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 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
Propose adding illustrator
to {{cite book}}
and others:
|illustrator-last1=
|illustrator-first1=
|illustrator-link1=
I have noticed several times recently that Zotero (in Firefox) is not detecting the COinS metadata emitted by our citation templates; for example on List of London medical students who assisted at Belsen.
I see the same problem when I am not logged in, so I don't think it has anything to do with my gadgets or user scripts.
Are there any known issues with our COinS?
One possible cause (related to JavaScript, so possibly not relevant), is described on " Connector intermittently does not recognize COinS", on the Zotero forums. It also suggests a fix, but not one we can apply in templates.
Can anyone suggest another cause, or fix? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
recently? The last cs1|2 module-suite update was 10 April 2021. Are you the only editor who is experiencing this problem with our citations? Do you have a problem getting the metadata from
{{
cite patent}}
citations? That template does not use the cs1|2 module suite to emit metadata.</cite>
:
<cite>...</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004..." class="Z3988"></span>
The
Accept-this-as-written markup section says Markup can be applied to the entry as a whole or to individual list entries
, but that doesn't seem to work for numbers with commas, e.g. {{cite book|title=Title|pages=999, ((1,001))}}
returns Title. pp. 999, 1,001.
. This could be solved by adding the following to the top of hyphen_to_dash()
:
str = str:gsub("(%(%(.-%)%))", function(m) return m:gsub(",", ","):gsub(";", ";") end)
After that line replaces commas and semicolons with their full-width equivalents, do the split, and then return
str:gsub(",", ","):gsub(";", ";")
at the end of the function. I've mocked it up in the sandbox
here. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 17:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite book|title=Title|pages=((999, 1,001))}}
returns Title. pp. 999, 1,001.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite book/sandbox|title=Title|pages=999, ((1,001))}}
, does return Title. pp. 999, 1,001.
--
Ahecht (
TALKHi,
How can I add ajp (South Levantine) and apc (North Levantine) to the list of supported ISO 639-2 three-character codes?
Other Arabic varieties are already supported: aeb (Tunisian), arq (Algerian), ars (Najdi), ary (Moroccan), arz (Egyptian), shu (Chadian); so I think Levantine varieties (South and North) should be as well as they are among the most spoken and most widely understood in the Arab world. A455bcd9 ( talk) 08:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
ajp
and apc
:
{{#language:ajp|en}}
→ ajp{{#language:apc|en}}
→ Levantine Arabic{{#language:aeb|en}}
→ Tunisian Arabic|language=South Levantine Arabic
|language=North Levantine Arabic
{{Cite book |title=Gospel of St. Mark in South Levantine Spoken Arabic |last1=Bishop |first1=E. F. F. |last2=George |first2=Surayya |date=1940 |location=Cairo |language=ajp |oclc=77662380}}
{{Cite book |title=Gospel of St. Mark in South Levantine Spoken Arabic |last1=Bishop |first1=E. F. F. |last2=George |first2=Surayya |date=1940 |location=Cairo |language=South Levantine Arabic |oclc=77662380}}
ajp
and apc
by filing a ticket at
Phabricator.Another conversation reminded me that there have been changes to MediaWiki's language-name support.
It used to be that MediaWiki assigned 'Crimean Turkish' to language tag crh
but now:
{{#language:crh|en}}
→ Crimean Tatarcs1|2 got round that by overriding the tag crh
to 'Crimean Tatar'; that override is no longer necessary.
I have tweaked the language handling code some to better handle IETF-like language tags that are supported by MediaWiki. Doing that allows the removal of nrf-GG
(Guernésiais) and nrf-JE
(Jèrriais) from the override table.
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=crh}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Crimean Tatar}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=nrf-gg}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Guernésiais}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=nrf-je}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Jèrriais}}
Overrides not broken:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=ksh-x-colog}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Colognian}}
and non-overrides not broken:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=es}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Spanish}}
and unrecognized language tags and names not broken:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=xax}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=abcdefgh}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Does Template:Cite book not have some parameters to add the original language and title of a work? Veverve ( talk) 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
citing a translation of the work into English, which has an English language titlecase. So, in which parameter can I add the original language and the original, before translation title? Veverve ( talk) 18:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
|language=
parameter.|translator-last=
/|translator-first=
. If the original language is important to know as well, you could add a comment following the citation, that is, between the closing }} of the template and the closing </ref>
. I typically format them like "(NB. This is a translation of the original work titled "xyz" in French.)". In some cases, it might be even useful to mention the original foreign-language edition in either another citation like <ref name="TranslatedWork">...</ref>
<ref name="OriginalWork">...</ref>
, or bundled into the same <ref>...</ref>
entry like <ref>Work translated into English; Work in original language.</ref>
|orig-year=
could be used, e.g |orig-year=originally published [year] in [language] as [foreign title]
. Optionally following the foreign title I often add the (foreign) location: publisher after a dot separator. I believe the foreign original may be easier to find with the addition of location and publisher, but I have no real proof-of-concept.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 01:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|orig-year=
which can help point to a work's 1st edition. This is a detail, and another long discussion, but the gist of it is, the 1st edition is in most cases considered the definitive edition (outside of editions that contain author-made revisions/corrections). There may be subtle differences between editions depending on the publisher/work editor. Comparing such differences is important in the hopefully very rare cases where a wikitext contributor may claim a fact based on the edition difference. Or goes edition-shopping to help establish a claim as fact. It is good to give the reader a hint in finding the original, but since the usefulness is very narrow, I cannot see adding a whole new citation for it.
65.88.88.57 (
talk) 11:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)The documentation for Cite report omits mention of option to suppress the display of not-helpful-IMO "(report)" in the reference created. Include "|type=none" to suppress that. I use this for National Register of Historic Places document refs. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please forgive me if this idea has has already been "considered" and rejected ... or something like that.
My suggestion was already entered in a place (" Wikipedia:Teahouse") that was perhaps ill-advised (and any link to the "new" section is liable to itself become a " dead link", once that new section gets "archived"). (right?)
However, a "DIFF" URL which serves as a link to an "edit" ... remains valid for a longer time ... as long as the old ["non-latest"] versions of the page (in this case, a 'Teahouse' page) that got edited, are still extant. Here is an example of such a "DIFF" URL:
... and, even if ^H^H when that ['Teahouse' page] section does get "archived", there is probably some text inside the entries of that section, which is unique enough to be searched for, such that ... one could find the 'lost' ("archived") section, even after it has been "moved" to a different URL.
...In fact, I could even update the URL shown below! ... if I don't forget. In the mean time (at least until that that new section gets "archived"), my "suggestion" can be seen here:
So ... there is no necessity for the suggestion to be "repeated" here. (right?)
-- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 06:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
|url-access=
parameter takes four possible values: "[free
]", "subscription
", "registration
", "limited
". The parameter |url-status=
takes: "dead
", "live
", "unfit
", "usurped
" (and soon also "
deviated
"). As far as I was able to understand you, you were trying to add |url-access=paywall
to a citation at
Political family pointing to
[1], but that was rejected by the citation template with an error message, so you switched to |url-status=unfit
instead, adding a HTML comment:
|url-status=
is the wrong parameter to be used (or even |url-status=live
would be valid) and you should have instead added either |url-access=registration
or |url-access=subscription
depending on the type of "paywall" you see.|archive-url=
[2]), I can see what appears to be the whole article (free and without any kind of registration), so |url-access=
would be inappropriate. Or is there a longer version of the article available after subscription? If so, then a combination of |url-access=subscription
and |url-status=limited
would be the way to go.Maybe my memory is failing me, but has CS1 always output dates like this:
McClure, Tess (16 September 2021). "Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 September 2021.( source)
I never remembered the dates being in parenthese like that. Is that new? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to describe many journals, especially non-English, which don't identify "volume", but are usually marked as issue/year and/or issue from beginning. "Issue" field displays at the end and des not accept any other text. Pibwl ←« 12:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
|volume=
. It is not required. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Some of the placeholder titles for websites that have content behind a paywall/subscription have their subscription advertisement (e.g. "Subscribe to read | Financial Times") as the placeholder title. Tanaya001 ( talk) 13:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
{{Cite web|url=https://www.ft.com/content/0029e6e2-7344-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca|title=Subscribe to read | Financial Times|website=www.ft.com}}
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)Because of a conversation at
Template talk:Sfn § Add automatic endash for page number range?, I have moved hyphen_to_dash()
from
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities/sandbox. The move allows
Module:Footnotes/sandbox to have access to all of the necessary functionality without unnecessary code duplication.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
r}}
, {{
rp}}
, and {{
ran}}
to use the output from hyphen_to_dash()
as-it-is, to modify that output as necessary to suit their needs, or do what needs doing on their own. The cs1|2 module suite is not all things to all templates. I am going to revert.function p.hyphen2dash (frame)
local utilities = require ('Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities/sandbox'); -- import functions from cs1|2
local str, accept = utilities.has_accept_as_written (frame.args1]); -- strip accept-as-written markup if present
local spacing = frame.args2];
if str and not accept then -- string not wrapped in accept-as-written markup
str = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (str); -- convert hyphens to dashes
if spacing then -- when set
str = str:gsub (', ', ',' .. spacing):gsub ('; ', ';' .. spacing); -- override default spacing
end
end
return str; -- and done
end
Is there no way to add a WP hyperlink for a second editor at Template:Cite book? Veverve ( talk) 05:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
|editor2-link=
. You should be splitting out your editors into separate parameters (|editor2-last=
and |editor2-first=
, or at least |editor2=
) to make this work. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Recent edits at Fea's tree rat and Common remora have produced "Lua error in Module:Cite_iucn at line 180: attempt to concatenate a nil value". That is seen by previewing the following.
{{cite iucn |author=Smith |title=Example |errata=2017 |volume=2015 |page=1 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015 }}
Johnuniq ( talk) 10:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite iucn|year=2016}}
gives "Lua error in Module:Cite_iucn at line 124: attempt to index field 'title' (a nil value)."
Johnuniq (
talk) 07:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
http://reftag.appspot.com/ does not seem to be working? Chesdovi ( talk) 13:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Please change Doi (identifier) to Digital object identifier to avoid redirect. Thanks. 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:38AB:63B4:498:69DB ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up that there are starting to be articles populating in Category:CS1 errors: S2CID that seem to be correct with values greater than 237000000. -- Lightlowemon ( talk) 13:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the location parameter be used for the location of an archive? See [3] and [4] for context. DrKay ( talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)The location of the information, which is in paper form, is WINC Collection, 1616 THL, Stewart Bell Jr. Archives. That's the name of the collection, the room number, and the name of the archives department at the library itself. The library asks you, on their website, to "Cite As: WINC Collection, 1616 THL, Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library, Winchester, VA, USA." So, the publisher is, technically, Handley Regional Library. I am just required by them to cite it in such a way. I'm not being an asshole, I'm following their citation rules. If that puts the article in a clean up category, there's nothing I can do about that. That is the genuine location of the information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite archive}}
is a better choice? In cs1|2 ({{
cite book}}
etc) |location=
is the physical location of the publisher.{{
cite archive}}
works just fine. Give me a couple minutes to move the references around. :) -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 18:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Discussion at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 § HTML markup caused me to notice that the accept-this-as-written markup is preserved when |title=
is added to the metadata. I have fixed that:
{{cite book |title=((Title))}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000049-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=((Title))}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004D-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
I have not looked into the other places where accept-this-as-written markup may be used.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
|doi=
, |issn=
, |eissn=
, |pmid=
and |volume=
.|volume=
fixed:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=((12345))}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000051-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1 cs1-prop-long-vol">"Title". ''Journal''. 12345.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.volume=%28%2812345%29%29&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
|doi=
, |eissn=
, |isbn=
, |issn=
, and |sbn=
– the |sbn=
value, even when valid, is not made part of the citation's metadata. For all other identifiers, invalid values are not made part of the citation's metadata even when wrapped with accept-as-written markup. A simple fix ensures that all valid identifier values wrapped with accept-as-written markup, and invalid |doi=
, |eissn=
, |isbn=
, and |issn=
values that are wrapped with accept-as-written markup do not include the accept-as-written markup in the citation's metadata. I have applied that fix:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000055-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[doi (identifier)|doi]]:[https://doi.org/12345 12345].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors|link]])</span>
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |eissn=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000059-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[eISSN (identifier)|eISSN]] [https://www.worldcat.org/issn/12345 12345].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.eissn=12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors|link]])</span>
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |isbn=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005D-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/12345|<bdi>12345</bdi>]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.isbn=12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors|link]])</span>
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |issn=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000061-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[ISSN (identifier)|ISSN]] [https://www.worldcat.org/issn/12345 12345].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.issn=12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors|link]])</span>
I sometimes see online works attributed to prolific authors such as Mr. Privacy Statement, Ms. Cookie Policy and Dr. Submitted Content, which have clearly been scraped in a semi-automated way from the website. ( Samples) Are they generated using some tool which could be improved? Certes ( talk) 16:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|first=Privacy
|last=Statement
– I'm not sure whether
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration is invoked when they're split that way. Other regular contributors include:
|first2=Ivor Penn Chief Sports
|last2=Writer
, or a mishmash of non-persons such as ref 5 in
Bioethics Bowl.
