.
50.74.165.202 (
talk) 17:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)|ia=
with the caveat that it should be documented to take the Internet Archive identifier (and, yes, these are unique identifiers assigned by IA; they just don't have a resolver that abstracts the identifier from the physical address (URL))
of the scan where the information it supports was found, rather than any old scan of some book that may or may not be the same work in the same edition in a copy sufficiently identical to the original to support WP:V. People will still use it sloppily of course, but if the definition is strict we at least pull the trend in the right direction over time. This also means we treat it as an identifier and not a convenience link (those can go in |url=
). This means the derived URL should not be auto-promoted to the |url=
. It also means the parameter should not be bot-populated unless other information in the template uniquely identifies the scan to which it refers. IA book scans are a great resource and we should take advantage of it to the fullest extent practical, but not uncritically and sloppily.I don't see the case for the proposed |iaoffset=
parameter, and at first blush it would seem to be conceptually in conflict with everything else in CS1. --
Xover (
talk) 18:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|ia-offset=
(provisional name) be useful to point to the start of the relevant work as well?|s2cid=219352572
|ia-identifier=sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog
seems a lot the same to me.|iacid=<corpus ID>
for the book and if a particular scan is desired then perhaps something like |iacid=<corpus ID>.n<scan ID>
. cs1|2 would then build a handle system url that internet archive can redirect to the appropriate location|url=
by one of the Google- or IA-type ones. It would have been much better, if those extra resources could be listed among the identifiers, so that they don't occupy the place of |url=
any more and the bots would have a dedicated place where to put them without disturbing anyone. If parameters like |ia=
or |gbooks=
(provisional names) would be included in the list of auto-linking identifiers, they could still show up as title links if none of the other links take precedence.This will never change.Maybe; maybe not. Whatever mechanism IA uses is proprietary to IA. It seems better to me to avoid proprietary systems and use a system supported by many users so the handle system seems to fit; cs1|2 already supports
|hdl=
so we don't have to craft something special for IA.|url=
to link to the source that they consulted.Why isn't Internet Archive listed at Special:BookSources?
|url=
to the facsimile at IA, and may increase the use of IA urls for books; better to link to IA than to google or amazon, isn't it? Google and amazon are right there at the top of the list at Special:BookSources; is it any wonder that editors looking for courtesy links use them?The strings are arbitrary...Arbitrary. That's certainly part of it for me. The strings are arbitrary and, for the example in this discussion,
sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog
, seem to suggest that google is where I will land if I click on that 'identifier'. Arbitrary does not look systematic, it does not look professional. Editors at discussions here and elsewhere have complained that readers won't click on identifiers because they don't understand the meaning of the initialisms and so are intimidated. I think that our readers smarter than that; especially readers who have gotten to the point of following an article far enough that the references matter.[this] will never change.This is the internet; nothing on the internet is static. A non-proprietary system, supporting multiple users is, I think, a better long-term choice for en.wiki because the stable identifier abstracts to the actual url of the source. That url can change as source providers upgrade their technology and internal data handling without it impacting us.
|jstor=
, and in some ways better because unlike JSTOR's "Stable URL", IA does actually treat this as an identifier. It is picked by the uploader, often according to a suggested schema, but it it assigned and managed by IA; and, crucially, it shows up in various APIs on their side where e.g. JSTOR would have used the URL (i.e. they actually treat it as an identifier in practice). It would be better if IA registered a HDL or DOI for each scan, but I don't see this as a bright line. I don't think an identifier's visual appearance, or the presence of certain substrings, are fair objections. Identifiers should be opaque except any defined hierarchy (DOI prefixes and such), and if they are too long their display can be truncated (or people will choose not to add them).Specific params for such identifiers also makes it easier for users to discover (and thus actually make use of) than generic ones, and makes it easier to add multiple links where that is relevant. Having spent far far too many hours manually cleaning up article references I very much appreciate every additional identifier available, because even nominally stable identifiers like DOIs die in the timescales we care about. I don't know any services mirroring IA specifically (unlike JSTOR and Project MUSE that often both have copies of a given journal issue), but just as an illustration we have a lot of IA works uploaded at Commons. Being able to point both at the original at archive.org and the alternate copy at Commons will save somebody's behind a decade down the line when IA decides to annoy the publishers enough to get sued out of existence (or whatever).Finally, there is not a 1:1 relationship between an ISBN and a specific scan of a specific copy of a specific edition of a specific work. Starting from an ISBN you can get to a search that lists lots of these, but you can't point at only one. That's (part of) why bot adding these links is a bad idea and
Special:BookSources is the most appropriate avenue for making IA accessible at volume. But starting in the other end, you certainly can add the identifier of the specific scan you consulted when adding the reference. And sometimes the ability to specify a copy of a book (there are multiple advanced academic degrees made based on the copy-to-copy differences in the
First Folio), and even the scan used of that copy (the same copy scanned by both Google and IA may have material differences in quality (hint: Google's scanner operators exhibit not a single fig given about quality)), is important.Bottom line, for me, is that while this is not a no brainer, I ultimately fall down on the side of wanting this parameter. I also wish IA would actually participate here, and discuss issues surrounding linking, discoverability, metadata (their's is almost as bad as Worldcat's, just in different ways), but absent that I'll settle for ways we can more effectively make use of IA as a resource. --
Xover (
talk) 09:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
northangerabbeyb00aust_1
. Apparently, accuracy in creating these 'identifiers' is not a criteria for their creation. Some sort of numerical corpus ID (just take the next available number) would be much better than seeing an identifier naming
Northanger Abbey in a citation for
Pride and Predjudice:
https://archive.org/details/northangerabbeyb00aust_1. That url was
added by bot. It does illustrate the offset issue. The cited page is vii so the page link that the bot added did not work (since removed) but, had the bot written [https://archive.org/details/northangerabbeyb00aust_1/page/n9 vii]
it would have worked:
vii.I wonder why this subject invites such elaborate discussion. All IA items are online. There is already a standardized, constantly utilized, familiar locator (the URL) to easily reach the referenced archive, as well as in-source locations such as specific pages (in the case of archived print media). Is there any reason for IA to have preferential treatment over other archives? Archives, just like any other source, are not automatically reliable. Afaik, IA's archiving protocols are opaque, and the resulting archives not vetted. Granted that the last time time I looked at IA governance was several years ago, but I was surprised to find out that there were no official "Archivist" positions at the organization. That is like having libraries without trained librarians. Not that university archiving operations are much better. I have seen horrible scans of well known works in such institutions. In some cases, really bad version control, with a different archive of the same original showing up seemingly randomly, no doubt thanks to some mysterious algorithm. But do go ahead and try to make sense of all this if that is your thing. 98.0.246.251 ( talk) 01:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
|url=
and it would be good to have a separate place for at least the most common and established providers of content to free the |url=
parameter and its companion |archive-url=
for better purposes in order to improve the quality and usefulness of citations and to fight link-rot. Both, GB and IA identifiers have proven to be stable for many years (with minor exceptions), more stable than many URLs to other sites, but in the hyphothetical case that they would suddenly change their link formats, change their identifiers or change their services in unacceptable way, it would be trivially easy for us to centrally adjust or mute the corresponding template output, that is, it gives us more control.|id=
, regardless of whether such is well maintained or not. But there has to be a more compelling reason to formalize these into yet more parameters. Not every secondary identifier must be coded, documented and explained. This particular citation system is already overly complex and there is a good chance that the needs of the non-expert reader are not met. The litmus test: the most complex citation possible should be understood by the least knowledgeable reader possible.
107.14.54.1 (
talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)At present a source without a stated date uses the format date=n.d.
, and displays as
The newspaper. n.d. Retrieved 6 December 2015.
This is rather obscure to the reader. I would suggest either that date=n.d.
be retained in the cite parameters, but displayed to the reader as "Undated", or that date=undated
be allowed and displayed. (A display of "No date" for parameter n.d.
would be OK.)
A parameter that tells editors that a reference is undated also saves an attempt to find and add a date, in the same way as the recommended author=<!--not stated-->
does.
Example with date=n.d.
:
"Pooley Bridge, Cumbria". Britain Express. n.d. Retrieved 6 December 2015.
Example with unsupported date=Undated
:
"Pooley Bridge, Cumbria". Britain Express. Undated. Retrieved 6 December 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This is rather obscure to the reader.Really? Why do you believe that readers are incapable of understanding this rather common initialism? It is perfectly acceptable to omit
|date=
when the source is not dated. Similarly, it is perfectly acceptable to write |date=<!--no date-->
for the benefit of editors if you think it appropriate.|date=none
for consistency with other parameters already using the none
keyword) and issue "extra text" warnings for the other inputs (like "n.d.", "nd", etc.) so that existing citations could be updated accordingly. Still, the output would be the predefined text "n.d." plus tooltip, "no date" or whatever we decide.n.d.
" or "3 (12): 7–8
" means.)|language=fr
over |language=French
). For example, in a German citation one would typically write "o. D.
" ("ohne Datum") rather than "n.d.
", but "k. D.
" ("kein Datum") is seen as well. Likewise, there are abbreviations like "o. J.
" (without year), "o. O.
" (without location), "o. A.
" (without author) and "Anon.