Certes (
talk) 23:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|author=
/|first=
/|last=
parameters with dates or years in them could be tagged as well.
GoingBatty (
talk) 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite book |title=A Green Meadow |author-first=April |author-last=Appleyard |date=15 May 2021}}
The other day I stumbled upon Barbus sp. nov. 'Pangani' as an article title:
{{cite journal |title=''Barbus sp. nov. 'Pangani''' |journal=Journal}}
I have modified kern_quotes()
to properly render that title:
{{cite journal |title=''Barbus sp. nov. 'Pangani''' |journal=Journal}}
While I was doing that, I simplified the whole of the function:
{{cite book/new |chapter=[[neither]] |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter=neither |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter='leading |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter=trailing' |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter='both' |title=Title}}
Part of the simplification was to use 'empty' <span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>
and <span class="cs1-kern-right"></span>
tags instead of splitting the title apart and wrapping part of it in <span>...</span>
tags:
{{cite book |chapter='leading |title=Title}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000086-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">"<span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>'leading". ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=%27leading&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |chapter='leading |title=Title}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000008A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">"<span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>'leading". ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=%27leading&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
as well? I don't remember. If it does, I believe there are additional kerning cases there. Just something to keep in mind for whenever.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 22:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
is a free-form parameter that does not contribute to the citation's metadata. When quoted text begins with single- or double-quote marks, editors can use:
|quote=
.
64.18.9.199 (
talk) 23:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
-'}}
and the other kerning templates in those titles because those templates emit styling that has nothing to do with the source's title:
<span style="padding-left:0.15em;">'</span>
← {{
-'}}
|quote=
in <q>...</q>
tags. No doubt, if you seek through the archives you will discover that decision. The css that supports the <q>...</q>
tags is
here.in the live module, |quote=
works properly but standalone |script-quote=
and |trans-quote=
do not include the <q>...</q>
tag:
{{cite book |title=Title |quote=quoted text}}
quoted text
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000008F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <q>quoted text</q></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book |title=Title |script-quote=ja:script-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000093-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1 cs1-prop-script">''Title''. <bdi lang="ja" >script-quoted text</bdi></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book |title=Title |trans-quote=trans-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000097-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. [trans-quoted text]</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
fixed in the sandbox:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |quote=quoted text}}
quoted text
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000009B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <q>quoted text</q></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Title |script-quote=ja:script-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000009F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1 cs1-prop-script">''Title''. <bdi lang="ja" >script-quoted text</bdi></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Title |trans-quote=trans-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000A3-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. [trans-quoted text]</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a citation in the article
artificial intelligence where the thesis advisor is notable person. Is there a parameter to list the thesis adviso in {{
Cite thesis}}
? Should I use {{{others}}}
? ----
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
|others=
would be fine if you believe the advisor merits addition to the citation for whatever reason.
Izno
Public (
talk) 22:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)|others=
seems fine.
64.18.9.197 (
talk) 23:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)|script-title=
and the like have error message supplements that specify the the reason for the error message. There are four of these which are embedded in the main module. In the sandbox, I have moved these supplemental messages to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing title part (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing title part (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title ac:script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : invalid language code (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title ac:script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : invalid language code (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : unknown language code (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : unknown language code (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing prefix (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing prefix (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Hello.
Found a dead link (in
Álava, section "Demography and rural landscape"). So:
I am REALLY annoyed: the way this template is geared up at the moment is a sure sign of yous having lost touch with two essential things, just as governments do :
Asking help from your tiny minute group of mateys here is no proper inte-l-ligence at all but the opposite of it. It's also very likely a reason why there are so few registerees who edit
[1]. To develop intelligence yous must ask precisely these people who are no regular editors; and for that you have to get out and look for them, which you clearly do not do. Instead you expect them to find you/s!
I regularly see banners announcing various events which are all supposedly aiming at "making the community strive", every one of those being so totally irrelevant to me that I never ever even look at them. Plus, they reinforce the "select" idea, thus doing the exact opposite to what they're supposed to do. Gatherings : gotta have enough money and time to get there. Photos: gotta have a decent camera. Etc etc etc incl. voting which only ever helps the establishment maintain a facade but does not help us editors for one iota, same as in all politics. What would interest me are appeals for help in such matters as what's described here, saying what the problem is about + link to page that'd give more details and where to say our bit on things that impact every single edit. I definitely would read these, and if the debated matter was smthng that I have come across, yes of course I'd open the page and take the time to say how, where, why, and/or whatever idea's come from it if any. Plus I'd have the pleasure of participating in something directly useful, which is the one thing above all other things that brings people together. I shan't come back on this page nor shall I talk about the subject anywhere else on any wk: I've said all I have to say and detailed all there was to detail from where I stand, both about the technical problem and about the absence of proper inte-l-ligence. Talking more about it would only make me "part of" and there's no way that's gonna happen, not as things are so far. I've said what I want and want no other thing. References
|
Signed : a VERY thoroughly annoyed Pueblo89 ( talk) 14:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Since this is a very long-winded rant with, the basic summary is this
|url-status=dead
(e.g.
"Title".{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)) doesn't give a {{
dead link}} notice, with links to archiving websites like
fr:Modèle:Lien brisé does. This is functionality that's built in
fr:Modèle:Lien web (the French equivalent of {{
cite web}}).And that (understandably) greatly annoys the user above. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
|url-status=dead
as a flag for a dead link when they should use {{
dead link}}
. --
Green
C 16:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)|url-status=dead
(or its predecessor |dead-url=yes
) is present and |archive-url=
is missing or empty. Could be done I suppose, but there are a lot of
archive sites; which of those would we include? which of those would we omit? Would a better solution be a dedicated page with an input box that accepts the 'dead' url and then somehow creates and displays a list of archive-site search urls? I don't know if that is even possible...|url-status=
dependent on |archive-url=
? What is the issue here?
72.89.161.42 (
talk) 18:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)In capturing URLs for saving at Wayback Machine via
EventStreams API (page-link changes), some URLs are not being captured and trying to figure out why. For example |pmc=1248180
. This is hard to test and I don't know how cs1|2 injects/expands URLs but if anyone has any experience or thoughts that would be great. --
Green
C 16:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
|pmc=1248180
the prefix is //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
which gives
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248180. Prefixes are available in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration in the id_handlers{}
table (currently at
line 1903 for |pmc=
).|asin=
has |asin-tld=
(
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers line 726)|ol=
modifies the url according to the value in |ol=
(
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers line 1081)How does one tag a ref as potentially not being reliable, is there a parameter in the template to check? Did a quick search in the archives and saw a bunch of old conversations but guessing someone knows the answer. - Indefensible ( talk) 04:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Newspaper stories sometimes span pages. When I make a clipping on newspapers.com, it's of a single page, and I have to make a separate clipping for the continuation of the story on another page. Is there a way to provide both clipping URLs in cite news? Right now, I'm doing a work-around of putting two cite news templates between one set of ref tags, and am just wondering if there's a cleaner method.
Example: <ref name=dart>{{cite news | newspaper=The Los Angeles Times | date=May 9, 1981 | page=30 | url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484817/way-station/ | access-date=October 4, 2021 | title=Bookstore Offers a Way Station for Minds | last=Dart | first=John}}
{{cite news | newspaper=The Los Angeles Times | date=May 9, 1981 | page=31 | url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484854/way-station2/ | access-date=October 4, 2021 | title=Bookstore Offers a Way Station for Minds (continued) | last=Dart | first=John}}</ref>
Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
|pages=
:
{{cite news |newspaper=The Los Angeles Times |date=May 9, 1981 |pages=30, [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484854/way-station2/ 31] |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484817/way-station/ |access-date=October 4, 2021 |title=Bookstore Offers a Way Station for Minds |last=Dart |first=John}}
{{Cite book |title=A Book |section=A Section |section-url=https://example.org/book/section |url=https://example.org/book}}
{{Cite encyclopedia |work=An Encyclopedia |title=An Article}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)Citing a section or chapter in a book and citing an article in an encyclopedia seem similar, but in the latter case, as far as I see, one can't give a URL for the work as a whole in addition to a URL for the individual article. Is there a way to do so? If not, would it be desirable?
— 2d37 ( talk) 11:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=An Encyclopedia |entry=An Entry |entry-url=https://example.org/encyclopedia/entry |url=https://example.org/encyclopedia}}
|entry=
and |entry-url=
, which don't appear to be very documented (or maybe I am just continuing to miss them). I'll add an example to the {{
cite encyclopedia}} documentation, in case it will help the next editor who wants this. —
2d37 (
talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)|entry=
seems to be an alias for |section=
. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
|article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, and |section=
are all aliases of each other.{{
cite conference}}
was written differently from {{
cite encyclopedia}}
(which is different from other cs1 templates). When we converted all of the individual cs1|2 templates to use
Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to be transparent. {{cite conference}}
is still more-or-less as it was because no one has taken the time to propose a suitable rewrite.{{cite conference}}
link both the paper and the proceedings this works:
{{Cite conference |title=Conference Proceedings |article=A Paper |article-url=https://example.org/encyclopedia/article |url=https://example.org/proceedings}}
Following up from
this VPR discussion, I'd like to propose that we change the
external link icon for CS1 citations in which |format=
is set to a document file type such as .xls
so that it uses the document icon () rather than the external link icon (). This will give a more appropriate signal to readers that clicking on the link will download a file for them, rather than taking them to a website page.
In technical terms, I'm told by SD0001 that we would do this by modifying Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css similar to what it already does with links to Wikisource. Thoughts? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
|format=
which adds some "(format)" text. CS1/CS2 even has some code to auto-detect PDFs based on the file-extension - we could add a few more common file types (per above criteria) to that list.Hello, could "Database Error" be added to the Generic title list? Currently only 11 instances of this around but could point to other errors in the source. Keith D ( talk) 21:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm copying this here as it's a good question:
What should we do? Maybe we need an "update=" parameter? Please ping us. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
is for the date of the source cited. If it has an amendment date and you read the source after that date, it goes in that parameter. There is 0 need for any additional parameters.
Izno (
talk) 19:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
and the earlier date in |orig-date=
, contrary to what you believe it must be used for from 15:41 today. For most news articles those will not be separated by much so I see it as a waste of space in a citation section, but you seem convinced that you must do it the way you want.
Izno (
talk) 19:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, we have these three, tweakable, basic parameters for website and newspaper articles |date=
, |access-date=
, |archive-date=
. Note that |orig-date=
is used for things like books, not for website and newspaper articles.
I am proposing we have an |updated=
parameter for use when an update or correction has been made to a website or newspaper article or document. --
Valjean (
talk) 15:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
|orig-date=
is often used to signify 1st (and/or other prior important) editions, this is not its only purpose. Another common use is to specify the authoring date when it is different from when the work was actually published (can be important to track down the origin of some information for facts checking or for priority claims, or just for historical reasons), or when a work gets republished without changing the |edition=
. |orig-date=
can also be used to specify dates in alternative/deviating date formats as they might be stated in the source but are not accepted by |date=
. The parameter accepts free-flow text, so, if the purposes it is used for isn't obvious from the context, you can (and should) specify the type of date as part of the parameter value.|publication-date=
and the update date into |date=
. These two parameters are not aliases. They are treated the same for as long as only one of them is given, but they behave differently when both are given at the same time. So, given the unfortunate ambiguity of the |date=
parameter name, whenever a publication date is given you can simply use |publication-date=
instead of |date=
. This way, it becomes clear for later editors what kind of date was actually given. I consider it good editing practise to always choose the most specific parameter if multiple are available, while other's prefer shorter parameter names more. Example:{{cite news |title=Trump Defends ‘Delay the Election’ Tweet, Even Though He Can’t Do It |publication-date=2020-07-30 |date=2020-08-20 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/elections/biden-vs-trump.html |access-date=2021-10-13 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211006114545/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/elections/biden-vs-trump.html |archive-date=2021-10-06}}
|update-date=
parameter (unless we would strive for symmetry in parameter names (something I would support) and would make it an alias of |date=
introducing it only for the purpose of eliminating the ambiguity of the |date=
parameter in future citations).|date=
with |publication-date=
is the date on which the work was written, not it's original publication date or its amendment date. If you are going to recommend use of publication-date for whatever reason, please do not suggest another with the wrong meaning.