" (for anonymous author(s)).author=<!--not stated-->
would be the recommended form. It is possible that this has changed, but the last time I looked the recommended form was author=<!-- staff writer, no byline -->
. Either way, this shows that HTML comments, as useful as they often are, are not a good method to indicate common states like this because they are more complicated to use for editors and therefore are not used consistently, thereby making it difficult to machine-read them. Special tokens such as |date=none
, |author=none
, |author=staff
, |author=anon
are much preferable to them.incompetentmight be a bit strong, but en.wiki is one of two English language Wikipedias. For those who do not understand commonplace citation initialisms, abbreviations, and symbols used throughout the English language publishing world (and consequently in cs1|2), perhaps the other English language Wikipedia is a better choice. But, were it an issue, I would have thought that editors at simple.wiki would have tweaked (or asked us for assistance in tweaking) simple:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to accommodate their readers.
rather obscure to the readerand must be fixed, it must follow that all of the other citation initialisms, abbreviations, and symbols used by cs1|2 are also
rather obscure to the reader, mustn't it? If we believe that to be true, then we must discontinue use of all standard English-language citation initialisms, abbreviations, and symbols. We must replace: 'ed.' → editor, 'eds.' → editors, 'ed.' → edition, '§' → section, '§§' → sections, 'Vol.' → volume, 'no.' and 'No.' → issue or number, 'p.' → page, and 'pp.' → pages. And lest we forget it, 'et al.' → and others.
none
" in various other places, I would suggest to, at the minimum, support something like |date=none
. However, if there are more similar conditions (as in the none
/staff
/anon
example for authors above), more keywords could be introduced for them as well.none
", indicating that this information is not given in the source, should be distinguished from the condition, that the information should not be displayed but would still be used in reference anchor generation and be provided in the metadata (for which I suggested the keyword "off
" recently introduced for |title=
), and the condition, that the information is simply unknown to the editor at present (but might be given in the source), which should not be indicated by a special token, but is often indicated to other editors by providing an empty |date=
parameter (which, however, is sometimes removed by other editors "cleaning up").This is much better done in an HTML comment: |date=<!-- No date specified. -->
, same as we (also optionally) handle works without specifically named authors. "N.d." is meaningless to most people, or worse may imply something else entirely like "North Dakota" asserted to be the publication location. (The fact that it's often completely lower-case as "n.d." is irrelevant, since we all know a lot of editors have terrible capitalization habits, and various people doing this abbreviation for "no date" are going to render it "ND" or something else, anyway.) We should just advise, with an example, to do it in an HTML comment, the way we advise noting no named author. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
For {{
Cite podcast}}, I'm trying to cite a podcast published by a newspaper. The documentation says to use |website=
for the name of the podcast and |publisher=
for the name of the publisher, but |publisher=
won't let me italicize, and the name of a newspaper should always be italicized, even when it's acting as a publisher. What do I do here? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
|via=
is available, though I think I would prefer the former and not the latter solution. --
Izno (
talk) 20:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
field and leaving out the name of the newspaper would be really weird. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
name of a newspaper should always be italicized. That is correct in prose. But in most citation systems (including this present one), italics are not used on specific variables (in your example a newspaper) but on the parameter field. Therefore,
|publisher=
is never italicized. |website=
always is, as the work or source. I would fill in accordingly and let the software decide where to apply emphasis. The newspaper may be published by the Student Union.{{cite web|title=Podcast Title|department=Podcast|url=http://www.podcastwebpage.com|website=Newspaper|publisher=Publisher}}
which renders|url=
instead of the including website. I would use the podcast date for |date=
, and the podcaster, if any as the author.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 22:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)|publisher=Name of Student Organization, Name of Institution
, just like you can do |publisher=Name of Department, Name of Institution
for more official-channel materials, or |publisher=Name of Subdivision, Name of Overall Organization
in any circumstance (we often do this with obscure UN, EU, etc. entities, though it's overkill for something globally recognized like UNESCO, which already has "UN" in it's name and a big article about it and its role in the UN, so we don't need to append ", United Nations".)Podcasts (and blogs, and vlogs, and etc.) usually have a specific minor-work title (headline). If that's present, then that's what goes in |title=
; it's no different from an article in a newspaper or journal, a named episode of a TV series, etc. If the podcast or blog is side product of the same publisher as a news site (or newspaper), but with separate editorial control and a completely separate domain name (or, on paper, is issued separately from the newspaper), then it's a separate work that shares a publisher, and is not part of the news site/newspaper. (e.g., The Observer is a separate work from The Guardian). If it's an integral feature of a news site (or whatever), then the podcast's (or other thing's) overall title is a |department=
, just like a columnist's column is (and which will generally also have a per-piece |title=
). We seem to put department names manually in double quotes, same as the |title=
does automatically; that's what the |cite news=
doc is suggesting. This basically the same markup approach as |series=
in {{
cite book}}
, e.g. |series="Studies in American Cat Farming" series
; the quotes make it clear its a title of some kind, not an entity.) I don't think anyone's brain will melt if you do |department=Book Reviews
or |department=Ask Marjorie column
or |series=Studies in American Cat Farming series
, though; it's just a little less clear without quotes around the titles.
A weakness of our citation template system is that it cannot at present gracefully handle a serial work that doesn't have individual titles for each issuance (podcast episode, blog post, etc.), which basically forces us to put the podcast name in |title=
even if it's logically more of a |department=
. (The template will thrown an error without at |title=
, no matter how rich the rest of the template data is.) So it goes. The important thing is that it can be narrowly enough identified that the source can be found and used for verification. The more consistent it is the better, but we need not torture ourselves over it. E.g., many newspapers include an insert supplement (on arts, or local news, or whatever), which in turn is further subdivided into departments, and then into specific articles. At bare minimum we need to the article title and the overall publication title (because the supplement/insert probably cannot be identified by most people without the overall work title). But if you're just really in a mood to obsess over it, you could also do something like |title=14 Arrested in Ferret Smuggling Operation
|department="Local News" insert, "Police Beat" column
. The same kind of approach can be used for drilling down through online stuff to get at a podcast that is part of a subsite/department of a news site, or whatever.
PS: Don't obsess over subdomains. Some news publisher like to do things like sports.whatever-news.com and international.whatever-news.com, but this is just an information architecture decision in most cases, and might be changed at any time. We know this for an annoying fact from changes (often audience-unhelpful ones) to how various major sites like BBC News have been reorganized over the years. Plus, quite often there are actually multiple paths to the exact same content, some using third-level domain names and some not. As long as the URL works, and is archived to prevent linkrot, don't pull your hair out about it.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Things like this:
This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area
Warning: {{pagename}}} is calling Template:Cite book with more than one value for the "first" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help) Warning: {{pagename}} is calling Template:Cite book with more than one value for the "location" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help) |
in a big article can sometimes literally take an hour or longer to track down. If the code is smart enough to catch the error, it seems like it should be able to tell us what citation it appears in. It would probably actually make more sense to have these be red error messages in the citation, like most cite errors, instead of being page-top notes.
PS: There's also a bug, in that it won't detect |first=
and |first1=
in the same template as duplicates, even though one is an alias of the other. This may affect various other aliased params; I haven't tested it in depth.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
detect:|first=
and|first1=
in the same template as duplicates
Hello,
could you please update the limit for PMIDs? The current value appears to be outdated.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medconsult1 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Can the {{cite book}} template be used in the Works section of writer? If not, is there another template to be used? I'm looking for a uniform way of adding information such as editions, page count, where to read online, etc. Thanks. — Orgyn ( talk) 12:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
or |display-authors=0
.I could have sworn there was a maintenance category for this as the practice has become discouraged. Am I wrong or just missing something? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=
parameter blank and fills the publisher parameter with something like this: |publisher=CNN
. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 06:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ Cite Q}} had another bunch of updates today, including tracking categories for replaced or retracted papers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Should this citation throw a url error? It doesn't trigger a link. kennethaw88 • talk 03:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Liberatore, Paul (28 January 2011). [hhttps://www.marinij.com/2011/01/28/radio-personality-carter-b-smith-of-tiburon-dies-at-74/ "Radio Personality Carter B. Smith of Tiburon dies at 74"]. Marin Independent Journal. Retrieved 8 December 2020.
hhttps:
is a valid scheme.References
This 2016 discussion requested an example of how to cite YouTube videos with Template:Cite AV media. As of 13 December 2020, Template:Cite AV media/doc does not have an example of a YouTube citation. Therefore, I propose this example, taken from Taylor Swift:
{{Cite AV media|title=73 Questions With Troye Sivan|work=Vogue|date=June 20, 2019|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhyKC6wQso|via=YouTube|access-date=January 16, 2020}}
which produces:
73 Questions With Troye Sivan. Vogue. June 20, 2019. Retrieved January 16, 2020 – via YouTube.
What do you think? Is there anything that you would do differently? Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 14:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
.If that's not the best example, let's use the video from the original post:
{{Cite AV media|title=Make It Pop {{!}} BTS of the Make It Pop Summer Episode {{!}} Nick|publisher=[[Nickelodeon]]|date=July 23, 2016|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCMz5W94nxY|via=[[YouTube]]|access-date=December 14, 2020}}
which produces:
Make It Pop | BTS of the Make It Pop Summer Episode | Nick. Nickelodeon. July 23, 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2020 – via YouTube.
The original post also uses movie trailers as another example. Here is one:
{{Cite AV media|title=Wonder Woman 1984 - Official Main Trailer|publisher=[[Warner Bros. Pictures]]|date=November 19, 2020|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psFf4KXJZoQ|via=[[YouTube]]|access-date=December 14, 2020}}
which produces:
Wonder Woman 1984 - Official Main Trailer. Warner Bros. Pictures. November 19, 2020. Retrieved December 14, 2020 – via YouTube.
-- Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 02:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there a possibility to provide an authorlink (or link to a magazine or whatever) in another language when there is no article in :en? Or am I getting crufty? Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
{{cite book|title=Title|author=Johann Smith|author-link=:de:Johann Smith}}
{{
ill}}
is hardly intuitive. You and I may understand what the little-linked-language code means, but we cannot expect readers to understand what those sometimes very cryptic language codes mean. We might convert interwiki style links into external links so that your example might render:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |author=
(
help)<span>...</span>
tag with a title=
attribute:
[[:de:Johann_Smith|<span title="Johann Smith at the German Wikipedia">Johann Smith</span>]]
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |author=
(
help){{
ill}}
, we'd need some way to specify two links if the title is not the same in the foreign and local Wikipedia. However, we could take advantage of Wikidata for this:|author-link=
points to a WP article in another language. The template could then check if the foreign article is connected to Wikidata. If it is, it could further check if the Wikidata entry (meanwhile) also has an entry for a local article. If this would be the case, the |author-link=
link would be automatically overridden by a link to the local article and the article put into a maintenance category so that the |author-link=
link can be updated to point to the local article directly. (In the rare event, that we really want to point to the foreign article, we could use our accept-as-written markup |author-link=((:prefix:title))
to disable the smart override and enforce the link.)we'd need some way to specify two links? What you describe seems like it should work, needing only
|author-link=:de:Uta Lindgren
(or whoever else). The {{
ill}} template needs a way to take two names, both the local-language text to be linked and the other-language article title to be linked, but we only need to supply the other-language article title, because the local-language text of the link is already supplied by the |first=
and |last=
parameters. In fact there are probably existing citations using this syntax that this handling could improve. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
ill}}
" is the (quite common) case, where the still non-existing red but suggested local title and the existing foreign-language title are not the same. This would be undesirable for our purposes, because we would have to introduce yet another parameter class for this (or some means to give two link targets in one parameter).|author-link=
accept {{ill}}: {{cite book|last=Lindren|first=Uta|author-link={{ill|Uta Lindgren|de}}|title=Title|ref=none}} -> Lindren, Uta. Title. {{
cite book}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help). Can't the CS1 code make an allowance for this? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 10:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
|author-link=
is to provide an article title when the cs1|2 template uses |last=
and |first=
:
|last=Lindgren
|first=Uta
|author-link=:de:Uta Lindgren
→ [[:de:Uta Lindgren|Lindgren, Uta]]
→
Lindgren, Uta{{
ill}}
into |author-link=
does not work because what you get is:
|last=Lindgren
|first=Uta
|author-link={{ill|Uta Lindgren|de}}
→
[[[[Uta Lindgren]][[Category:Interlanguage link template existing link]]
|Lindgren, Uta]]
{{ill}}
adds a category link to its rendering. So, cs1|2 would need to parse apart whatever it gets from {{ill}}
before it could create the equivalent.|editor-link=:ja:熊倉重春
? This method was mentioned in the first reply to your initial post in this topic.:ja:熊倉重春
to Shigeharu Kumakura
as soon as it detects that an equivalent article has been added to the English WP.Hello, there appears to be a problem with the lock symbols on urls, where the symbol overwrites the last letter of the title.