Izno (
talk) 20:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
|publication-date=
only for the actual publication date, not for any other dates, of course.|date=
, perhaps it is just a question of how you define the date a work was written. Are we talking about the finishing date the bulk of a work was written (possibly long before publication) or when some bits were updated/corrected/amended later on? For the first case, I would use |orig-date=
, for the later case I would use |date=
. If both |publication-date=
and |date=
are present at the same time, |date=
is the date which is used for metadata creation, so it should be the latest date of a published change used in the citation, not a date before publication.|date=
parameter name are exactly the reason why I always propose specific parameter names rather than generic ones (even though they are longer to type: As short as possible without creating ambiguity, but not shorter). There isn't much we can do about existing citations, unfortunately, but we could use more self-documenting parameters in freshly entered citations. (That's also why I use |author-last/first=
rather than |last/first=
when I know they are authors, not editors or other contributors. In this case, they are even actual aliases, but |author-last/first=
is self-documenting, whereas |last/first=
is, at least potentially, ambiguous - some users use them for any kind of names, although they shouldn't.)I'd like to cite a news article from the website of
KABC-TV, published by
American Broadcasting Company, using {{
cite news}}. However, doing the normal |work=
KABC-TV
and |publisher=
American Broadcasting Company
results in KABC-TV being italicized, which does not seem correct. Is there any way to force it not to be italicized ({{
No italic}} recommends against it so as to not pollute
COinS metadata), or is there another way to configure the parameters here? I'm not sure "KABC-TV" is similar enough to "American Broadcasting Company" to justify omitting the latter, and in any case I'm interested in the broader question, as I've encountered this same problem several times. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 17:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
|publisher=KABC-TV
, or |publisher=
KABC-TV
if you think the wikilink provides value (and the
KABC-TV article provides the reader a link to
ABC). If you are sourcing something from KABC-TV's website, you might not have a program for the |work=
parameter. Happy editing!
GoingBatty (
talk) 18:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
<title>
element refers to the individual page, in this case (AFAICT) just their home/landing page. Sdkb didn't give us an actual URL for the specific page, or even the website, so we don't know what particular page is to be pointed at. In any case, the home page's <title>
is unlikely to be the name of the work. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 02:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)|work=
(like KABC-TV) to be capitalized, then the solution isn't to choose a differnt value for work or to try to outsmart {{
cite news}}; the approach to take in that case is to (try to) swing consensus away from italicizing the work (and good luck with that!). The work should be the |work=
, and the publisher, if you need to declare it, should be the |publisher=
value. Let the template do the formatting for you; that's its job.|publisher=
American Broadcasting Company
, as it's incomplete, and I do not think the complete string is so different from KABC-TV as to be necessary. However, I think what I would do in this case is use |work=abc7.com
or, perhaps better, |work=ABC7 Los Angeles
. This last is what they appear to use (after the faux dash) in their <title>
for individual story pages, like
this and
this and
this. So for me: |work=ABC7 Los Angeles
, possibly with |publisher=
ABC, Inc., KABC-TV Los Angeles
. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 02:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't figure out why, and I've tried playing around with different inputs to the cite book template, but on Operation Sandwedge#References you can see two citations listing editors rather than authors; one under "Knight" and one under "United States House Committee for the Judiciary". For the former, the editor credit is not listed in brackets, but the latter it is. I've tried matching the formatting for both, but even using a single "editor" field for "Knight, Peter" instead of first and last names, although this would seem to match exactly how the Committee cite is formatted, still results in two different outputs. Does anyone know what's causing this and how to standardise both uses? I have no preference for either but just would like to figure out how to have both display the same as each other. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
|year=
to the second one makes the display consistent. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
and because
Knight 2003 does. When the citation only has editor names and |date=
(or |year=
) has a value, we don't want stacked parentheses:
{{cite book |title=Impeachment: Selected Materials, November 1998, Part 1 |publisher=[[United States Government Printing Office]] |isbn=978-0-16057-703-1 |editor=United States House Committee on the Judiciary |ref={{sfnref|Impeachment|1998}}}}
{{cite book |title=Impeachment: Selected Materials, November 1998, Part 1 |date=1998 |publisher=[[United States Government Printing Office]] |isbn=978-0-16057-703-1 |editor=United States House Committee on the Judiciary}}
|ref={{sfnref|Impeachment|1998}}
because the long-form citation has a 'name' (United States House Committee for the Judiciary) that should have been used in the short-form citation so you should also change this:
{{sfn|Impeachment|1998|p=57}}
{{sfn|United States House Committee on the Judiciary|1998|p=57}}
A lot of the citations that I see pointing to references on archive.org include urls to the specific pages in the |page=
parameter as in |page=[https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495/page/n255 237]
. It seems like an additional parameter, perhaps named |page-url=
, would be handy to keep track of this information separately. So far, I've been leaving the links like this because they don't appear to be breaking anything yet.
Slambo
(Speak) 15:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
|url=
, not a new parameter. Only 1 URL, the more specific one should be entered in citations, with the page, or the first page in a page range. In any case, I would remove the url from the page param and insert the url param. If the citation includes a page number, it is understood that the link may lead to the pertinent page. If one needs to link multiple pages, short refs would be more apt imo.
50.74.114.218 (
talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
|pages=
parameters), however, they are not as bad as they might look at first sight: Like you already observed, they are not breaking anything (in any of the page-related parameters, that is), because the links are automatically removed before using the page information for metadata.|url=
for a "page link" and for the proposal to have numbered page parameters (in the other thread), this wouldn't work:|pages=
parameter often contains a list of pages or even page ranges, and it is not at all desirable to split them up into individual pages or use short references for them. Splitting up into individual pages is only necessary when it is particularly important to document the exact locations where multiple independent statements are sourced. In the vast majority of cases, this is not important, and combining all references to a single publication and providing a list of pages is sufficient. In most cases, it is easy enough to flip through these pages to find the one supporting a specific statement, so having individual references for each of them would only add redundancy and clutter to the article. Short references add an extra layer of indirection and don't allow for backlinks, therefore they are often inconvenient to use - they kind of solve one problem by adding a bunch of other problems. Per
WP:CITEVAR, they are not a requirement at all to use and many people do not (want) to use them because of their shortcomings. So, suggesting anything that would force us to split up citations is simply no solution at all.|page=[https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495/page/n255 237]
(but I've come to accept them given that they add useful information for readers and that citations would only become longer when using special parameters for this). However, in many cases the first part of these links is the same as the link provided in the |url=
parameter, like in |url=
https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495
. For these cases, I can envision some kind of shortcut notation like |page=[*/page/n255 237]
|url=
https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495
. This obviously would not work for all cases, but it would reduce the clutter and redundancy in many cases already.Short references add an extra layer of indirection and don't allow for backlinks,; however, I see back references to, e.g., 3270Intro, in IBM 3270#References. Admittedly it's a bit clunky, but it works. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
and |quote-pages=
can be helpful as well. If the individual page numbers should be preserved, {{
rp}} can be used for the individual pages and |pages=
for the combined pages. This way, the additional layer of indirection can be avoided and automatic backlinks are possible.<ref name=foo />
{{
rp|bar}}
works well when you are only adding a page number to the base citation, but what is the equivalent to {{
sfn|foo|p=bar|loc=baz}}
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 21:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
<ref name="foo" />
{{
rp|bar, baz}}
. Alternatively, you could probably use something like {{
rp|at=p. bar, baz}}
or {{
rp|at=baz}}
. Even page links can be used in combination with {{
rp}}
|1=
{{
sfn}}
etc. if you want. My point above was mostly that multiple pages are perfectly fine in a citation (even when used to support multiple independent statements in an article) and that there is no requirement and often no benefit splitting citations into individual short references - it comes with a price, and the disadvantages are often larger than the advantages - as usual, it depends on the circumstances. I made this point to illustrate why we need to support multiple pages and why proposals which would allow us to deal only with single (or related) pages in a citation do not lead anywhere.{{
rp|bar|at=baz}}
, {{
rp|bar, baz}}
and {{
rp|at=p. bar, baz}}
gives me : bar, baz , : bar, baz and : p. bar, baz . The second and third have the right information, but the location is likely to be long and should be in the reference list rather than inline. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 19:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)All these months later, and the issue with book volumes is still not being addressed. I understand why we don't want an explicit "volume" with a journal/magazine. I do not understand the issue with books. If Birds of North America has 13 volumes, displaying "Birds of North America. 2." does not, to most humans, clearly indicate that the 2 refers to volume 2 – particularly given that the average reader probably has no idea that there are 13 volumes in the set. Why can template not behave differently depending on whether the item is a book or a journal?! I know it's possible to do so, so somebody must have some rationale for why we don't. Please explain! MeegsC ( talk) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
|volume=
, |number=
/|issue=
(only used with journals) and |pages=
:Journal | Not journal | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|
Current | 3 (4): 12–56. | 3, pp. 12–56. | Long volume names are not bolded, but |volume=vol. 3 is considered an error.
|
Proposal 1 | 3 (4): 12–56. | vol. 3, pp. 12–56. | |
Proposal 2 | vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 12–56. | Non-journals would not have a number or issue. |
{{
cite journal}}
, or{{
citation}}
/{{
cite map}}
/{{
cite interview}}
with |journal=
specified.{{
cite magazine}}
?journal | magazine | others | |
---|---|---|---|
Current | 3 (4): 12–56. | Vol. 3 no. 4. pp. 12–56. | 3, pp. 12–56. |
Proposal 1 | 3 (4): 12–56. | vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 12–56. | |
Proposal 2 | vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 12–56. |
|periodical-style=
or |serial-style=
(or whatever) parameter to select the desired format if this is not the default already. (At a later stage, this could be supported by templates similar to the |cs1-dates=
parameter of templates {{
use dmy dates}}/{{
use mdy dates}} to globally switch the display format for all citations in an article instead of having to use it in individual citations. I had some experimental code for this a year ago, but it would have to be adjusted to the current significantly changed code base.){{
cite journal}}
renders the academic-journal-style. If you don't like that, use {{
cite magazine}}
or {{
cite periodical}}
. No need for special parameters.if enough editors make noise about it, someone will do the necessary (thankless) labor that will give them what they want.If you want the change, recruit enough editors who also want the change, or, failing that, do it yourself.
we have readers switching between these templates based on the nature of the periodical- I do that frequently ( example), because I often find that some people are inappropriately using
{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
and {{
cite web}}
for magazines - for me, it's not a case of choos[ing] the template based on the display formatbut of choosing the most appropriate template for the source. Each of these four has documentation that gives such advice:
{{
cite journal}}
- academic and scientific papers published in bona fide journals{{
cite magazine}}
- articles in magazines and newsletters{{
cite news}}
- news articles in print, video, audio or web{{
cite web}}
- web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template{{
cite magazine}}
do so partly because they don't read the documentation, but mainly because it's not offered by the cite tool that they use (see post by Nigel Ish at 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC) and the reply by Trappist. So long as that remains the case, there will always be the need to amend the citation. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
|journal=
or |magazine=
based on the nature of the periodical. Typically, we would use |journal=
in {{
cite journal}} and |magazine=
in {{
cite magazine}}, but following Trappist's comment to choose the template depending on the desired output format above, we would need to acknowledge that some people might have deliberately chosen to use {{
cite journal}} for |magazine=
or {{
cite magazine}} for |journal=
, and that, if this makes sense in a particular article rendering as a whole, we should leave this alone.{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
all become redirects to the canonical template {{
cite periodical}}
. {{cite periodical}}
then renders volume/issue/page in the style dictated by the |work=
parameter alias that is used in the template. That would likely be a significant challenge, mostly elsewhere than in
Module:Citation/CS1. Some one or some series of bots would need to convert existing templates; tools like
WP:RefToolbar would need updating, etc. I rather like this idea but I foresee torches and pitch forks because en.wiki editors hate, hate, hate change... I generally favor some form of Proposal 1. Let {{
cite journal}} use the shorter format. In {{
cite magazine}}, get the page number next to the volume and issue number. (Currently if a publisher is specified, it splits the volume/issue from the page number.) In {{
cite map}}, et al., tie the output to whether |journal=
or |magazine=
is used.
For books though, I'd leave volume number next to title as a function of the title and retain the page number at the end, but otherwise add the "vol." text to the volume number for consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 22:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Proposal 2 is the only scheme that makes sense for a project like Wikipedia. It is easily understandable by readers. The comma separator will have to be explained to editors since it violates style. This is because of the current rigid implementation of separators into "style 1" and "style 2", that carries no functional utility. 64.18.9.208 ( talk) 23:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
|periodical-style=
above which introduces yet more complication. Image the problem of creating a citation via automated means and trying to determine the right style to use for a particular article; then we need to have something like {{
use dmy}}
cluttering the top of every article. No, don't go that route. Proposal 1 maintains what already exists for {{cite journal}}
which is by far the largest of all and will have the least friction while fixing the problem with the other smaller templates. --
Green
C 14:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
|accessdate=
vs. |access-date=
and you know how that went, the battle lines now so hardened it is a dead issue, it will never get fixed. Once wide-scale attention is made to the issue, you loose control. Stay as close as possible to status quo and fix the small things that really need fixing, it will be successful. Come back later and deal with cite journal as a separate issue because chances are it will be no-consensus. --
Green
C 20:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be universally agreed that bold volume numbers for non-journals are unacceptable, but opinion is divided on whether to retain them for journals, i.e. there is no consensus for change there. So I've changed the sandbox to extend the magazine formatting to all non-journals.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000). Book. Vol. 3. pp. 12–34. {{
cite book}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000). Book. Vol. 3. pp. 12–34. {{
cite book}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Journal. 3 (5): 12–34. {{
cite journal}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Journal. 3 (5): 12–34. {{
cite journal}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000), Book, vol. 3, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000), Book, vol. 3, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Journal, 3 (5): 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Journal, 3 (5): 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Kanguole 19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Magazine, vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Magazine, vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Magazine. Vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7. pp. 12–34. {{
cite magazine}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Magazine. Vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7. pp. 12–34. {{
cite magazine}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
|volume=
and |number=
parameters to contain lists).{{
cite magazine}}
is unchanged, and now extended to other non-journals. However, the combination of |volume=
and |number=
should only occur with magazines and journals, so their formatting is independent of this change.
Kanguole 15:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)|volume=
or |number=
in the wild – it's usually 3/4 or 3–4. If an article is published in several parts with different page ranges in different issues/volumes, they would have to be separate cites.
Kanguole 15:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
|volume=
and |number=
. I used it here as an example to show more clearly, that there is something missing between the volume and the number. I basically "hijacked" this thread for the possible discussion of adding a comma (or dot), because this would be another minor change likely accepted (if even noticed) by the masses, and because this thread already has a nice list of rendered citation templates for quick comparison of the output.Should there be some text added about the general lack of need for the use of editors for newspapers and such. In many cases, the editors probably had nothing to with the article. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
|department=editorial
.
65.88.88.91 (
talk) 16:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
|editor=<!-- staff writer, no byline -->
(although I personally don't like this very much (for its bad machine-readability) and instead propose to standardize the case by introducing a special keyword like |editor=staff
for it, which could be (actively) ignored by the template for now, but could also be evaluated if we would happen to run into a use case for this in the future - without |editor=
(the template can't see the HTML comment), we never know if no editor was specified in the publication or if the author providing the citation was just too lazy to add it.) --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)|department=
parameter) and you want to cite both an individual title and author within that section or issue, and the editors of the whole section or issue. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
|others=Editor (column ed.)
which is a bit clunky. Btw, it would perhaps be more accurate to use the |contributor=
set here, but it is not available for journals.
71.247.146.98 (
talk) 11:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)I generally use the {{ sfn}} citation style, with the sources in an alphabetical list at the end of the article. This lets me cite different pages in each source at different places in the article. In the {{ sfn}} I give the page or pages being cited, e.g.
In the source definition, I would like to give the total number of pages, and in the case of a journal article, the page range, e.g.
This would display something like
Any problem with introducing this? It must have been discussed before. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
(xi+425 pages)
), just like you do, but I would prefer to have a dedicated |total-pages=
parameter for this, because this would ensure a consistent format instead of each editor having to invent his own nomenclature. It would be machine-readable, thereby we would also help to correct the many incorrect total-page info entries in the wild. There even is a
COinS entry for this (&rft.tpages
), also indicating that this is sometimes useful info to have.
Wikidata has
d:Property:P1104 for this and {{
cite Q}} is already prepared to support this once CS1/CS2 would add support for it. Some citation templates in other language-entities of Wikipedia have a parameter for this as well.|Umfang=
for this.|total-pages=
. Editors frequently misinterpret |pages=
as "total pages". It's such a big problem trying to link online books only to end up displaying the empty last page. The |total-pages=
will help reduce (not eliminate) the misuse of |pages=
and increase accuracy of the citation. This is evidence-based, the reality of what users do in practice. There is behavioral demand for |total-pages=
, if we don't provide it, they will do it anyway, and in such a way that it can only be fixed manually. --
Green
C 15:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
|total-pages=
parameter to CS1/CS2 templates now. When specified, the info is displayed in parentheses following the other page info. As the use of this feature is entirely optional, users, who don't need it, can simply continue to not use it as before, but users, who always wanted to have this facility, can now finally use it through documented means. This will make this encyclopeia more convenient to edit, more consistent in its appearance, more machine-readable, and eventually more reliable to use. Since the total number of pages are automatically also reported as part of the COinS metadata we generate, external parties can take advantage of it as well. In the mid- to long run, this will help to fix an uncountable number of incorrectly stated total numbers of pages in external databases (Google Books and Amazon Marketplace come to my mind immediately). So everyone wins.{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |total-pages=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |total-pages=
ignored (
help)Over the years an uncountable number of people have asked for this feature; really? Uncountable? I'd be very surprised if
Google Books and Amazon Marketplaceuse our metadata when composing their pages about some book. Seems to me that you are struggling to find an argument that will convince those who oppose inclusion of
|total-page=
to switch their position.format_pages_sheets()
. I have done that, added error detection, and other cleanup.{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=1 |no-pp=yes}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=2 |no-pp=yes}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=a}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=[//example.com 1]}}
|total-pages=
. This must be reverted. The rationale behind your argument is flawed and the opinions expressed debatable. This is a disruptive edit in the middle of a discussion.
64.18.9.196 (
talk) 02:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|pages=23–24, 27, 29, 30–35, 37, 39, 41–43, 60
(real example from a magazine article) it is easier for the reader to get it from something like |total-pages=18
.I'm not here to build a machine-readable work but a human-readable oneThat's fine. You do not need to be here to build a machine-readable work, and nobody is hindering you to continue to focus on humans only, if you want to. However, others are here to make our contents available to anyone, and for me, this also includes machines (although not primarily). Wikipedia is part of the emerging semantic web. And that's not for the purpose of itself, but for the convenience of the readers as well as the users of the information elsewhere. There are lots of services by third-parties which are basically fed by data from Wikipedia. We don't target them primarily, but anything that serves them (and does not go into our own ways of doing things) will indirectly help us as well as consumers of these services and as researchers and writers of other articles. Total number of pages alone don't matter, but COinS as a whole does, and the more complete and accurate the info, the better.
<ref></ref>
tags or is in a sources section where an article uses {{
sfn}} or any other referencing system is not to use total number of pages, nor is it a way to get round this by not citing a work but listing it as further reading.without it having to become more visual bloat for human readers.I wonder where you see the visual bloating. I mean, it is not that this info wasn't present in articles so far and would now suddenly start to appear. Editors have always been adding total page info to (some) citations and (some more) bibliographic entries where they found it appropriate, and that is perfectly okay per CITEVAR. I consider it more visually displeasing (and also inconvenient) having to append the info at the end of a citation template and seeing this information formatted variously because each editor chooses his/her own styling then to have it included where some style guides recommend to put it, that is, alongside the other page info, and before the identifiers. However, the exact place is certainly debatable, the point is that if the info is included it should be formatted consistently.
Smart people try to learn from other people's experiences and habits- yes they do, but sometimes the answer is to question back "what benefit do you think this adds to Wikipedia?" and that's what I'm doing. I've not seen any argument that either convinces me that it is necessary or beneficial (just because we could doesn't mean we have to or should do) nor convinces me that it won't be misused. I can see a very limited use case but I still think that it is of negligible benefit to (the quality of) Wikipedia but one I am prepared to compromise on if those pushing for it to be included recognise that others have concerns about it's use and that these need to be discussed - not on an article by article case - but more generally about where total pages is appropriate or not. Nthep ( talk) 17:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
parameters for the count of pages (Green reported this as a common problem, I have seen it as well many times, and even two participants of this thread (one supporter and one opposer) admitted that they abused the |page=
parameter for this - this will create incorrect metadata (COinS rft.pages
), so the error is carried on. Switching to |total-pages=
would not only eliminate the distribution of incorrect metadata, but even start to add the correct metadata (rft.tpages
). Secondly, it will also help to find other incorrect usages of the |page=
/ |pages=
parameters, which are quite common, where, for articles spanning over multiple pages, only the start page is given and people assume the publication to be a one-pager, or only the lowest and highest page, rather than the actual range, which might be non-continuous. All this will improve the reliability of our information and not only help third-parties, but directly help our readership, i.e. as it will reduce the number of incorrect library orders based on our pagination data.The biggest problem Wikipedia has is its unreliability. Obviously, it will never become reliable, as its contributors are anonymous and of uncertain expertise. But it can become less unreliable, by a focus on publishing articles that are based on fact, or on articles that explicitly present currently accepted opinion as such, with space also given to major counter-opinions. In order to do that articles must be verified. A first step towards that is to base wikitext on easily verifiable (by humans) citations, and then verify these citations as appropriate to the article. In the sprawl of current Wikipedia, not even the first step of the first step is anywhere close to conclusion. Instead, add-ons such as Wikidata take precious development resources. What this does, is proliferate unreliability. Because the base data is unreliable. Treating citations as bibliograhic entries unfocusses development from the essentials and adds complexity. This thread and others are proof. Citation templates are there for citations easily readable and verifiable by humans and not software, a necessary and urgent requirement. They are not there for whatever one thinks they can cram into them. The total pages info does not belong in a citation. This is a massive waste of time. 65.88.88.46 ( talk) 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|no-pp=yes
and |pages=nnn pp.
.One possibility would be to repurpose the deprecated {{
source}} template for use in bibliographies. It could wrap {{
citation}}, then add a few descriptive elements to the end: |total_pages= |page_range= |folio= |binding= etc. It would refer to {{
citation}} for description of all the other parameters. It would give a sort of escape valve for those who prefer more complete bibliographical information without adding complexity to the citation templates. Just possibly, some obscure parameters from those templates could be migrated to the new {{
source}}.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 18:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I raised this in a Phabricator task however it was basically closed as "functions as designed" and I was pointed here. Would be interested in hearing any comment.
Within a CS1 {{
cite journal}}
template if a {{
sic}}
template (with 'nolink' option used) is attempted within the text within the |journal=
parameter then an error is produced indicating that Italic or bold markup not allowed.....
If a {{
not a typo}}
template is used instead then this is accepted and does not produce the error.
An example can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Multiway_number_partitioning&diff=prev&oldid=1048226979
What happens?:
Note the reference to 'markup not allowed'.
Walsh, Toby (2009-07-11). "Where are the really hard manipulation problems? the phase transition in manipulating the veto rule". Proceedings of the 21st International Jont [sic] Conference on Artifical [sic] Intelligence. IJCAI'09. Pasadena, California, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.: 324–329. Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
What should have happened instead?:
I would have expected that the following would be valid syntax.
<ref name="Walsh 324–329">{{cite journal|last=Walsh|first=Toby|date=2009-07-11|title=Where are the really hard manipulation problems? the phase transition in manipulating the veto rule|url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/1661445.1661497|journal=Proceedings of the 21st International {{sic|Jo|nt|nolink=y}} Conference on {{sic|Arti|fical|nolink=y}} Intelligence |series=IJCAI'09|location=Pasadena, California, USA|publisher=Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.|pages=324–329}}</ref>
I can't say that I have tested other citation styles however there are others such as {{
cite web}}
where the sic template seems to work fine. If this is regarded as FAD and no intention to fix then the documentation requires updating. Happy to do that. -
Neils51 (
talk) 03:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
|journal=
but not in other {{cite xxx}} templates. But there are several issues with the module code, so it is not surprising. The bottom line is, this should be fixed. Citation-wise this is not frivolous. All such templates should be compatible.