"Mirfield director of 96". 22 October 1943. p. 5 col.2.
Could be a browser/skin problem - using Firefox 83.0 (64-bit) with Monobook.
Keith D ( talk) 12:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
In the COinS guidance common to the documentation for {{
cite book}} and other CS1 templates, the following statement appears: Do not include Wiki markup '' (italic font) or ''' (bold font) because these markup characters will contaminate the metadata.
Is this guidance out of date? There are plenty of situations in which italics are needed within a title – to mention a species name, for example. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
|
Last, First. This part of the Title is bold. |
|title=
, |chapter=
, etc); are not allowed in any other parameters that contribute to the metadata. Bold and italic markup in |publisher=
and the |work=
aliases cause cs1|2 templates to emit the Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |<param>n=
error message.|section=
?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 22:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Any ideas on what is causing these errors:
Special:PermanentLink/996278824#Notes? I'm aware of the issue of using {{
sfn}} within <ref>
but this doesn't appear to be that and, oddly enough, short footnotes are working in the first several list-defined notes but not the rest. Any ideas what's going wrong here, or is this a bug?
czar 19:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
problem. If I recall correctly, it is a MediaWiki parser problem because the parser gets confused (not surprisingly) when <ref>...</ref>
tags are nested in <ref>...</ref>
tags. I don't recall if the problem is related to named or unnamed <ref>...</ref>
tags. It appears that the issue has been
resolved in that article.Given the thread just above this, there is clearly some non-trivial code that can do various kinds of error detection. A useful one would would output something like "Warning: {{pagename}}} is calling Template:Cite whatever with what may be a misuse of the "author" or "last" parameter. (Help)" It could look for patterns like a long string followed by a letter and a dot followed by another long string ("Youill X. Zounds"), a letter-dot followed by a letter-dot followed by long string ("Y. X. Zounds" or "Y.X. Zounds"), a long string followed by a comma followed by another long string or by one or more letter-dots ("Zounds, Youill", "Zounds, Y.", "Zounds, Y. X."), and maybe a few other things. This wouldn't be utterly foolproof (couldn't distinguish "U.N. Foobar Investigative Commission", but that should be rewritten to use "UN" anyway), but it would help a lot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
|author=Doe, John
rather than |last=Doe|first=John
? I don't have the time (nor really the patience) to find examples of this, but I've seen a few.|author=Youill X. Zounds
be deprecated or somehow flagged as an error? If so, I think there will be significant opposition. Our current documentation suggests (and has suggested for a heck of a long time) that this formulation is perfectly fine: author: this parameter is used to hold the complete name of a single author (first and last) or to hold the name of a corporate author.Maybe I misunderstand. If there is a specific value of
|author=
that should be put in the maint category and is not currently put in the maint category, please make that explicit here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
|author=
and |last=
(a.k.a. |last1=
) became the same parameter. |author=Youill X. Zounds
is an error because it identifies the entire string as a surname or institutional author. We have |last[1]=
and |first[1]=
for a reason. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
from an independent template to use {{
citation/core}}
. A little inspection will show that before and after that edit, at some earlier time. The other major cs1|2 templates were similarly converted at about the same time give or take a year or two.|author=
and|last=
(a.k.a.|last1=
) became the same parameter
Template:Cite conference documents |publication-date=
and |publication-place=
for {{
cite news}}, but not for {{
cite conference}}. What is the proper way to cite a conference paper when the time and place of the conference differ from the time and place of publication?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
|conference=
. It is not unusual for the full conference title to incude the location and date. On the other hand, it is not a bad idea to activate the relevant parameters in this template as well.
208.251.187.170 (
talk) 14:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
|title=Proceedings of the 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Held in Sydney, Australia on 28 January –- 4 February 2021
. If the location doesn't appear in the title, then there's no need to include it.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)|publication-place=
to specify the place of publication and |location=
to document the written-at-place. These parameters are not aliases and can both be given at the same time when relevant. {{
cite conference}} supports this as well.|title=
reserved for the specific conference presentation/paper? (an in-source location). The OP wants to specify the location(s) of the source, i.e. of the entire conference. Such information is normally specified in the source name/description i.e. in |conference=
, something indicated at the relevant template. The cited paper is part of the conference, which takes place somewhere.
64.61.73.84 (
talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
|title=
for the title of the proceedings (a book, usually) and |contribution=
for the title of the individual paper. But it also works to use |title=
for the paper and |book-title=
for the title of the whole proceedings. Both are formatted the same. But that's a separate issue from where to put the location of the conference, which I think can reasonably go in the title of the proceedings (not the title of the paper). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Should we add a "libre" access level to the doi-access and url access levels? Adding such a label would help editors in need of images or other content: a majority of "libre" OA content is CC BY and Wikipedia-compatible, as opposed to an Elsevier User License which is unusable. -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 21:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|url=
is the presumed default. There is similar option for |doi-access=
. Am I misundertanding your intent?
65.204.10.231 (
talk) 21:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|doi-access=free
parameter for everything that's public domain or CC BY and look like this:Kawaguchi, Yuko; et al. (26 August 2020). "DNA Damage and Survival Time Course of Deinococcal Cell Pellets During 3 Years of Exposure to Outer Space". Frontiers in Microbiology. 11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.02050. S2CID 221300151.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)
What is the process for requesting more identifiers to be included in the standard list like ProQuest, INIST or NAID? Is there a threshold of number of transclusions or some other measure of popularity? — Chris Capoccia 💬 20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
|id=
in order to see how much demand there really is for them. Use a template if appropriate; see
Template:Cite book#Identifiers. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC){{cite journal|title=Title|journal=Journal|issue=10|pp=100-110|quote-page=100|quote=A quote from this page.}}
renders as
"Title". Journal (10): 100–110. p. 100:
A quote from this page.
Shouldn't the |quote-page=
prefix be invisible for consistency? |no-pp=y
works but...
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 05:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
|periodical-mode=symbolic/scientific/abbreviated/full
to override the default format when desired - something that could later be made part of a system of article-wide format parameters similar to what we have for global date formats at present - in fact, I have prototypical code ready to support such global settings through {{
reflist}} and/or {{
use dmy dates}}/{{
use mdy dates}} would this be desired.)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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
At Special:Permalink/982911547#PMID error, Nixinova was concerned that PMID 33022132 was outside the range specified at Help:CS1 errors#bad_pmid. This turns out not to be the case, as the limit specificed there is 33100000. However, it's awfully close, which led me to investigate it.
The PMIDs appear to be assigned sequentially and are documented to "not be re-used". Based on the highest numbers found in several daily files here, the rate is roughly 4000 per day. The latest PMID as of the 2020-10-10 file is 33038074, which means it will hit 33100000 in less than 16 days. Was there a reason for the (strangely specific) 33100000 limit, should it be increased (soon), and to what? —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 15:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
pmc-limit=8000000,pmid-limit=33200000,ssrn-limit=4000000,s2cid-limit=230000000,oclc-limit=9999999999,osti-limit=23000000,rfc-limit=9000
|pmc=
, |pmid=
, |ssrn=
or |s2cid=
parameters, they would retrieve the currently configured limit for an identifier through
{{#invoke:Cs1 documentation support|id_limits_get|<identifier>}}
Is there any guidance about how to handle instances where authors should be indexed by first rather than last name? E.g. Chinese names where family name comes first, or Thai names where given name (which comes first) is the polite term of address? For example, should I call a Thai given name "last=" so the correct name comes first, as you would see in an index? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 17:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
|given=
and |surname=
. --
Izno (
talk) 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)indexed?
|last=
or |surname=
will appear first in the rendered citation. |first=
or |given=
is always follows and is separated from |last=
or |surname=
with a comma and a space character. The only way to get cs1|2 to render a person's names in a particular order with particular punctuation is to do it manually with |author=
. This same applies to the other name lists (contributor names, editor names, interviewer names, translator names). But none of this has anything to do with indexing.indexed?
|author=
fits the bill.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
...existing guideline: present the author name the way you saw it published.Is there? Where?
|author=<given> <surname>
and |ref={{
sfnref|<given>|<year>}}
will do that. You might want to leave <!--<hidden comments>-->
so that editors who visit the article after you have finished with it know your intent.|given=
and |surname=
parameter variants rather than the |first=
and |last=
ones. While the order of display for names is "last, first" or "surname, given" at present, this does not necessarily remain so forever. Our style guide may change or we may introduce an |af=
('author format') parameter (as suggested by Headbomb) in the future to control the display order. (See also:
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive 71#First/last_or_given/surname_canonical_form?)|surname=
(or |last=
) and the part of the name that fits into the concept of an individual name into the |given=
(or |first=
) parameter variant, regardless of their order of display in citations. I think, this is also important for proper meta-data creation.-mask
parameter variant (like |author-given=Given
|author-surname=Surname
|author-mask=Given Surname
or |author-mask=Surname Given
). This is more complicated than just using |author=
, but better (at least for as long as the concept of a family and an individual name applies - not sure if this holds true everywhere on this planet).|surname=
or |author=
parameter. If it is true that, in the case of Thai names, it should better be derived from what's in the |given=
parameter, it might be worth considering a new option like |ref=thai
(or |ref=given
) for this. (Or, if this should still run under the |ref=harv
moniker, a new parameter like |ref-mask=given
could be used for this, or this could be even be combined with the proposed |af=
into something like |name-mode=Western/Eastern/Chinese/Japanese/Thai/Malay/Indian/Indian-surname/Icelandic/Hungarian/...