71.247.146.98 (
talk) 11:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)|journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |website=
, |work=
). {{
sic}} does that, {{
not a typo}} doesn't. The obvious fix would be to correct the two typos in the name of the periodical. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 13:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
to cite conference proceedings? We have {{
cite conference}}
for that.{{
sic}}
template documentation is a message box that has this image:
. That message box is there because {{sic}}
produces output that is not suitable for inclusion in cs1|2 citation metadata. Instead, avoid the issue entirely: perhaps use {{
text}}
or {{
not a typo}}
to mark the spelling errors and prevent auto-spelling correctors from fixing the misspellings and to produce correct metadata:
|book-title=Proceedings of the 21st International {{text|[Jo|nt]}} Conference on {{text|[Arti|fical]}} Intelligence
{{sic}}
italicize its output? The brackets aren't sufficient to set it apart from the rest of the text? As a loanword, per
MOS:FOREIGN, sic should not be italicized (italicized here because
MOS:WORDSASWORDS) – I find it in my 1974 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary which satisfies the rule-of-thumb for loanwords.Walsh, Toby (11 July 2009). Where Are the Really Hard Manipulation Problems? The Phase Transition in Manipulating the Veto Rule (PDF). Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pasadena, California: IJCAI Organization. pp. 324–329.— sbb ( talk) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
|conference=
is not necessary. So:
{{cite conference |last=Walsh |first=Toby |date=2009-07-11 |article=Where Are the Really Hard Manipulation Problems? The Phase Transition in Manipulating the Veto Rule |pages=324–329 |article-url=https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/09/Papers/062.pdf |title=Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence |publisher=[[International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence |IJCAI Organization]] |location=Pasadena, California |url=https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2009 |df=dmy}}
|article=
here because there isn't a |paper=
parameter (probably should be ...).{{sic}}
outputs HTML character entities. That is not allowed in COinS-generating fields. —
sbb (
talk) 15:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
%26%2332%3B%26%2391%3Bsic%26%2393%3B
 [sic]
[sic]
%20%5Bsic%5D
<span>
setting an invisible flag. CS1/CS2 would just strip off the span, when present, and take advantage of the hidden information provided by subordinate helper templates like {{
sic}} to improve its own behaviour.|title=
field there is a higher possibility that it might occur as text, although still rarely. So, if we'd implement this "HTML entity decoding before percent-encoding", the HTML decoding should probably depend on the actual parameter the HTML entity was found in or be disabled when ((accept-this-as-it-is)) syntax is used as well. If we would want to improve the compatibility with specific templates (like {{
sic}}) only it would also be possible to try and change them to not issue HTML entities in the first place. This might not be possible for all such templates, but in the specific case of {{
sic}} it seems as if it could just issue [sic]
instead of  [sic]
. This would not be an improvement for the general case, though.
which CS1/CS2 converts into a normal space internally, so it doesn't show up as a HTML entity in the metadata). Since CS1/CS2 also strips off italics (''
) and boldface ('''
), {{
sic}} could now be considered COinS-safe.<span class="MeTaDaTa:safe-italics::"> normal_output_of_template_sic </span>
::
" in the other examples
above is empty. In other cases, we may need to support a number of other tokens (TBD), so the "MeTaDaTa" string could accept a list of optional tokens in addition to the actual metadata. The general syntax could be something like: <span class="MeTaDaTa[:token1][:token2]...::[metadata]"> normal_output_of_template </span>
class="wikitable sortable"
is two classes, not one). Some other characters shouldn't be used in class names because they may have special meaning elsewhere - for example, if you want to use a class name in the selector of a CSS rule, that class name shouldn't use characters that have special meaning in selectors, and percent is
not among those. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
id=
and name=
attributes, not the class=
attribute, for which only the CDATA bullet is relevant. See
section 7.5.2. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
{{cite xxx}}
or {{citation}}
templates, and manually format citation data. Those templates are not required to be used. —
sbb (
talk) 20:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is how it works at all. Citation modules & templates are there to support citations in order to apply Wikipedia policy. They don't exist to support COinS or any other scheme. Artificially limiting editors of citations because some foreign code has problems is contrary to both spirit and letter of policy. The citation system has enough issues of itself. It certainly does not need the additional problems brought on by external code. 68.173.76.118 ( talk) 00:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
<span>
tag. CS1/2 templates generate COinS metadata based on the content of certain fields. That's it. There's no external code. Wikipedia is probably the largest generator of COinS metadata for citations on the web. External sites and projects are COinS consumers of WP's data. Wikipedia has chosen to take on the responsibility of producing machine-readable citation data, and it only makes sense to support it when CS1/2 citation data is already declared as sets of key-value pairs. —
sbb (
talk) 02:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
title: Title of source. .... What you say also appears to contradict the Example case in the docs.
|article=
isn't listed in the "Full parameter set in vertical format" list in Usage just before Examples. Also, would |book-title=
be the title of the published proceedings? book-title: The title of the published version of the conference proceedings, written in full. May be wikilinked. Formatted in italics. (Not to be confused with conference, below.)
|title=
in any {{cite xxx}}
template is the title of the work I'm referring to, and I don't care if the title is italicized, quoted, etc. (because the choice of cite template does that for me). So from a principle of least surprise, I would expect to use |title=
for this citation (unless, of course, my assumption that use case 1. is not the most commonly-used one).|title=
be quoted, not italicized, if |book-title=
(or perhaps better named, |proceedings-title=
) is also defined. Otherwise, if only one is given, italicize |title=
. Is that reasonable? —
sbb (
talk) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
. Maybe someday we will. In the normal case I wouldn't have rewritten your citation as I did except that you included a link to the proceedings and |book-title=
doesn't have a matching url parameter.{{
cite encyclopedia}}
I tend to avoid |title=
and use |entry=
and |encyclopedia=
. I can imagine something similar for {{cite conference}}
(which perhaps should be {{
cite proceedings}}
) so |prceedings=
and |paper=
. |conference=
should go away.|book-title=
where |booktitle=
went??! I remembered that booktitle used to work and at some point stopped working, but didn't remember why. This constant churn in parameter names needs to stop. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A workaround suggested by Trappist the Monk was
I consider this incorrect. "[Jont]" means that the source wrote something a little different, and the Wikipedia editor saw fit to change it. Such changes are often made when it's necessary to change the capitalization or number of a word at the beginning of a quote.
In this case, "Jont" is what was actually written in the source. If it's necessary to draw attention to the misspelling it should be written "Jont [sic]". If the sic template is misdesigned, why not just write "[sic]". Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your input. A good read. And thanks to
Trappist the monk for the red warning reminder. I think that I had forgotten about that as {{
sic}}
usage in {{
cite web}}
works so well. Interesting points about it being ACMs error as I was sure I had found a PDF from the conference publishers where all the page footers contained the 'jont' error however can no longer locate. The original paper exists elsewhere and is fine.
Jonesey95's request to ACM has had immediate results, they have fixed their typos, so the article link item will need a further edit. When I have made requests to Google to fix, say, book titles, I have often received a quick response from a real person acknowledging the request however there is usually a six month wait before actual correction. I think the point made about the level of reference and error needs further discussion. I have often taken the stance that if the original material is correct then it doesn't deserve to be 'besmirched' by a subsequent incorrect reference by a third-party. Perhaps that stance, 'silently fixing' such errors is incorrect. The point made about the ability to search for a catalogued misspelled reference would seem valid. Quite often the refs in error tend to be newspaper based which may reflect the extensive use of OCR.
Neils51 (
talk) 11:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Matthiaspaul - pls revert your edit @ this template. The nowiki tag you added is messing things up. I have commented at that talk page too. 65.88.88.69 ( talk) 19:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{sic|wrong spelling|expected=correct spelling|nolink=y}}
abc {{Template:Sic/sandbox|wrong spelling|expected=correct spelling|nolink=y}} xyz
If a |publisher=
is included in {{
cite journal}} (as unusual as that may be), it is inserted between the journal name and the volume and issue numbers:
{{cite journal |last1=Uthor |first1=A. |title=Reconsidering gizmos |journal=International Rehashing |volume=45 |issue=123 |publisher=Springervier <!--maybe to distinguish it from the more famous "International Rehashing" journal published by Elsespringer?-->}}
Is this a bug? With the bolded volume number I suppose it's not so confusing, but it seems more confusing if there's no volume number:
{{cite journal |last1=Uthor |first1=A. |title=Reconsidering gizmos |journal=International Rehashing |volume=<!--this journal doesn't use volume numbers--> |issue=123 |publisher=Springervier}}
In that case, there seems to be little cue that the (123) is an issue number. I would expect this placement...
...but perhaps there's some known problem with that of which I wouldn't know.
— 2d37 ( talk) 09:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
, the
wikitext version of {{
cite journal}}
rendered your example citations as:
{{citation/core}}
until the conversion to lua. At the time of the lua conversion, the new lua version of the template was intended to be indistinguishable from the wikitext template and, for your examples, still is:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Old | Uthor, A.. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing (Springervier) 45 (123). |
Live | Uthor, A. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing. 45 (123). Springervier. |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Old | Uthor, A.. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing (Springervier) (123). |
Live | Uthor, A. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing (123). Springervier. |
|publisher=
in the {{citation/core}}
version? Don't know. I suspect that the subject did not come up or if it did, was deemed acceptable because |publisher=
use in {{cite journal}}
is comparatively rare.|edition=
. This is a guess. Normally the edition info would follow the title, and then the edition's publisher would follow. It is not unusual for works to have editions by different publishers. Then the particulars of the edition (volume etc.).
66.108.237.246 (
talk) 11:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
Propose adding illustrator
to {{cite book}}
and others:
|illustrator-last1=
|illustrator-first1=
|illustrator-link1=
I have noticed several times recently that Zotero (in Firefox) is not detecting the COinS metadata emitted by our citation templates; for example on List of London medical students who assisted at Belsen.
I see the same problem when I am not logged in, so I don't think it has anything to do with my gadgets or user scripts.
Are there any known issues with our COinS?
One possible cause (related to JavaScript, so possibly not relevant), is described on " Connector intermittently does not recognize COinS", on the Zotero forums. It also suggests a fix, but not one we can apply in templates.
Can anyone suggest another cause, or fix? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
recently? The last cs1|2 module-suite update was 10 April 2021. Are you the only editor who is experiencing this problem with our citations? Do you have a problem getting the metadata from
{{
cite patent}}
citations? That template does not use the cs1|2 module suite to emit metadata.</cite>
:
<cite>...</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004..." class="Z3988"></span>
The
Accept-this-as-written markup section says Markup can be applied to the entry as a whole or to individual list entries
, but that doesn't seem to work for numbers with commas, e.g. {{cite book|title=Title|pages=999, ((1,001))}}
returns Title. pp. 999, 1,001.
. This could be solved by adding the following to the top of hyphen_to_dash()
:
str = str:gsub("(%(%(.-%)%))", function(m) return m:gsub(",", ","):gsub(";", ";") end)
After that line replaces commas and semicolons with their full-width equivalents, do the split, and then return
str:gsub(",", ","):gsub(";", ";")
at the end of the function. I've mocked it up in the sandbox
here. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 17:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite book|title=Title|pages=((999, 1,001))}}
returns Title. pp. 999, 1,001.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 17:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite book/sandbox|title=Title|pages=999, ((1,001))}}
, does return Title. pp. 999, 1,001.
--
Ahecht (
TALKHi,
How can I add ajp (South Levantine) and apc (North Levantine) to the list of supported ISO 639-2 three-character codes?
Other Arabic varieties are already supported: aeb (Tunisian), arq (Algerian), ars (Najdi), ary (Moroccan), arz (Egyptian), shu (Chadian); so I think Levantine varieties (South and North) should be as well as they are among the most spoken and most widely understood in the Arab world. A455bcd9 ( talk) 08:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
ajp
and apc
:
{{#language:ajp|en}}
→ ajp{{#language:apc|en}}
→ Levantine Arabic{{#language:aeb|en}}
→ Tunisian Arabic|language=South Levantine Arabic
|language=North Levantine Arabic
{{Cite book |title=Gospel of St. Mark in South Levantine Spoken Arabic |last1=Bishop |first1=E. F. F. |last2=George |first2=Surayya |date=1940 |location=Cairo |language=ajp |oclc=77662380}}
{{Cite book |title=Gospel of St. Mark in South Levantine Spoken Arabic |last1=Bishop |first1=E. F. F. |last2=George |first2=Surayya |date=1940 |location=Cairo |language=South Levantine Arabic |oclc=77662380}}
ajp
and apc
by filing a ticket at
Phabricator.Another conversation reminded me that there have been changes to MediaWiki's language-name support.