to control the name display order and style as well as Harvard ref-ID composition and proper meta-data creation by a single parameter.)|author-mask=
parameter as well, but this is another possible "shortcoming" of the current implementation, whereas in a hypothetical future version it might be possible to have the template create a suitable display mask automatically if it knows it's a Thai name (
this proposal goes in this direction, although related to display styles not naming conventions in general). However, the problem is that on a global scale there are many different naming conventions and once we enhance the current implementation we should ideally find a solution that works good for all of them. Therefore, we are still in learning mode tinkering about possible solutions whenever such a topic comes up.)|ref=thai
for this purpose or combine this into something like a |name-mode=
parameter, which would allow us to select from a number of predefined combinations of display order and anchor composition styles.|script-=
and |trans-=
to be available as prefixes to name parameters (this has been requested many times already, we "just" need to implement it somewhen). This will ensure that the information can be provided accurately on a technical level.|-first=
/|-last=
/|-given=
/|-family=
/|-forename=
/|-surname=
the (one or) two that most accurately agree with the naming scheme present in an author's name. (This thread (
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive 71#First/last_or_given/surname_canonical_form?) has a bit on selecting the most suitable postfixes during data entry.)|script-=
parameters could be expanded from only supporting a number of non-Latin scripts to all language codes without introducing any backward-compatibility problems. We could then use these language prefixes to control, (like that hypothetical |name-mode=
parameter above, but) on a name-by-name basis, the various settings needed to display the name correctly (display order and possibly necessary
text decoration), to generate the correct meta-data for it, and to derive the name parts for an anchor in Harvard style from it.|script-=
). However, if a name would be entered with e.g. the language prefix zh
indicating a Chinese name, the internal assignments would become last=given and first=family, so that |script-author-given=zh:Given
and |script-author-surname=zh:Surname
would work just as well as |script-author-last=zh:Given
and |script-author-first=zh:Surname
and be rendered as "Surname Given" (no comma) (whereas the conventional |author-given=Given
and |author-surname=Surname
or |author-last=Surname
and |author-first=Given
would be rendered as "Surname, Given").|script-=
parameter variants would be mandantory. For Latin-based scripts, including translated Chinese names, things would be much simpler. As having to use the |script-=
variants just to give language codes appears to be too cumbersome in these easier cases, what about supporting the language prefixes also for the non-script parameter variants? This would reduce something like
|script-author-given=hu:Given
and |script-author-surname=hu:Surname
|author-given=hu:Given
and |author-surname=hu:Surname
|given=hu:Given
and |surname=hu:Surname
|script-author-last=hu:Given
and |script-author-first=hu:Surname
|author-last=hu:Given
and |author-first=hu:Surname
|last=hu:Given
and |first=hu:Surname
hu:
) would be internally configured to be rendered in "Eastern order", this would be rendered as "Surname Given" (without comma) (NB. This is only an example, the actual configuration for Hungarian names could be different, in fact, according to some style guides it is), whereas English names per
|given=en:Given
and |surname=en:Surname
|last=en:Surname
and |first=en:Given
|given=Given
and |surname=Surname
|last=Surname
and |first=Given
Template parameters supporting item lists such as |pages=
, |pp=
, |issue=
, |number=
(and now also |quote-pages=
) supported the
accept-this-as-is syntax to suppress the conversion of hyphens to dashes globally as well as for individual list items. However, a bug prevented the code from properly evaluating item lists, where the first and the last list items were using this syntax. Such combinations were erroneously interpreted as if the global accept-this-as-is markup was used, resulting in invalid list items (fifth and last example). This has been fixed now:
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 02:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
|volume=
internally uses parts of the same code for list item evaluation, hyphen-to-dash conversion, and accept-this-as-is markup recognition as used for |issue=
, |pages=
, etc. above. However, a bug in the somewhat-heuristic code deciding if a volume value should be presented in boldface or not prevented this from being executed if the given argument was longer than 4 characters. This has now been fixed as well.((1))
, ((X))
, ((1-2))
, ((1–2))
.Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|volume=
was reclassified into the bipolar bin. As you state, many people have asked for a resolution either way (all bold font or all regular). It must be somebody's pet cause, because nothing has transpired. Other than that, if your edits cause no harm and correct a bug (personally I was not aware of it) then I don't see why they shouldn't stand.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 03:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Investigating the COinS metadata output I have spotted some areas for possible improvement on various levels. Since most of them are small and/or affect corner-cases only they aren't worth individual threads polluting the TOC, so I will combine them into this thread.
There will be more, but so far there have been only two changes, both related to the
metadata generated for identifiers which have no predefined &rft.<id-name>
or &rft_id=
info.<id-name>
tags associated with them within COinS. For such identifiers, the template uses the &rft_id=<id-link>
tag to provide URLs to the external resource. The code assembling such URLs uses prefix and suffix definitions from a table defining the various properties for the identifiers. While the suffix was added to the visible URLs, there was a bug omitting to add the suffix to the identifier URLs for COinS as well. This has been fixed. However, this is an internal change only and has no impact on the actually generated metadata because none of the identifiers defined so far actually used a suffix.
On the receiver side, users of the identifier data passed through via URLs may want to retranslate it back into a human-readable form "<id-name> <id-number>". While it is sometimes possible to derive the identifier type from the URL, this is not always the case. For example, DOI and bioRxiv as well as JFM and Zbl identifiers both resolve to the same URLs, respectively:
&rft_id=//doi.org/<id-number>
" → ?&rft_id=//doi.org/<id-number>
" → ?&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>
" → ?&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>
" → ?This is not a problem in the DOI case, because a predefined
info:doi
tag exists and thus is used by the metadata generator instead of creating an URL for it.
&rft_id=info:doi/<id-number>
" → DOI <id-number>However, to make the URLs more useable on the receiver side, the generator now appends an URI #fragment to the URLs indicating the name of the identifier. This is transparent for browsers (would this metadata be copied and pasted into the address line of a browser), but is readable for humans and scripts which can thereby pick up the original name and translate the URL back into the "<id-name> <id-number>" form for storage in their database. Examples:
&rft_id=//doi.org/<id-number>#id-name=bioRxiv
" → bioRxiv <id-number>&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>#id-name=JFM
" → JFM <id-number>&rft_id=//zbmath.org/?format=complete&q=an:<id-number>#id-name=Zbl
" → Zbl <id-number>There are some interesting concepts how to further encode information in URI fragments to describe a resource or make it automatically actionable on the client's side. If we'd find a low-footprint scheme formally describing the URL as a link to information related to a specific entity of a named identifier, this could be further refined.
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 17:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC) (updated 22:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC), updated 14:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC))
Bunce, Mrs. Oliver Bell (1 September 1897).
"The Turkish Compassionate Fund". The Decorator and Furnisher.
doi:
10.2307/25585322.
JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25585322. {{
cite web}}
: Check |jstor=
value (
help); External link in
(
help)
|JSTOR=
|JSTOR=
should emit an error. --
Izno (
talk) 18:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
|jstor=
is one of three external identifiers that don't get some sort of check (the others are |osti=
and |rfc=
). |jstor=
can hold a variety of identifiers:
|jstor=
identifiers, we may not be able to validate them.|osti=
and |rfc=
are simple numeric identifiers. Likely we have not bothered to check these because there are relatively few uses of these identifiers. |rfc=
seems to be max number between 8000 and 9000. |osti=
seems to be max number between 22000000 and 23000000. So these two could be given simple limit checks like we do for |pmc=
.Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. RFC 1. |
Sandbox | Title. RFC 1. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title.
RFC
10000. {{
cite book}} : Check |rfc= value (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title.
RFC
10000. {{
cite book}} : Check |rfc= value (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title.
OSTI
1. {{
cite book}} : Check |osti= value (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title.
OSTI
1. {{
cite book}} : Check |osti= value (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. OSTI 23000001. |
Sandbox | Title. OSTI 23000001. |
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
While updating
Happy number, I tried to add "Cited in (an OEIS citation)", but noticed that every citation generates an id "CITEREFSloane" by default, which is incorrect HTML with more than one citation. When I tried to specify an explicit |ref=
I got a cite error "Unrecognised parameter". I could not immediately see why that was, so I created the link by
a bodge. This of course continued to annoy me, so I had another look this evening.
Apart from the constant id, there were two problems which are fixed in this (current) revision ( testcases). The link after the final refs testcase jumps to the test citation for the live template and there are now no errors for the ref parameter displayed.
We also need to correct the default ref id. I propose a default id of
CITEREF<editor-last>_"<sequenceno>"
for which the user would add something like
{{sfn|Sloane "A12345"}} or {{harvtxt|Sloane "A12345"}}
to link to this, which seems both reasonably simple and clear. The quotes around the sequence number correspond to the quotes around the full entry title in the citation. You can see this in the (current) sandbox. In the testcases, the link after the next-to-last testcase for dates jumps to the test citation, but the live citation still has the incorrect id. Of course, I will update the documentation accordingly.
There may be other cite wrappers with the same problem now that cite *
generate ids by default. Parameter check lists also need themselves to be checked.
Just as I finished preparing this, I notice that the testcases no longer display the missing error messages for the They appear in preview mode.
|foo=
and |date=
parameters. I can't see any reason for this at present.
Comments welcome, especially "yes, please do it" of course. -- Mirokado ( talk) 22:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Cite OEIS}}
is not a cs1|2 template. Problems with that template are best addressed at its talk page. If there is something wrong with the underlying {{
cite web}}
, then we want to know about it.cite *
generate ids by default" is certainly something relevant to this page, even if there is no really easy central solution. If someone is bored on a wet Saturday afternoon, here is something for them to look at. --
Mirokado (
talk) 00:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
Cite OEIS}}
, must adapt if they haven't already done so. This is really no different from wrapper templates needing to adapt when old forms of parameter names that the wrappers use are deprecated and support for them withdrawn. The issue that you are complaining about, automatic CITEREF anchor creation, changed nothing because |ref=harv
was specified with
this edit to {{Cite OEIS}}
. That setting became superfluous when cs1|2 began creating automatic CITEREF anchors. With
this edit, {{Cite OEIS}}
lost the superfluous |ref=harv
setting and gained the ability to set the citation's CITEREF anchor externally.Per a discussion
elsewhere, in the sandbox I have separated
Category:CS1 maint: extra text into two separate categories, as well as promoted the two categories to errors from maintenance. The two categories are per parameter: one for |edition=
and one for |p/pp/page/pages=
.
This change is demonstrated at test_extra_text
test on
Module talk:Citation/CS1/testcases/errors. I did not implement sensitivity to the exact parameter name in the pages test since that's still a bit beyond me. I have no strong opinion on someone else doing so.