It used to be that MediaWiki assigned 'Crimean Turkish' to language tag crh
but now:
{{#language:crh|en}}
→ Crimean Tatarcs1|2 got round that by overriding the tag crh
to 'Crimean Tatar'; that override is no longer necessary.
I have tweaked the language handling code some to better handle IETF-like language tags that are supported by MediaWiki. Doing that allows the removal of nrf-GG
(Guernésiais) and nrf-JE
(Jèrriais) from the override table.
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=crh}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Crimean Tatar}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=nrf-gg}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Guernésiais}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=nrf-je}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Jèrriais}}
Overrides not broken:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=ksh-x-colog}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Colognian}}
and non-overrides not broken:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=es}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Spanish}}
and unrecognized language tags and names not broken:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=xax}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=abcdefgh}}
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Does Template:Cite book not have some parameters to add the original language and title of a work? Veverve ( talk) 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
citing a translation of the work into English, which has an English language titlecase. So, in which parameter can I add the original language and the original, before translation title? Veverve ( talk) 18:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
|language=
parameter.|translator-last=
/|translator-first=
. If the original language is important to know as well, you could add a comment following the citation, that is, between the closing }} of the template and the closing </ref>
. I typically format them like "(NB. This is a translation of the original work titled "xyz" in French.)". In some cases, it might be even useful to mention the original foreign-language edition in either another citation like <ref name="TranslatedWork">...</ref>
<ref name="OriginalWork">...</ref>
, or bundled into the same <ref>...</ref>
entry like <ref>Work translated into English; Work in original language.</ref>
|orig-year=
could be used, e.g |orig-year=originally published [year] in [language] as [foreign title]
. Optionally following the foreign title I often add the (foreign) location: publisher after a dot separator. I believe the foreign original may be easier to find with the addition of location and publisher, but I have no real proof-of-concept.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 01:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
|orig-year=
which can help point to a work's 1st edition. This is a detail, and another long discussion, but the gist of it is, the 1st edition is in most cases considered the definitive edition (outside of editions that contain author-made revisions/corrections). There may be subtle differences between editions depending on the publisher/work editor. Comparing such differences is important in the hopefully very rare cases where a wikitext contributor may claim a fact based on the edition difference. Or goes edition-shopping to help establish a claim as fact. It is good to give the reader a hint in finding the original, but since the usefulness is very narrow, I cannot see adding a whole new citation for it.
65.88.88.57 (
talk) 11:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)The documentation for Cite report omits mention of option to suppress the display of not-helpful-IMO "(report)" in the reference created. Include "|type=none" to suppress that. I use this for National Register of Historic Places document refs. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please forgive me if this idea has has already been "considered" and rejected ... or something like that.
My suggestion was already entered in a place (" Wikipedia:Teahouse") that was perhaps ill-advised (and any link to the "new" section is liable to itself become a " dead link", once that new section gets "archived"). (right?)
However, a "DIFF" URL which serves as a link to an "edit" ... remains valid for a longer time ... as long as the old ["non-latest"] versions of the page (in this case, a 'Teahouse' page) that got edited, are still extant. Here is an example of such a "DIFF" URL:
... and, even if ^H^H when that ['Teahouse' page] section does get "archived", there is probably some text inside the entries of that section, which is unique enough to be searched for, such that ... one could find the 'lost' ("archived") section, even after it has been "moved" to a different URL.
...In fact, I could even update the URL shown below! ... if I don't forget. In the mean time (at least until that that new section gets "archived"), my "suggestion" can be seen here:
So ... there is no necessity for the suggestion to be "repeated" here. (right?)
-- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 06:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
|url-access=
parameter takes four possible values: "[free
]", "subscription
", "registration
", "limited
". The parameter |url-status=
takes: "dead
", "live
", "unfit
", "usurped
" (and soon also "
deviated
"). As far as I was able to understand you, you were trying to add |url-access=paywall
to a citation at
Political family pointing to
[1], but that was rejected by the citation template with an error message, so you switched to |url-status=unfit
instead, adding a HTML comment:
|url-status=
is the wrong parameter to be used (or even |url-status=live
would be valid) and you should have instead added either |url-access=registration
or |url-access=subscription
depending on the type of "paywall" you see.|archive-url=
[2]), I can see what appears to be the whole article (free and without any kind of registration), so |url-access=
would be inappropriate. Or is there a longer version of the article available after subscription? If so, then a combination of |url-access=subscription
and |url-status=limited
would be the way to go.Maybe my memory is failing me, but has CS1 always output dates like this:
McClure, Tess (16 September 2021). "Aukus submarines banned from New Zealand as pact exposes divide with western allies". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 September 2021.( source)
I never remembered the dates being in parenthese like that. Is that new? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to describe many journals, especially non-English, which don't identify "volume", but are usually marked as issue/year and/or issue from beginning. "Issue" field displays at the end and des not accept any other text. Pibwl ←« 12:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
|volume=
. It is not required. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 13:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Some of the placeholder titles for websites that have content behind a paywall/subscription have their subscription advertisement (e.g. "Subscribe to read | Financial Times") as the placeholder title. Tanaya001 ( talk) 13:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
{{Cite web|url=https://www.ft.com/content/0029e6e2-7344-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca|title=Subscribe to read | Financial Times|website=www.ft.com}}
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)Because of a conversation at
Template talk:Sfn § Add automatic endash for page number range?, I have moved hyphen_to_dash()
from
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities/sandbox. The move allows
Module:Footnotes/sandbox to have access to all of the necessary functionality without unnecessary code duplication.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
r}}
, {{
rp}}
, and {{
ran}}
to use the output from hyphen_to_dash()
as-it-is, to modify that output as necessary to suit their needs, or do what needs doing on their own. The cs1|2 module suite is not all things to all templates. I am going to revert.function p.hyphen2dash (frame)
local utilities = require ('Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities/sandbox'); -- import functions from cs1|2
local str, accept = utilities.has_accept_as_written (frame.args1]); -- strip accept-as-written markup if present
local spacing = frame.args2];
if str and not accept then -- string not wrapped in accept-as-written markup
str = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (str); -- convert hyphens to dashes
if spacing then -- when set
str = str:gsub (', ', ',' .. spacing):gsub ('; ', ';' .. spacing); -- override default spacing
end
end
return str; -- and done
end
Is there no way to add a WP hyperlink for a second editor at Template:Cite book? Veverve ( talk) 05:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
|editor2-link=
. You should be splitting out your editors into separate parameters (|editor2-last=
and |editor2-first=
, or at least |editor2=
) to make this work. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Recent edits at Fea's tree rat and Common remora have produced "Lua error in Module:Cite_iucn at line 180: attempt to concatenate a nil value". That is seen by previewing the following.
{{cite iucn |author=Smith |title=Example |errata=2017 |volume=2015 |page=1 |doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015 }}
Johnuniq ( talk) 10:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite iucn|year=2016}}
gives "Lua error in Module:Cite_iucn at line 124: attempt to index field 'title' (a nil value)."
Johnuniq (
talk) 07:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
http://reftag.appspot.com/ does not seem to be working? Chesdovi ( talk) 13:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Please change Doi (identifier) to Digital object identifier to avoid redirect. Thanks. 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:38AB:63B4:498:69DB ( talk) 18:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up that there are starting to be articles populating in Category:CS1 errors: S2CID that seem to be correct with values greater than 237000000. -- Lightlowemon ( talk) 13:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the location parameter be used for the location of an archive? See [3] and [4] for context. DrKay ( talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)The location of the information, which is in paper form, is WINC Collection, 1616 THL, Stewart Bell Jr. Archives. That's the name of the collection, the room number, and the name of the archives department at the library itself. The library asks you, on their website, to "Cite As: WINC Collection, 1616 THL, Stewart Bell Jr. Archives, Handley Regional Library, Winchester, VA, USA." So, the publisher is, technically, Handley Regional Library. I am just required by them to cite it in such a way. I'm not being an asshole, I'm following their citation rules. If that puts the article in a clean up category, there's nothing I can do about that. That is the genuine location of the information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite archive}}
is a better choice? In cs1|2 ({{
cite book}}
etc) |location=
is the physical location of the publisher.{{
cite archive}}
works just fine. Give me a couple minutes to move the references around. :) -
Neutralhomer •
Talk • 18:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Discussion at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 § HTML markup caused me to notice that the accept-this-as-written markup is preserved when |title=
is added to the metadata. I have fixed that:
{{cite book |title=((Title))}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000049-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=((Title))}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000004D-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
I have not looked into the other places where accept-this-as-written markup may be used.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
|doi=
, |issn=
, |eissn=
, |pmid=
and |volume=
.|volume=
fixed:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=((12345))}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000051-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1 cs1-prop-long-vol">"Title". ''Journal''. 12345.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.volume=%28%2812345%29%29&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
|doi=
, |eissn=
, |isbn=
, |issn=
, and |sbn=
– the |sbn=
value, even when valid, is not made part of the citation's metadata. For all other identifiers, invalid values are not made part of the citation's metadata even when wrapped with accept-as-written markup. A simple fix ensures that all valid identifier values wrapped with accept-as-written markup, and invalid |doi=
, |eissn=
, |isbn=
, and |issn=
values that are wrapped with accept-as-written markup do not include the accept-as-written markup in the citation's metadata. I have applied that fix:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000055-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[doi (identifier)|doi]]:[https://doi.org/12345 12345].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored DOI errors|link]])</span>
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |eissn=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000059-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[eISSN (identifier)|eISSN]] [https://www.worldcat.org/issn/12345 12345].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.eissn=12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors|link]])</span>
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |isbn=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000005D-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[ISBN (identifier)|ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/12345|<bdi>12345</bdi>]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.isbn=12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors|link]])</span>
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |issn=((12345))}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors (
link)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000061-QINU`"'<cite class="citation journal cs1">"Title". ''Journal''. [[ISSN (identifier)|ISSN]] [https://www.worldcat.org/issn/12345 12345].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal&rft.atitle=Title&rft.issn=12345&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span><span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite journal|cite journal]]}}</code>: CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors ([[:Category:CS1 maint: ignored ISSN errors|link]])</span>
I sometimes see online works attributed to prolific authors such as Mr. Privacy Statement, Ms. Cookie Policy and Dr. Submitted Content, which have clearly been scraped in a semi-automated way from the website. ( Samples) Are they generated using some tool which could be improved? Certes ( talk) 16:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|first=Privacy
|last=Statement
– I'm not sure whether
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration is invoked when they're split that way. Other regular contributors include:
|first2=Ivor Penn Chief Sports
|last2=Writer
, or a mishmash of non-persons such as ref 5 in
Bioethics Bowl.
Certes (
talk) 23:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|author=
/|first=
/|last=
parameters with dates or years in them could be tagged as well.
GoingBatty (
talk) 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
{{cite book |title=A Green Meadow |author-first=April |author-last=Appleyard |date=15 May 2021}}
The other day I stumbled upon Barbus sp. nov. 'Pangani' as an article title:
{{cite journal |title=''Barbus sp. nov. 'Pangani''' |journal=Journal}}
I have modified kern_quotes()
to properly render that title:
{{cite journal |title=''Barbus sp. nov. 'Pangani''' |journal=Journal}}
While I was doing that, I simplified the whole of the function:
{{cite book/new |chapter=[[neither]] |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter=neither |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter='leading |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter=trailing' |title=Title}}
{{cite book/new |chapter='both' |title=Title}}
Part of the simplification was to use 'empty' <span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>
and <span class="cs1-kern-right"></span>
tags instead of splitting the title apart and wrapping part of it in <span>...</span>
tags:
{{cite book |chapter='leading |title=Title}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000086-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">"<span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>'leading". ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=%27leading&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |chapter='leading |title=Title}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000008A-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">"<span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>'leading". ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=%27leading&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
as well? I don't remember. If it does, I believe there are additional kerning cases there. Just something to keep in mind for whenever.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 22:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
is a free-form parameter that does not contribute to the citation's metadata. When quoted text begins with single- or double-quote marks, editors can use:
|quote=
.
64.18.9.199 (
talk) 23:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
-'}}
and the other kerning templates in those titles because those templates emit styling that has nothing to do with the source's title:
<span style="padding-left:0.15em;">'</span>
← {{
-'}}
|quote=
in <q>...</q>
tags. No doubt, if you seek through the archives you will discover that decision. The css that supports the <q>...</q>
tags is
here.in the live module, |quote=
works properly but standalone |script-quote=
and |trans-quote=
do not include the <q>...</q>
tag:
{{cite book |title=Title |quote=quoted text}}
quoted text
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000008F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <q>quoted text</q></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book |title=Title |script-quote=ja:script-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000093-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1 cs1-prop-script">''Title''. <bdi lang="ja" >script-quoted text</bdi></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book |title=Title |trans-quote=trans-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000097-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. [trans-quoted text]</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
fixed in the sandbox:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |quote=quoted text}}
quoted text
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000009B-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. <q>quoted text</q></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Title |script-quote=ja:script-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000009F-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1 cs1-prop-script">''Title''. <bdi lang="ja" >script-quoted text</bdi></cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
{{cite book/new |title=Title |trans-quote=trans-quoted text}}
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000A3-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. [trans-quoted text]</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+79" class="Z3988"></span>
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a citation in the article
artificial intelligence where the thesis advisor is notable person. Is there a parameter to list the thesis adviso in {{
Cite thesis}}
? Should I use {{{others}}}
? ----
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
|others=
would be fine if you believe the advisor merits addition to the citation for whatever reason.
Izno
Public (
talk) 22:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)|others=
seems fine.
64.18.9.197 (
talk) 23:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)|script-title=
and the like have error message supplements that specify the the reason for the error message. There are four of these which are embedded in the main module. In the sandbox, I have moved these supplemental messages to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing title part (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing title part (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title ac:script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : invalid language code (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title ac:script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : invalid language code (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : unknown language code (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : unknown language code (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing prefix (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title script-title. {{
cite book}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing prefix (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Hello.
Found a dead link (in
Álava, section "Demography and rural landscape"). So:
I am REALLY annoyed: the way this template is geared up at the moment is a sure sign of yous having lost touch with two essential things, just as governments do :
Asking help from your tiny minute group of mateys here is no proper inte-l-ligence at all but the opposite of it. It's also very likely a reason why there are so few registerees who edit
[1]. To develop intelligence yous must ask precisely these people who are no regular editors; and for that you have to get out and look for them, which you clearly do not do. Instead you expect them to find you/s!
I regularly see banners announcing various events which are all supposedly aiming at "making the community strive", every one of those being so totally irrelevant to me that I never ever even look at them. Plus, they reinforce the "select" idea, thus doing the exact opposite to what they're supposed to do. Gatherings : gotta have enough money and time to get there. Photos: gotta have a decent camera. Etc etc etc incl. voting which only ever helps the establishment maintain a facade but does not help us editors for one iota, same as in all politics. What would interest me are appeals for help in such matters as what's described here, saying what the problem is about + link to page that'd give more details and where to say our bit on things that impact every single edit. I definitely would read these, and if the debated matter was smthng that I have come across, yes of course I'd open the page and take the time to say how, where, why, and/or whatever idea's come from it if any. Plus I'd have the pleasure of participating in something directly useful, which is the one thing above all other things that brings people together. I shan't come back on this page nor shall I talk about the subject anywhere else on any wk: I've said all I have to say and detailed all there was to detail from where I stand, both about the technical problem and about the absence of proper inte-l-ligence. Talking more about it would only make me "part of" and there's no way that's gonna happen, not as things are so far. I've said what I want and want no other thing. References
|
Signed : a VERY thoroughly annoyed Pueblo89 ( talk) 14:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Since this is a very long-winded rant with, the basic summary is this
|url-status=dead
(e.g.
"Title".{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)) doesn't give a {{
dead link}} notice, with links to archiving websites like
fr:Modèle:Lien brisé does. This is functionality that's built in
fr:Modèle:Lien web (the French equivalent of {{
cite web}}).And that (understandably) greatly annoys the user above. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
|url-status=dead
as a flag for a dead link when they should use {{
dead link}}
. --
Green
C 16:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)|url-status=dead
(or its predecessor |dead-url=yes
) is present and |archive-url=
is missing or empty. Could be done I suppose, but there are a lot of
archive sites; which of those would we include? which of those would we omit? Would a better solution be a dedicated page with an input box that accepts the 'dead' url and then somehow creates and displays a list of archive-site search urls? I don't know if that is even possible...|url-status=
dependent on |archive-url=
? What is the issue here?
72.89.161.42 (
talk) 18:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)In capturing URLs for saving at Wayback Machine via
EventStreams API (page-link changes), some URLs are not being captured and trying to figure out why. For example |pmc=1248180
. This is hard to test and I don't know how cs1|2 injects/expands URLs but if anyone has any experience or thoughts that would be great. --
Green
C 16:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
|pmc=1248180
the prefix is //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
which gives
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248180. Prefixes are available in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration in the id_handlers{}
table (currently at
line 1903 for |pmc=
).|asin=
has |asin-tld=
(
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers line 726)|ol=
modifies the url according to the value in |ol=
(
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers line 1081)How does one tag a ref as potentially not being reliable, is there a parameter in the template to check? Did a quick search in the archives and saw a bunch of old conversations but guessing someone knows the answer. - Indefensible ( talk) 04:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Newspaper stories sometimes span pages. When I make a clipping on newspapers.com, it's of a single page, and I have to make a separate clipping for the continuation of the story on another page. Is there a way to provide both clipping URLs in cite news? Right now, I'm doing a work-around of putting two cite news templates between one set of ref tags, and am just wondering if there's a cleaner method.
Example: <ref name=dart>{{cite news | newspaper=The Los Angeles Times | date=May 9, 1981 | page=30 | url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484817/way-station/ | access-date=October 4, 2021 | title=Bookstore Offers a Way Station for Minds | last=Dart | first=John}}
{{cite news | newspaper=The Los Angeles Times | date=May 9, 1981 | page=31 | url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484854/way-station2/ | access-date=October 4, 2021 | title=Bookstore Offers a Way Station for Minds (continued) | last=Dart | first=John}}</ref>
Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
|pages=
:
{{cite news |newspaper=The Los Angeles Times |date=May 9, 1981 |pages=30, [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484854/way-station2/ 31] |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/86484817/way-station/ |access-date=October 4, 2021 |title=Bookstore Offers a Way Station for Minds |last=Dart |first=John}}
{{Cite book |title=A Book |section=A Section |section-url=https://example.org/book/section |url=https://example.org/book}}
{{Cite encyclopedia |work=An Encyclopedia |title=An Article}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)Citing a section or chapter in a book and citing an article in an encyclopedia seem similar, but in the latter case, as far as I see, one can't give a URL for the work as a whole in addition to a URL for the individual article. Is there a way to do so? If not, would it be desirable?
— 2d37 ( talk) 11:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=An Encyclopedia |entry=An Entry |entry-url=https://example.org/encyclopedia/entry |url=https://example.org/encyclopedia}}
|entry=
and |entry-url=
, which don't appear to be very documented (or maybe I am just continuing to miss them). I'll add an example to the {{
cite encyclopedia}} documentation, in case it will help the next editor who wants this. —
2d37 (
talk) 12:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)|entry=
seems to be an alias for |section=
. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 14:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
|article=
, |chapter=
, |contribution=
, |entry=
, and |section=
are all aliases of each other.{{
cite conference}}
was written differently from {{
cite encyclopedia}}
(which is different from other cs1 templates). When we converted all of the individual cs1|2 templates to use
Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to be transparent. {{cite conference}}
is still more-or-less as it was because no one has taken the time to propose a suitable rewrite.{{cite conference}}
link both the paper and the proceedings this works:
{{Cite conference |title=Conference Proceedings |article=A Paper |article-url=https://example.org/encyclopedia/article |url=https://example.org/proceedings}}
Following up from
this VPR discussion, I'd like to propose that we change the
external link icon for CS1 citations in which |format=
is set to a document file type such as .xls
so that it uses the document icon () rather than the external link icon (). This will give a more appropriate signal to readers that clicking on the link will download a file for them, rather than taking them to a website page.
In technical terms, I'm told by SD0001 that we would do this by modifying Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css similar to what it already does with links to Wikisource. Thoughts? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 04:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
|format=
which adds some "(format)" text. CS1/CS2 even has some code to auto-detect PDFs based on the file-extension - we could add a few more common file types (per above criteria) to that list.Hello, could "Database Error" be added to the Generic title list? Currently only 11 instances of this around but could point to other errors in the source. Keith D ( talk) 21:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm copying this here as it's a good question:
What should we do? Maybe we need an "update=" parameter? Please ping us. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 17:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
is for the date of the source cited. If it has an amendment date and you read the source after that date, it goes in that parameter. There is 0 need for any additional parameters.
Izno (
talk) 19:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
and the earlier date in |orig-date=
, contrary to what you believe it must be used for from 15:41 today. For most news articles those will not be separated by much so I see it as a waste of space in a citation section, but you seem convinced that you must do it the way you want.
Izno (
talk) 19:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, we have these three, tweakable, basic parameters for website and newspaper articles |date=
, |access-date=
, |archive-date=
. Note that |orig-date=
is used for things like books, not for website and newspaper articles.
I am proposing we have an |updated=
parameter for use when an update or correction has been made to a website or newspaper article or document. --
Valjean (
talk) 15:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
|orig-date=
is often used to signify 1st (and/or other prior important) editions, this is not its only purpose. Another common use is to specify the authoring date when it is different from when the work was actually published (can be important to track down the origin of some information for facts checking or for priority claims, or just for historical reasons), or when a work gets republished without changing the |edition=
. |orig-date=
can also be used to specify dates in alternative/deviating date formats as they might be stated in the source but are not accepted by |date=
. The parameter accepts free-flow text, so, if the purposes it is used for isn't obvious from the context, you can (and should) specify the type of date as part of the parameter value.|publication-date=
and the update date into |date=
. These two parameters are not aliases. They are treated the same for as long as only one of them is given, but they behave differently when both are given at the same time. So, given the unfortunate ambiguity of the |date=
parameter name, whenever a publication date is given you can simply use |publication-date=
instead of |date=
. This way, it becomes clear for later editors what kind of date was actually given. I consider it good editing practise to always choose the most specific parameter if multiple are available, while other's prefer shorter parameter names more. Example:{{cite news |title=Trump Defends ‘Delay the Election’ Tweet, Even Though He Can’t Do It |publication-date=2020-07-30 |date=2020-08-20 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/elections/biden-vs-trump.html |access-date=2021-10-13 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211006114545/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/elections/biden-vs-trump.html |archive-date=2021-10-06}}
|update-date=
parameter (unless we would strive for symmetry in parameter names (something I would support) and would make it an alias of |date=
introducing it only for the purpose of eliminating the ambiguity of the |date=
parameter in future citations).|date=
with |publication-date=
is the date on which the work was written, not it's original publication date or its amendment date. If you are going to recommend use of publication-date for whatever reason, please do not suggest another with the wrong meaning.
Izno (
talk) 20:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
|publication-date=
only for the actual publication date, not for any other dates, of course.|date=
, perhaps it is just a question of how you define the date a work was written. Are we talking about the finishing date the bulk of a work was written (possibly long before publication) or when some bits were updated/corrected/amended later on? For the first case, I would use |orig-date=
, for the later case I would use |date=
. If both |publication-date=
and |date=
are present at the same time, |date=
is the date which is used for metadata creation, so it should be the latest date of a published change used in the citation, not a date before publication.|date=
parameter name are exactly the reason why I always propose specific parameter names rather than generic ones (even though they are longer to type: As short as possible without creating ambiguity, but not shorter). There isn't much we can do about existing citations, unfortunately, but we could use more self-documenting parameters in freshly entered citations. (That's also why I use |author-last/first=
rather than |last/first=
when I know they are authors, not editors or other contributors. In this case, they are even actual aliases, but |author-last/first=
is self-documenting, whereas |last/first=
is, at least potentially, ambiguous - some users use them for any kind of names, although they shouldn't.)I'd like to cite a news article from the website of
KABC-TV, published by
American Broadcasting Company, using {{
cite news}}. However, doing the normal |work=
KABC-TV
and |publisher=
American Broadcasting Company
results in KABC-TV being italicized, which does not seem correct. Is there any way to force it not to be italicized ({{
No italic}} recommends against it so as to not pollute
COinS metadata), or is there another way to configure the parameters here? I'm not sure "KABC-TV" is similar enough to "American Broadcasting Company" to justify omitting the latter, and in any case I'm interested in the broader question, as I've encountered this same problem several times. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 17:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
|publisher=KABC-TV
, or |publisher=
KABC-TV
if you think the wikilink provides value (and the
KABC-TV article provides the reader a link to
ABC). If you are sourcing something from KABC-TV's website, you might not have a program for the |work=
parameter. Happy editing!