Secondly, I see "volume" text in |work=
in the wild often (and equivalents, esp. in the titles of encyclopedias and books). An example might be |title=Title, Volume X: Volume Name
, which I would envision as better being |title=Title
|volume=X: Volume Name
. I would like to entertain an "extra text" test for that pattern and an associated maintenance category, and invite discussion accordingly. --
Izno (
talk) 03:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
|volume=
parameter isn't used, this could be abused to move the part info into there, but what we'd actually need for this is a separate parameter |part=
(see also
Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests#Part/
Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_58#Books_with_volumes_and_parts, there even is a
COinS tag for this, &rft.part=
, although, as odd as it is, this appears to be defined only for periodicals, not books).|edition=
as extra text:Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|page=
/|pages=
and |quote-page=
/|quote-pages=
now also checks for pattern "pg(s)(.)" etc. in addition to ""p(p)(.)" etc.:Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author1; et al. (2020). Title. {{
cite book}} : |author1= has generic name (
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
Sandbox | Author1; et al. (2020). Title. {{
cite book}} : |author1= has generic name (
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2= (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|
We presently capture citations that have no authorship information, besides |others=
, in
Category:CS1 maint: others (with some 20k pages). Due to prominence in the documentation of the templates {{
cite AV media}} and {{
cite AV media notes}}, these templates often have |others=
exclusively, which makes it hard for other cases where this is an issue.
I am considering separating these out into a separate category (something like Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes)) so that someone interested in working through slightly-less painful categories can do so.
Has anyone seen another of the core CS1 template set cause such inclusion in this maintenance category? Does anyone have an issue with that path? -- Izno ( talk) 05:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, is there something we can do about those templates? Provide still-more named parameters?... -- Izno ( talk) 05:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
|artist=
as a template-specific parameter for {{cite av media notes}}
. Instead of keeping it separate, the content of |artist=
might be concatenated as a prefix to |title=
so this:
{{cite av media notes |title=Dark Side of the Moon |artist=Pink Floyd}}
&rft.btitle=Pink+Floyd%3A+Dark+Side+of+the+Moon
{{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite av media notes}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite serial}}
templates all deserve reworking. These are the templates that are the primary users of |people=
, an alias of |authors=
so none of the names listed in that parameter make it into the citation's metadata. All kinds of extraneous text is added to that parameter, mostly roles (director, producer, actor, voice-over, narrator, etc) none of which belongs in the metadata. Now that cs1|2 supports template-specific parameters, we could introduce specific role parameters for these templates so that the names are annotated in the rendering, and the names without annotation are included in the metadata. In the meantime, |people=
, can be constrained to these templates only, and once the template specific parameters are available, deprecated and withdrawn.|artist=
. However, this may better be a free-form parameter since artist names maybe idiosyncratic, and of course we have cases of compilation works, collaborations etc.|others=
.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 22:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Has anyone analysed what are the commonest types of role added as |others=
?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 10:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
|others=
for author names and for editor names (without role being specified). That is the problem with free-form parameters; editors and tools can put just about anything there. There are approximately 52k-ish uses of |others=
[
search results|illustrator=
?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 13:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I suggest author of foreword (P2679) is another likely candidate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
|others=
. cs1|2 book citations support forewords, afterwords, and other contributions to an author's book:
|contribution=
with |contributorn=
and it is good that the feature supports |contributor-first=
and |contributor-last=
as well as n-enumerated variants, I don't like the fact that only one |contribution=
is allowed and that it is impossible to specify different types of contributions for different contributors (unless lumping them all together in |contribution=
). What also looks odd most of the time is that the contributors are listed in front of the authors as this draws too much attention to them:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |contributor-first1=CF1 |contributor-last1=CL1 |contributor-first2=CF2 |contributor-last2=CL2 |contributor-first3=CF3 |contributor-last3=CL3 |contributor-first4=CF4 |contributor-last4=CL4 |contribution=Illustration/Foreword/Afterword |others=Others}}
|others=
for this, but this does not support enumerated and -first
/-last
parameter variants, and the article editor has to invent his/her own notation to list multiple contributors and their roles as in the following three examples:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |others=CL1, CF1 (Illustration). CL2, CF2; CL3, CF3 (Foreword). CL4, CF4 (Afterword). Others}}
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |others=Illustration: CL1, CF1. Foreword: CL2, CF2; CL3, CF3. Afterword: CL4, CF4. Others}}
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |others=Illustrated by CL1, CF1. Foreword by CL2, CF2; CL3, CF3. Afterword by CL4, CF4. Others}}
|contributor=
and |others=
:-first
/-last
and enumerated forms), but listed after the list of authors, editors and translators (and before |others=
). This could be achieved by adding |contributor-role=
(and enumerated forms). If the role would be specified, it would be listed alongside the corresponding contributor. In order to allow multiple contributors contributing to the same type of contribution, the role should occur either before all or after the last contributor of a specific group (as in the example renderings above). The markup for this could be like this:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |contributor-first1=CF1 |contributor-last1=CL1 |contribution-role1=Illustration |contributor-first2=CF2 |contributor-last2=CL2 |contributor-role2=Foreword |contributor-first3=CF3 |contributor-last3=CL3 |contributor-role3=Foreword |contributor-first4=CF4 |contributor-last4=CL4 |contributor-role4=Afterword |others=Others}}
|contributor-role=
parameters optional if they would specify the same role as that of the preceding contributor (|contributor-role3=
here):
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2020 |author-first1=AF1 |author-last1=AL1 |editor-first1=EF1 |editor-last1=EL1 |translator-first1=TF1 |translator-last1=TL1 |contributor-first1=CF1 |contributor-last1=CL1 |contribution-role1=Illustration |contributor-first2=CF2 |contributor-last2=CL2 |contributor-role2=Foreword |contributor-first3=CF3 |contributor-last3=CL3 |contributor-first4=CF4 |contributor-last4=CL4 |contributor-role4=Afterword |others=Others}}
|contribution=
, by the existence of a |contributor-role=
parameter, by introducing |others-first/-last/-role=
instead of |contributor-first/-last/-role=
or some mix of it.I don't like the fact that only one |contribution=
is allowed...
From that, can I take it that you don't like the fact that a single cs1|2 template allows only one |chapter=
or one |section=
or one |entry=
or one |article=
?|contribution=
and |contributor=
pair are intended to cite the contributor's contribution to the work written by |author=
as, for example,
Anna Quindlen's introduction to
Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice,
here where Quindlen is the writer who is being cited, not Austen, so it is correct that Quindlen is listed ahead of Austen in the citation. So, yes, [this] is okay if the goal is to cite something from a foreword or afterword and draw particular attention to this specificallybecause that is the defined purpose.
the writer of a foreword ... specifically "advertised" on the book cover, there is no need to clutter the citation with that extraneous detail; we don't need to distract or confuse the reader.
introduce individual parameters for all possible roles. If any such parameters are added they should only be added after careful consideration and when it can be shown that the new parameter is needed.
|others=
, which, however, is unsatisfactory for most of the same reasons for why we are fading out |editors=
and |authors=
in the long term).|contribution=
and |contributor=
. I described this use case as well in my reply above. But it does not cover the more common use case where the afterword, foreword, illustrations, etc., are not by itself the subject to be cited, but they are nevertheless part of the contributions to a work and thus may be listed in a citation. (This is also why this (
[1]) won't have the desired effect.) In this case, the contributions would be clutter when displayed before the main contributors. They should rather be listed following the main contributors like authors, editors and translators - basically they should be at the position where we show |others=
. I could have worded my proposal to introduce |other-firstn=
/|other-lastn=
/|other-linkn=
/|other-maskn=
plus |other-rolen=
(and fade out |others=
in the long term). However, if we can combine this with the parameters for contributors we could just use the existing |contributor-firstn=
/|contributor-lastn=
/|contributor-linkn=
/|contributor-maskn=
for this as well and just add |contributor-rolen=
.Before we now introduce individual parameters for all possible roles, what I would like to see is a mix of both,reads, to me, like this|contributor=
and|others=
: ...
mix of bothis merely a prelude to the
[introduction of] individual parameters for all possible roleswhich is something that we should not do.
|people=
and |credits=
which are predominantly used in {{
cite AV media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, and {{
cite serial}}
. These new role parameters would be constrained to these templates.But it does not cover the more common use case where the afterword, foreword, illustrations, etc., are not by itself the subject to be cited, but they are nevertheless part of the contributions to a work and thus may be listed in a citation.You're right, it doesn't and it shouldn't. When an afterword, foreword, introduction, preface, etc is not the
subject to be cited, such contributions, noteworthy though they may be, are superfluous to the purpose of the citation which is to identify for the reader the
subject to be cited. Including mention of afterwords, forewords, introductions, prefaces when they are not the
subject to be citedmerely obfuscates the
subject to be citedwithin the citation and so does not benefit the reader. cs1|2 is not a repository for all possible bibliographic data associated with a source. If you want that, go write a template series to do that. It may be that in bibliographic lists of an author's works, for example, such a bibliographic information template might be desirable. Citations need only the bibliographic detail that is sufficient to identify the portion of the source that is the
subject to be cited.
My experience with "others" is that it is usually used incorrectly, for instance for authors after the first one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Tangent Why is that talk page un-redirected? -- Izno ( talk) 13:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if articles with "Subscribe to read" in the reference title could be added to Category:CS1 errors: generic title. There are currently over 1,000 usages of these in titles. Thanks. Keith D ( talk) 14:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"Subscribe to read". Financial Times. {{
cite web}} : Cite uses generic title (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Subscribe to read". Financial Times. {{
cite web}} : Cite uses generic title (
help)
|
This
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |doi=
value (
help); External link in |doi=
(
help)should emit an error. The DOI format is 10.[4 or 5 digits]/foobar
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Colbert; Edwin, Harris (1946). "Hypsognathus, a Triassic reptile from New Jersey". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.
doi:
10.http://hdl.handle.net/2246/390. {{
cite journal}} : Check |doi= value (
help); External link in (
help)
|
Sandbox | Colbert; Edwin, Harris (1946). "Hypsognathus, a Triassic reptile from New Jersey". Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History.
doi:
10.http://hdl.handle.net/2246/390. {{
cite journal}} : Check |doi= value (
help); External link in (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Someone has made a proposal to allow a more Wikimedia-wide usage of these CS templates. Putting a notice here in case folks are interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The {{ Cite_OED}} template is in need of an update, and it would be great if someone could take a look. I've asked several times on the talk page at Template_talk:Cite_OED#Template_needs_updating, but that page probably doesn't get much exposure. Asking here following a recommendation at WP:VP/T. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Further reading § Should further reading sections have "retrieved by" dates?. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
During the ongoing FA review for
Biblical criticism, I noticed that some ISBNs in the citations with dashes (e.g. Bauckham, currently ref 114) break onto multiple lines. This makes them marginally harder to read, so I think it would be preferable if they were non-breaking. Would it be possible to place a {{
no wrap}} around the input for |ISBN=
and other parameters that might have the same issue? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 18:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
unnamed refs | 69 | ||
---|---|---|---|
named refs | 132 | ||
self closed | 229 | ||
Refn templates | 8 | ||
cs1 refs | 208 | ||
cs1 templates | 215 | ||
rp templates | 296 | ||
webarchive templates | 9 | ||
use xxx dates | dmy | ||
cs1|2 dmy dates | 11 | ||
cs1|2 ymd dates | 3 | ||
cs1|2 last/first | 196 | ||
cs1|2 author | 4 | ||
| |||
explanations |
|isbn=
with hyphenated isbns; the category has 6,479 articles of which 4,774 have hyphenated isbns; see this
search.{{
citation}}
.<bdi>
.|orig-date=
parameter) in suitable date formats non-wrapping. If this wouldn't grow the length of the non-wrapping string too long, this would ideally include the identifier names as well, but at the minimum we should keep the numbers from wrapping.
in the message fragments used to display " et al.
", " ed.
" (for edition) and "§
" and "§§
" (sections).<span class="nowrap">...</span>
before it starts to scroll or truncate. For non-dedicated browsers, couldn't this be solved on Timeless skin-level (CSS)?Module:Citation/CS1/Arguments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
CS1 templates are very complex and ever changing, and writing a bot to enhance certain references, such as book references, to make them more easily accessible to readers can have unintended side-effects, consequences that may actually make things worse. I propose adding two new parameters to the CS1 templates. The first one is iaident. When this is populated, the module can figure out where to put the link to archive.org. If a URL is lacking, it go where any URL would normally go, if it isn't, it can perhaps append it to the citation in some way like "View at archive.org" or something like that. The URL would be https://archive.org/details/<iaident>. The second parameter would be iaoffset. In certain cases where pages don't link properly, iaoffset would be used to direct the server to the correct page/location of the media being viewed. This is the raw location. When used the URL simply becomes https://archive.org/details/<iaident>/page/n<iaoffset>.
These two additions will have no impact on existing citations and will allow a more harmonious addition of readable page previews to citations without stepping on anyone's toes, or accidentally breaking something in an existing reference.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|via=
can inform the reader that the version of the work they are reading is published in an archive. If the work is only found in an online archive, then what is cited is the archive, likely via {{cite web}}. The particulars of the citation will make this obvious. I don't know what this has to do with bots "enhancing references" or how complexity can be reduced by adding even more specialized parameters.
65.204.10.231 (
talk) 14:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There are over 600,000 citations that link scanned books.
Examples. It does seem kind of silly we don't use the ID system for this, it is one of the most frequently linked things on enwiki. There are 3.7 million {{
cite book}}
templates and if all these were in cite books (most are) that is 16%. --
Green
C
|ol=
into the metadata to make it easier for third-parties to correlate the data. (The technical reason for why we don't include it already is because different OL identifiers require different prefixes and this doesn't fit very well into the current implementation.)|url=
by itself but only be considered by the template when |url=
is not specified as well. This would free |url=
for other uses. If this is what you propose, I would support it. Ideally, though, this parameter would not take a complete URL such as "
https://archive.org/details/sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog" as a value, but just an id (like "Identifier=sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog"). How does this correspond with the "Identifier-ark=ark:/13960/t40s07c8h"? Is it possible to derive the former from the latter (
ark)?|url=
with its |archive-url=
companion for links which actually need |archive-url=
to prevent link-rot.|id=
an editor can insert the source's own identifying scheme, if any.
50.74.165.202 (
talk) 17:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)|ia=
with the caveat that it should be documented to take the Internet Archive identifier (and, yes, these are unique identifiers assigned by IA; they just don't have a resolver that abstracts the identifier from the physical address (URL))
of the scan where the information it supports was found, rather than any old scan of some book that may or may not be the same work in the same edition in a copy sufficiently identical to the original to support WP:V. People will still use it sloppily of course, but if the definition is strict we at least pull the trend in the right direction over time. This also means we treat it as an identifier and not a convenience link (those can go in |url=
). This means the derived URL should not be auto-promoted to the |url=
. It also means the parameter should not be bot-populated unless other information in the template uniquely identifies the scan to which it refers. IA book scans are a great resource and we should take advantage of it to the fullest extent practical, but not uncritically and sloppily.I don't see the case for the proposed |iaoffset=
parameter, and at first blush it would seem to be conceptually in conflict with everything else in CS1. --
Xover (
talk) 18:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|ia-offset=
(provisional name) be useful to point to the start of the relevant work as well?|s2cid=219352572
|ia-identifier=sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog
seems a lot the same to me.|iacid=<corpus ID>
for the book and if a particular scan is desired then perhaps something like |iacid=<corpus ID>.n<scan ID>
. cs1|2 would then build a handle system url that internet archive can redirect to the appropriate location|url=
by one of the Google- or IA-type ones. It would have been much better, if those extra resources could be listed among the identifiers, so that they don't occupy the place of |url=
any more and the bots would have a dedicated place where to put them without disturbing anyone. If parameters like |ia=
or |gbooks=
(provisional names) would be included in the list of auto-linking identifiers, they could still show up as title links if none of the other links take precedence.This will never change.Maybe; maybe not. Whatever mechanism IA uses is proprietary to IA. It seems better to me to avoid proprietary systems and use a system supported by many users so the handle system seems to fit; cs1|2 already supports
|hdl=
so we don't have to craft something special for IA.|url=
to link to the source that they consulted.Why isn't Internet Archive listed at Special:BookSources?
|url=
to the facsimile at IA, and may increase the use of IA urls for books; better to link to IA than to google or amazon, isn't it? Google and amazon are right there at the top of the list at Special:BookSources; is it any wonder that editors looking for courtesy links use them?The strings are arbitrary...Arbitrary. That's certainly part of it for me. The strings are arbitrary and, for the example in this discussion,
sixmonthsatwhit02carpgoog
, seem to suggest that google is where I will land if I click on that 'identifier'. Arbitrary does not look systematic, it does not look professional. Editors at discussions here and elsewhere have complained that readers won't click on identifiers because they don't understand the meaning of the initialisms and so are intimidated. I think that our readers smarter than that; especially readers who have gotten to the point of following an article far enough that the references matter.[this] will never change.This is the internet; nothing on the internet is static. A non-proprietary system, supporting multiple users is, I think, a better long-term choice for en.wiki because the stable identifier abstracts to the actual url of the source. That url can change as source providers upgrade their technology and internal data handling without it impacting us.
|jstor=
, and in some ways better because unlike JSTOR's "Stable URL", IA does actually treat this as an identifier. It is picked by the uploader, often according to a suggested schema, but it it assigned and managed by IA; and, crucially, it shows up in various APIs on their side where e.g. JSTOR would have used the URL (i.e. they actually treat it as an identifier in practice). It would be better if IA registered a HDL or DOI for each scan, but I don't see this as a bright line. I don't think an identifier's visual appearance, or the presence of certain substrings, are fair objections. Identifiers should be opaque except any defined hierarchy (DOI prefixes and such), and if they are too long their display can be truncated (or people will choose not to add them).Specific params for such identifiers also makes it easier for users to discover (and thus actually make use of) than generic ones, and makes it easier to add multiple links where that is relevant. Having spent far far too many hours manually cleaning up article references I very much appreciate every additional identifier available, because even nominally stable identifiers like DOIs die in the timescales we care about. I don't know any services mirroring IA specifically (unlike JSTOR and Project MUSE that often both have copies of a given journal issue), but just as an illustration we have a lot of IA works uploaded at Commons. Being able to point both at the original at archive.org and the alternate copy at Commons will save somebody's behind a decade down the line when IA decides to annoy the publishers enough to get sued out of existence (or whatever).Finally, there is not a 1:1 relationship between an ISBN and a specific scan of a specific copy of a specific edition of a specific work. Starting from an ISBN you can get to a search that lists lots of these, but you can't point at only one. That's (part of) why bot adding these links is a bad idea and
Special:BookSources is the most appropriate avenue for making IA accessible at volume. But starting in the other end, you certainly can add the identifier of the specific scan you consulted when adding the reference. And sometimes the ability to specify a copy of a book (there are multiple advanced academic degrees made based on the copy-to-copy differences in the
First Folio), and even the scan used of that copy (the same copy scanned by both Google and IA may have material differences in quality (hint: Google's scanner operators exhibit not a single fig given about quality)), is important.Bottom line, for me, is that while this is not a no brainer, I ultimately fall down on the side of wanting this parameter. I also wish IA would actually participate here, and discuss issues surrounding linking, discoverability, metadata (their's is almost as bad as Worldcat's, just in different ways), but absent that I'll settle for ways we can more effectively make use of IA as a resource. --
Xover (
talk) 09:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
northangerabbeyb00aust_1
. Apparently, accuracy in creating these 'identifiers' is not a criteria for their creation. Some sort of numerical corpus ID (just take the next available number) would be much better than seeing an identifier naming
Northanger Abbey in a citation for
Pride and Predjudice:
https://archive.org/details/northangerabbeyb00aust_1. That url was
added by bot. It does illustrate the offset issue. The cited page is vii so the page link that the bot added did not work (since removed) but, had the bot written [https://archive.org/details/northangerabbeyb00aust_1/page/n9 vii]
it would have worked:
vii.I wonder why this subject invites such elaborate discussion. All IA items are online. There is already a standardized, constantly utilized, familiar locator (the URL) to easily reach the referenced archive, as well as in-source locations such as specific pages (in the case of archived print media). Is there any reason for IA to have preferential treatment over other archives? Archives, just like any other source, are not automatically reliable. Afaik, IA's archiving protocols are opaque, and the resulting archives not vetted. Granted that the last time time I looked at IA governance was several years ago, but I was surprised to find out that there were no official "Archivist" positions at the organization. That is like having libraries without trained librarians. Not that university archiving operations are much better. I have seen horrible scans of well known works in such institutions. In some cases, really bad version control, with a different archive of the same original showing up seemingly randomly, no doubt thanks to some mysterious algorithm. But do go ahead and try to make sense of all this if that is your thing. 98.0.246.251 ( talk) 01:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
|url=
and it would be good to have a separate place for at least the most common and established providers of content to free the |url=
parameter and its companion |archive-url=
for better purposes in order to improve the quality and usefulness of citations and to fight link-rot. Both, GB and IA identifiers have proven to be stable for many years (with minor exceptions), more stable than many URLs to other sites, but in the hyphothetical case that they would suddenly change their link formats, change their identifiers or change their services in unacceptable way, it would be trivially easy for us to centrally adjust or mute the corresponding template output, that is, it gives us more control.|id=
, regardless of whether such is well maintained or not. But there has to be a more compelling reason to formalize these into yet more parameters. Not every secondary identifier must be coded, documented and explained. This particular citation system is already overly complex and there is a good chance that the needs of the non-expert reader are not met. The litmus test: the most complex citation possible should be understood by the least knowledgeable reader possible.
107.14.54.1 (
talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)At present a source without a stated date uses the format date=n.d.
, and displays as
The newspaper. n.d. Retrieved 6 December 2015.
This is rather obscure to the reader. I would suggest either that date=n.d.
be retained in the cite parameters, but displayed to the reader as "Undated", or that date=undated
be allowed and displayed. (A display of "No date" for parameter n.d.
would be OK.)
A parameter that tells editors that a reference is undated also saves an attempt to find and add a date, in the same way as the recommended author=<!--not stated-->
does.
Example with date=n.d.
:
"Pooley Bridge, Cumbria". Britain Express. n.d. Retrieved 6 December 2015.
Example with unsupported date=Undated
:
"Pooley Bridge, Cumbria". Britain Express. Undated. Retrieved 6 December 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Best wishes, Pol098 ( talk) 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This is rather obscure to the reader.Really? Why do you believe that readers are incapable of understanding this rather common initialism? It is perfectly acceptable to omit
|date=
when the source is not dated. Similarly, it is perfectly acceptable to write |date=<!--no date-->
for the benefit of editors if you think it appropriate.|date=none
for consistency with other parameters already using the none
keyword) and issue "extra text" warnings for the other inputs (like "n.d.", "nd", etc.) so that existing citations could be updated accordingly. Still, the output would be the predefined text "n.d." plus tooltip, "no date" or whatever we decide.n.d.
" or "3 (12): 7–8
" means.)|language=fr
over |language=French
). For example, in a German citation one would typically write "o. D.
" ("ohne Datum") rather than "n.d.
", but "k. D.
" ("kein Datum") is seen as well. Likewise, there are abbreviations like "o. J.
" (without year), "o. O.
" (without location), "o. A.
" (without author) and "Anon.
" (for anonymous author(s)).author=<!--not stated-->
would be the recommended form. It is possible that this has changed, but the last time I looked the recommended form was author=<!-- staff writer, no byline -->
. Either way, this shows that HTML comments, as useful as they often are, are not a good method to indicate common states like this because they are more complicated to use for editors and therefore are not used consistently, thereby making it difficult to machine-read them. Special tokens such as |date=none
, |author=none
, |author=staff
, |author=anon
are much preferable to them.incompetentmight be a bit strong, but en.wiki is one of two English language Wikipedias. For those who do not understand commonplace citation initialisms, abbreviations, and symbols used throughout the English language publishing world (and consequently in cs1|2), perhaps the other English language Wikipedia is a better choice. But, were it an issue, I would have thought that editors at simple.wiki would have tweaked (or asked us for assistance in tweaking) simple:Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to accommodate their readers.
rather obscure to the readerand must be fixed, it must follow that all of the other citation initialisms, abbreviations, and symbols used by cs1|2 are also
rather obscure to the reader, mustn't it? If we believe that to be true, then we must discontinue use of all standard English-language citation initialisms, abbreviations, and symbols. We must replace: 'ed.' → editor, 'eds.' → editors, 'ed.' → edition, '§' → section, '§§' → sections, 'Vol.' → volume, 'no.' and 'No.' → issue or number, 'p.' → page, and 'pp.' → pages. And lest we forget it, 'et al.' → and others.
none
" in various other places, I would suggest to, at the minimum, support something like |date=none
. However, if there are more similar conditions (as in the none
/staff
/anon
example for authors above), more keywords could be introduced for them as well.none
", indicating that this information is not given in the source, should be distinguished from the condition, that the information should not be displayed but would still be used in reference anchor generation and be provided in the metadata (for which I suggested the keyword "off
" recently introduced for |title=
), and the condition, that the information is simply unknown to the editor at present (but might be given in the source), which should not be indicated by a special token, but is often indicated to other editors by providing an empty |date=
parameter (which, however, is sometimes removed by other editors "cleaning up").This is much better done in an HTML comment: |date=<!-- No date specified. -->
, same as we (also optionally) handle works without specifically named authors. "N.d." is meaningless to most people, or worse may imply something else entirely like "North Dakota" asserted to be the publication location. (The fact that it's often completely lower-case as "n.d." is irrelevant, since we all know a lot of editors have terrible capitalization habits, and various people doing this abbreviation for "no date" are going to render it "ND" or something else, anyway.) We should just advise, with an example, to do it in an HTML comment, the way we advise noting no named author. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
For {{
Cite podcast}}, I'm trying to cite a podcast published by a newspaper. The documentation says to use |website=
for the name of the podcast and |publisher=
for the name of the publisher, but |publisher=
won't let me italicize, and the name of a newspaper should always be italicized, even when it's acting as a publisher. What do I do here? {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
|via=
is available, though I think I would prefer the former and not the latter solution. --
Izno (
talk) 20:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
|publisher=
field and leaving out the name of the newspaper would be really weird. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 22:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
name of a newspaper should always be italicized. That is correct in prose. But in most citation systems (including this present one), italics are not used on specific variables (in your example a newspaper) but on the parameter field. Therefore,
|publisher=
is never italicized. |website=
always is, as the work or source. I would fill in accordingly and let the software decide where to apply emphasis. The newspaper may be published by the Student Union.{{cite web|title=Podcast Title|department=Podcast|url=http://www.podcastwebpage.com|website=Newspaper|publisher=Publisher}}
which renders|url=
instead of the including website. I would use the podcast date for |date=
, and the podcaster, if any as the author.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 22:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)|publisher=Name of Student Organization, Name of Institution
, just like you can do |publisher=Name of Department, Name of Institution
for more official-channel materials, or |publisher=Name of Subdivision, Name of Overall Organization
in any circumstance (we often do this with obscure UN, EU, etc. entities, though it's overkill for something globally recognized like UNESCO, which already has "UN" in it's name and a big article about it and its role in the UN, so we don't need to append ", United Nations".)Podcasts (and blogs, and vlogs, and etc.) usually have a specific minor-work title (headline). If that's present, then that's what goes in |title=
; it's no different from an article in a newspaper or journal, a named episode of a TV series, etc. If the podcast or blog is side product of the same publisher as a news site (or newspaper), but with separate editorial control and a completely separate domain name (or, on paper, is issued separately from the newspaper), then it's a separate work that shares a publisher, and is not part of the news site/newspaper. (e.g., The Observer is a separate work from The Guardian). If it's an integral feature of a news site (or whatever), then the podcast's (or other thing's) overall title is a |department=
, just like a columnist's column is (and which will generally also have a per-piece |title=
). We seem to put department names manually in double quotes, same as the |title=
does automatically; that's what the |cite news=
doc is suggesting. This basically the same markup approach as |series=
in {{
cite book}}
, e.g. |series="Studies in American Cat Farming" series
; the quotes make it clear its a title of some kind, not an entity.) I don't think anyone's brain will melt if you do |department=Book Reviews
or |department=Ask Marjorie column
or |series=Studies in American Cat Farming series
, though; it's just a little less clear without quotes around the titles.
A weakness of our citation template system is that it cannot at present gracefully handle a serial work that doesn't have individual titles for each issuance (podcast episode, blog post, etc.), which basically forces us to put the podcast name in |title=
even if it's logically more of a |department=
. (The template will thrown an error without at |title=
, no matter how rich the rest of the template data is.) So it goes. The important thing is that it can be narrowly enough identified that the source can be found and used for verification. The more consistent it is the better, but we need not torture ourselves over it. E.g., many newspapers include an insert supplement (on arts, or local news, or whatever), which in turn is further subdivided into departments, and then into specific articles. At bare minimum we need to the article title and the overall publication title (because the supplement/insert probably cannot be identified by most people without the overall work title). But if you're just really in a mood to obsess over it, you could also do something like |title=14 Arrested in Ferret Smuggling Operation
|department="Local News" insert, "Police Beat" column
. The same kind of approach can be used for drilling down through online stuff to get at a podcast that is part of a subsite/department of a news site, or whatever.
PS: Don't obsess over subdomains. Some news publisher like to do things like sports.whatever-news.com and international.whatever-news.com, but this is just an information architecture decision in most cases, and might be changed at any time. We know this for an annoying fact from changes (often audience-unhelpful ones) to how various major sites like BBC News have been reorganized over the years. Plus, quite often there are actually multiple paths to the exact same content, some using third-level domain names and some not. As long as the URL works, and is archived to prevent linkrot, don't pull your hair out about it.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Things like this:
This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area
Warning: {{pagename}}} is calling Template:Cite book with more than one value for the "first" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help) Warning: {{pagename}} is calling Template:Cite book with more than one value for the "location" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. (Help) |
in a big article can sometimes literally take an hour or longer to track down. If the code is smart enough to catch the error, it seems like it should be able to tell us what citation it appears in. It would probably actually make more sense to have these be red error messages in the citation, like most cite errors, instead of being page-top notes.
PS: There's also a bug, in that it won't detect |first=
and |first1=
in the same template as duplicates, even though one is an alias of the other. This may affect various other aliased params; I haven't tested it in depth.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
detect:|first=
and|first1=
in the same template as duplicates
Hello,
could you please update the limit for PMIDs? The current value appears to be outdated.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medconsult1 ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Can the {{cite book}} template be used in the Works section of writer? If not, is there another template to be used? I'm looking for a uniform way of adding information such as editions, page count, where to read online, etc. Thanks. — Orgyn ( talk) 12:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
|author-mask=
or |display-authors=0
.I could have sworn there was a maintenance category for this as the practice has become discouraged. Am I wrong or just missing something? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
|work=
parameter blank and fills the publisher parameter with something like this: |publisher=CNN
. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 06:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ Cite Q}} had another bunch of updates today, including tracking categories for replaced or retracted papers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Should this citation throw a url error? It doesn't trigger a link. kennethaw88 • talk 03:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Liberatore, Paul (28 January 2011). [hhttps://www.marinij.com/2011/01/28/radio-personality-carter-b-smith-of-tiburon-dies-at-74/ "Radio Personality Carter B. Smith of Tiburon dies at 74"]. Marin Independent Journal. Retrieved 8 December 2020.
hhttps:
is a valid scheme.References
This 2016 discussion requested an example of how to cite YouTube videos with Template:Cite AV media. As of 13 December 2020, Template:Cite AV media/doc does not have an example of a YouTube citation. Therefore, I propose this example, taken from Taylor Swift:
{{Cite AV media|title=73 Questions With Troye Sivan|work=Vogue|date=June 20, 2019|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhyKC6wQso|via=YouTube|access-date=January 16, 2020}}
which produces:
73 Questions With Troye Sivan. Vogue. June 20, 2019. Retrieved January 16, 2020 – via YouTube.
What do you think? Is there anything that you would do differently? Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 14:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite interview}}
.If that's not the best example, let's use the video from the original post:
{{Cite AV media|title=Make It Pop {{!}} BTS of the Make It Pop Summer Episode {{!}} Nick|publisher=[[Nickelodeon]]|date=July 23, 2016|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCMz5W94nxY|via=[[YouTube]]|access-date=December 14, 2020}}
which produces:
Make It Pop | BTS of the Make It Pop Summer Episode | Nick. Nickelodeon. July 23, 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2020 – via YouTube.
The original post also uses movie trailers as another example. Here is one:
{{Cite AV media|title=Wonder Woman 1984 - Official Main Trailer|publisher=[[Warner Bros. Pictures]]|date=November 19, 2020|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psFf4KXJZoQ|via=[[YouTube]]|access-date=December 14, 2020}}
which produces:
Wonder Woman 1984 - Official Main Trailer. Warner Bros. Pictures. November 19, 2020. Retrieved December 14, 2020 – via YouTube.
-- Hanif Al Husaini ( talk) 02:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there a possibility to provide an authorlink (or link to a magazine or whatever) in another language when there is no article in :en? Or am I getting crufty? Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
{{cite book|title=Title|author=Johann Smith|author-link=:de:Johann Smith}}
{{
ill}}
is hardly intuitive. You and I may understand what the little-linked-language code means, but we cannot expect readers to understand what those sometimes very cryptic language codes mean. We might convert interwiki style links into external links so that your example might render:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |author=
(
help)<span>...</span>
tag with a title=
attribute:
[[:de:Johann_Smith|<span title="Johann Smith at the German Wikipedia">Johann Smith</span>]]
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |author=
(
help){{
ill}}
, we'd need some way to specify two links if the title is not the same in the foreign and local Wikipedia. However, we could take advantage of Wikidata for this:|author-link=
points to a WP article in another language. The template could then check if the foreign article is connected to Wikidata. If it is, it could further check if the Wikidata entry (meanwhile) also has an entry for a local article. If this would be the case, the |author-link=
link would be automatically overridden by a link to the local article and the article put into a maintenance category so that the |author-link=
link can be updated to point to the local article directly. (In the rare event, that we really want to point to the foreign article, we could use our accept-as-written markup |author-link=((:prefix:title))
to disable the smart override and enforce the link.)we'd need some way to specify two links? What you describe seems like it should work, needing only
|author-link=:de:Uta Lindgren
(or whoever else). The {{
ill}} template needs a way to take two names, both the local-language text to be linked and the other-language article title to be linked, but we only need to supply the other-language article title, because the local-language text of the link is already supplied by the |first=
and |last=
parameters. In fact there are probably existing citations using this syntax that this handling could improve. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
ill}}
" is the (quite common) case, where the still non-existing red but suggested local title and the existing foreign-language title are not the same. This would be undesirable for our purposes, because we would have to introduce yet another parameter class for this (or some means to give two link targets in one parameter).|author-link=
accept {{ill}}: {{cite book|last=Lindren|first=Uta|author-link={{ill|Uta Lindgren|de}}|title=Title|ref=none}} -> Lindren, Uta. Title. {{
cite book}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help). Can't the CS1 code make an allowance for this? --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 10:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
|author-link=
is to provide an article title when the cs1|2 template uses |last=
and |first=
:
|last=Lindgren
|first=Uta
|author-link=:de:Uta Lindgren
→ [[:de:Uta Lindgren|Lindgren, Uta]]
→
Lindgren, Uta{{
ill}}
into |author-link=
does not work because what you get is:
|last=Lindgren
|first=Uta
|author-link={{ill|Uta Lindgren|de}}
→
[[[[Uta Lindgren]][[Category:Interlanguage link template existing link]]
|Lindgren, Uta]]
{{ill}}
adds a category link to its rendering. So, cs1|2 would need to parse apart whatever it gets from {{ill}}
before it could create the equivalent.|editor-link=:ja:熊倉重春
? This method was mentioned in the first reply to your initial post in this topic.:ja:熊倉重春
to Shigeharu Kumakura
as soon as it detects that an equivalent article has been added to the English WP.Hello, there appears to be a problem with the lock symbols on urls, where the symbol overwrites the last letter of the title.
"Mirfield director of 96". 22 October 1943. p. 5 col.2.
Could be a browser/skin problem - using Firefox 83.0 (64-bit) with Monobook.
Keith D ( talk) 12:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
In the COinS guidance common to the documentation for {{
cite book}} and other CS1 templates, the following statement appears: Do not include Wiki markup '' (italic font) or ''' (bold font) because these markup characters will contaminate the metadata.
Is this guidance out of date? There are plenty of situations in which italics are needed within a title – to mention a species name, for example. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 02:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
|
Last, First. This part of the Title is bold. |
|title=
, |chapter=
, etc); are not allowed in any other parameters that contribute to the metadata. Bold and italic markup in |publisher=
and the |work=
aliases cause cs1|2 templates to emit the Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |<param>n=
error message.|section=
?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 22:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Any ideas on what is causing these errors:
Special:PermanentLink/996278824#Notes? I'm aware of the issue of using {{
sfn}} within <ref>
but this doesn't appear to be that and, oddly enough, short footnotes are working in the first several list-defined notes but not the rest. Any ideas what's going wrong here, or is this a bug?
czar 19:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
problem. If I recall correctly, it is a MediaWiki parser problem because the parser gets confused (not surprisingly) when <ref>...</ref>
tags are nested in <ref>...</ref>
tags. I don't recall if the problem is related to named or unnamed <ref>...</ref>
tags. It appears that the issue has been
resolved in that article.Given the thread just above this, there is clearly some non-trivial code that can do various kinds of error detection. A useful one would would output something like "Warning: {{pagename}}} is calling Template:Cite whatever with what may be a misuse of the "author" or "last" parameter. (Help)" It could look for patterns like a long string followed by a letter and a dot followed by another long string ("Youill X. Zounds"), a letter-dot followed by a letter-dot followed by long string ("Y. X. Zounds" or "Y.X. Zounds"), a long string followed by a comma followed by another long string or by one or more letter-dots ("Zounds, Youill", "Zounds, Y.", "Zounds, Y. X."), and maybe a few other things. This wouldn't be utterly foolproof (couldn't distinguish "U.N. Foobar Investigative Commission", but that should be rewritten to use "UN" anyway), but it would help a lot. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
|author=Doe, John
rather than |last=Doe|first=John
? I don't have the time (nor really the patience) to find examples of this, but I've seen a few.|author=Youill X. Zounds
be deprecated or somehow flagged as an error? If so, I think there will be significant opposition. Our current documentation suggests (and has suggested for a heck of a long time) that this formulation is perfectly fine: author: this parameter is used to hold the complete name of a single author (first and last) or to hold the name of a corporate author.Maybe I misunderstand. If there is a specific value of
|author=
that should be put in the maint category and is not currently put in the maint category, please make that explicit here. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 00:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
|author=
and |last=
(a.k.a. |last1=
) became the same parameter. |author=Youill X. Zounds
is an error because it identifies the entire string as a surname or institutional author. We have |last[1]=
and |first[1]=
for a reason. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
from an independent template to use {{
citation/core}}
. A little inspection will show that before and after that edit, at some earlier time. The other major cs1|2 templates were similarly converted at about the same time give or take a year or two.|author=
and|last=
(a.k.a.|last1=
) became the same parameter
Template:Cite conference documents |publication-date=
and |publication-place=
for {{
cite news}}, but not for {{
cite conference}}. What is the proper way to cite a conference paper when the time and place of the conference differ from the time and place of publication?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
|conference=
. It is not unusual for the full conference title to incude the location and date. On the other hand, it is not a bad idea to activate the relevant parameters in this template as well.
208.251.187.170 (
talk) 14:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
|title=Proceedings of the 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Held in Sydney, Australia on 28 January –- 4 February 2021
. If the location doesn't appear in the title, then there's no need to include it.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)|publication-place=
to specify the place of publication and |location=
to document the written-at-place. These parameters are not aliases and can both be given at the same time when relevant. {{
cite conference}} supports this as well.|title=
reserved for the specific conference presentation/paper? (an in-source location). The OP wants to specify the location(s) of the source, i.e. of the entire conference. Such information is normally specified in the source name/description i.e. in |conference=
, something indicated at the relevant template. The cited paper is part of the conference, which takes place somewhere.
64.61.73.84 (
talk) 04:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
|title=
for the title of the proceedings (a book, usually) and |contribution=
for the title of the individual paper. But it also works to use |title=
for the paper and |book-title=
for the title of the whole proceedings. Both are formatted the same. But that's a separate issue from where to put the location of the conference, which I think can reasonably go in the title of the proceedings (not the title of the paper). —
David Eppstein (
talk) 05:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Should we add a "libre" access level to the doi-access and url access levels? Adding such a label would help editors in need of images or other content: a majority of "libre" OA content is CC BY and Wikipedia-compatible, as opposed to an Elsevier User License which is unusable. -- Artoria 2e5 🌉 21:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|url=
is the presumed default. There is similar option for |doi-access=
. Am I misundertanding your intent?
65.204.10.231 (
talk) 21:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
|doi-access=free
parameter for everything that's public domain or CC BY and look like this:Kawaguchi, Yuko; et al. (26 August 2020). "DNA Damage and Survival Time Course of Deinococcal Cell Pellets During 3 Years of Exposure to Outer Space". Frontiers in Microbiology. 11. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.02050. S2CID 221300151.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)
What is the process for requesting more identifiers to be included in the standard list like ProQuest, INIST or NAID? Is there a threshold of number of transclusions or some other measure of popularity? — Chris Capoccia 💬 20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
|id=
in order to see how much demand there really is for them. Use a template if appropriate; see
Template:Cite book#Identifiers. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC){{cite journal|title=Title|journal=Journal|issue=10|pp=100-110|quote-page=100|quote=A quote from this page.}}
renders as
"Title". Journal (10): 100–110. p. 100:
A quote from this page.
Shouldn't the |quote-page=
prefix be invisible for consistency? |no-pp=y
works but...
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 05:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
|periodical-mode=symbolic/scientific/abbreviated/full
to override the default format when desired - something that could later be made part of a system of article-wide format parameters similar to what we have for global date formats at present - in fact, I have prototypical code ready to support such global settings through {{
reflist}} and/or {{
use dmy dates}}/{{
use mdy dates}} would this be desired.)