GoingBatty (
talk) 18:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
<title>
element refers to the individual page, in this case (AFAICT) just their home/landing page. Sdkb didn't give us an actual URL for the specific page, or even the website, so we don't know what particular page is to be pointed at. In any case, the home page's <title>
is unlikely to be the name of the work. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 02:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)|work=
(like KABC-TV) to be capitalized, then the solution isn't to choose a differnt value for work or to try to outsmart {{
cite news}}; the approach to take in that case is to (try to) swing consensus away from italicizing the work (and good luck with that!). The work should be the |work=
, and the publisher, if you need to declare it, should be the |publisher=
value. Let the template do the formatting for you; that's its job.|publisher=
American Broadcasting Company
, as it's incomplete, and I do not think the complete string is so different from KABC-TV as to be necessary. However, I think what I would do in this case is use |work=abc7.com
or, perhaps better, |work=ABC7 Los Angeles
. This last is what they appear to use (after the faux dash) in their <title>
for individual story pages, like
this and
this and
this. So for me: |work=ABC7 Los Angeles
, possibly with |publisher=
ABC, Inc., KABC-TV Los Angeles
. —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk /
edits) 02:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't figure out why, and I've tried playing around with different inputs to the cite book template, but on Operation Sandwedge#References you can see two citations listing editors rather than authors; one under "Knight" and one under "United States House Committee for the Judiciary". For the former, the editor credit is not listed in brackets, but the latter it is. I've tried matching the formatting for both, but even using a single "editor" field for "Knight, Peter" instead of first and last names, although this would seem to match exactly how the Committee cite is formatted, still results in two different outputs. Does anyone know what's causing this and how to standardise both uses? I have no preference for either but just would like to figure out how to have both display the same as each other. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
|year=
to the second one makes the display consistent. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
|date=
and because
Knight 2003 does. When the citation only has editor names and |date=
(or |year=
) has a value, we don't want stacked parentheses:
{{cite book |title=Impeachment: Selected Materials, November 1998, Part 1 |publisher=[[United States Government Printing Office]] |isbn=978-0-16057-703-1 |editor=United States House Committee on the Judiciary |ref={{sfnref|Impeachment|1998}}}}
{{cite book |title=Impeachment: Selected Materials, November 1998, Part 1 |date=1998 |publisher=[[United States Government Printing Office]] |isbn=978-0-16057-703-1 |editor=United States House Committee on the Judiciary}}
|ref={{sfnref|Impeachment|1998}}
because the long-form citation has a 'name' (United States House Committee for the Judiciary) that should have been used in the short-form citation so you should also change this:
{{sfn|Impeachment|1998|p=57}}
{{sfn|United States House Committee on the Judiciary|1998|p=57}}
A lot of the citations that I see pointing to references on archive.org include urls to the specific pages in the |page=
parameter as in |page=[https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495/page/n255 237]
. It seems like an additional parameter, perhaps named |page-url=
, would be handy to keep track of this information separately. So far, I've been leaving the links like this because they don't appear to be breaking anything yet.
Slambo
(Speak) 15:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
|url=
, not a new parameter. Only 1 URL, the more specific one should be entered in citations, with the page, or the first page in a page range. In any case, I would remove the url from the page param and insert the url param. If the citation includes a page number, it is understood that the link may lead to the pertinent page. If one needs to link multiple pages, short refs would be more apt imo.
50.74.114.218 (
talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
|pages=
parameters), however, they are not as bad as they might look at first sight: Like you already observed, they are not breaking anything (in any of the page-related parameters, that is), because the links are automatically removed before using the page information for metadata.|url=
for a "page link" and for the proposal to have numbered page parameters (in the other thread), this wouldn't work:|pages=
parameter often contains a list of pages or even page ranges, and it is not at all desirable to split them up into individual pages or use short references for them. Splitting up into individual pages is only necessary when it is particularly important to document the exact locations where multiple independent statements are sourced. In the vast majority of cases, this is not important, and combining all references to a single publication and providing a list of pages is sufficient. In most cases, it is easy enough to flip through these pages to find the one supporting a specific statement, so having individual references for each of them would only add redundancy and clutter to the article. Short references add an extra layer of indirection and don't allow for backlinks, therefore they are often inconvenient to use - they kind of solve one problem by adding a bunch of other problems. Per
WP:CITEVAR, they are not a requirement at all to use and many people do not (want) to use them because of their shortcomings. So, suggesting anything that would force us to split up citations is simply no solution at all.|page=[https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495/page/n255 237]
(but I've come to accept them given that they add useful information for readers and that citations would only become longer when using special parameters for this). However, in many cases the first part of these links is the same as the link provided in the |url=
parameter, like in |url=
https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495
. For these cases, I can envision some kind of shortcut notation like |page=[*/page/n255 237]
|url=
https://archive.org/details/cihm_07495
. This obviously would not work for all cases, but it would reduce the clutter and redundancy in many cases already.Short references add an extra layer of indirection and don't allow for backlinks,; however, I see back references to, e.g., 3270Intro, in IBM 3270#References. Admittedly it's a bit clunky, but it works. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|quote=
and |quote-pages=
can be helpful as well. If the individual page numbers should be preserved, {{
rp}} can be used for the individual pages and |pages=
for the combined pages. This way, the additional layer of indirection can be avoided and automatic backlinks are possible.<ref name=foo />
{{
rp|bar}}
works well when you are only adding a page number to the base citation, but what is the equivalent to {{
sfn|foo|p=bar|loc=baz}}
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 21:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
<ref name="foo" />
{{
rp|bar, baz}}
. Alternatively, you could probably use something like {{
rp|at=p. bar, baz}}
or {{
rp|at=baz}}
. Even page links can be used in combination with {{
rp}}
|1=
{{
sfn}}
etc. if you want. My point above was mostly that multiple pages are perfectly fine in a citation (even when used to support multiple independent statements in an article) and that there is no requirement and often no benefit splitting citations into individual short references - it comes with a price, and the disadvantages are often larger than the advantages - as usual, it depends on the circumstances. I made this point to illustrate why we need to support multiple pages and why proposals which would allow us to deal only with single (or related) pages in a citation do not lead anywhere.{{
rp|bar|at=baz}}
, {{
rp|bar, baz}}
and {{
rp|at=p. bar, baz}}
gives me : bar, baz , : bar, baz and : p. bar, baz . The second and third have the right information, but the location is likely to be long and should be in the reference list rather than inline. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 19:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)All these months later, and the issue with book volumes is still not being addressed. I understand why we don't want an explicit "volume" with a journal/magazine. I do not understand the issue with books. If Birds of North America has 13 volumes, displaying "Birds of North America. 2." does not, to most humans, clearly indicate that the 2 refers to volume 2 – particularly given that the average reader probably has no idea that there are 13 volumes in the set. Why can template not behave differently depending on whether the item is a book or a journal?! I know it's possible to do so, so somebody must have some rationale for why we don't. Please explain! MeegsC ( talk) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
|volume=
, |number=
/|issue=
(only used with journals) and |pages=
:Journal | Not journal | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|
Current | 3 (4): 12–56. | 3, pp. 12–56. | Long volume names are not bolded, but |volume=vol. 3 is considered an error.
|
Proposal 1 | 3 (4): 12–56. | vol. 3, pp. 12–56. | |
Proposal 2 | vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 12–56. | Non-journals would not have a number or issue. |
{{
cite journal}}
, or{{
citation}}
/{{
cite map}}
/{{
cite interview}}
with |journal=
specified.{{
cite magazine}}
?journal | magazine | others | |
---|---|---|---|
Current | 3 (4): 12–56. | Vol. 3 no. 4. pp. 12–56. | 3, pp. 12–56. |
Proposal 1 | 3 (4): 12–56. | vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 12–56. | |
Proposal 2 | vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 12–56. |
|periodical-style=
or |serial-style=
(or whatever) parameter to select the desired format if this is not the default already. (At a later stage, this could be supported by templates similar to the |cs1-dates=
parameter of templates {{
use dmy dates}}/{{
use mdy dates}} to globally switch the display format for all citations in an article instead of having to use it in individual citations. I had some experimental code for this a year ago, but it would have to be adjusted to the current significantly changed code base.){{
cite journal}}
renders the academic-journal-style. If you don't like that, use {{
cite magazine}}
or {{
cite periodical}}
. No need for special parameters.if enough editors make noise about it, someone will do the necessary (thankless) labor that will give them what they want.If you want the change, recruit enough editors who also want the change, or, failing that, do it yourself.
we have readers switching between these templates based on the nature of the periodical- I do that frequently ( example), because I often find that some people are inappropriately using
{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
and {{
cite web}}
for magazines - for me, it's not a case of choos[ing] the template based on the display formatbut of choosing the most appropriate template for the source. Each of these four has documentation that gives such advice:
{{
cite journal}}
- academic and scientific papers published in bona fide journals{{
cite magazine}}
- articles in magazines and newsletters{{
cite news}}
- news articles in print, video, audio or web{{
cite web}}
- web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template{{
cite magazine}}
do so partly because they don't read the documentation, but mainly because it's not offered by the cite tool that they use (see post by Nigel Ish at 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC) and the reply by Trappist. So long as that remains the case, there will always be the need to amend the citation. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 09:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
|journal=
or |magazine=
based on the nature of the periodical. Typically, we would use |journal=
in {{
cite journal}} and |magazine=
in {{
cite magazine}}, but following Trappist's comment to choose the template depending on the desired output format above, we would need to acknowledge that some people might have deliberately chosen to use {{
cite journal}} for |magazine=
or {{
cite magazine}} for |journal=
, and that, if this makes sense in a particular article rendering as a whole, we should leave this alone.{{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
all become redirects to the canonical template {{
cite periodical}}
. {{cite periodical}}
then renders volume/issue/page in the style dictated by the |work=
parameter alias that is used in the template. That would likely be a significant challenge, mostly elsewhere than in
Module:Citation/CS1. Some one or some series of bots would need to convert existing templates; tools like
WP:RefToolbar would need updating, etc. I rather like this idea but I foresee torches and pitch forks because en.wiki editors hate, hate, hate change... I generally favor some form of Proposal 1. Let {{
cite journal}} use the shorter format. In {{
cite magazine}}, get the page number next to the volume and issue number. (Currently if a publisher is specified, it splits the volume/issue from the page number.) In {{
cite map}}, et al., tie the output to whether |journal=
or |magazine=
is used.
For books though, I'd leave volume number next to title as a function of the title and retain the page number at the end, but otherwise add the "vol." text to the volume number for consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 22:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Proposal 2 is the only scheme that makes sense for a project like Wikipedia. It is easily understandable by readers. The comma separator will have to be explained to editors since it violates style. This is because of the current rigid implementation of separators into "style 1" and "style 2", that carries no functional utility. 64.18.9.208 ( talk) 23:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
|periodical-style=
above which introduces yet more complication. Image the problem of creating a citation via automated means and trying to determine the right style to use for a particular article; then we need to have something like {{
use dmy}}
cluttering the top of every article. No, don't go that route. Proposal 1 maintains what already exists for {{cite journal}}
which is by far the largest of all and will have the least friction while fixing the problem with the other smaller templates. --
Green
C 14:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
|accessdate=
vs. |access-date=
and you know how that went, the battle lines now so hardened it is a dead issue, it will never get fixed. Once wide-scale attention is made to the issue, you loose control. Stay as close as possible to status quo and fix the small things that really need fixing, it will be successful. Come back later and deal with cite journal as a separate issue because chances are it will be no-consensus. --
Green
C 20:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be universally agreed that bold volume numbers for non-journals are unacceptable, but opinion is divided on whether to retain them for journals, i.e. there is no consensus for change there. So I've changed the sandbox to extend the magazine formatting to all non-journals.
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000). Book. Vol. 3. pp. 12–34. {{
cite book}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000). Book. Vol. 3. pp. 12–34. {{
cite book}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Journal. 3 (5): 12–34. {{
cite journal}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Journal. 3 (5): 12–34. {{
cite journal}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000), Book, vol. 3, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000), Book, vol. 3, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Journal, 3 (5): 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Journal, 3 (5): 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Kanguole 19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Magazine, vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000), "Article", Magazine, vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7, pp. 12–34 {{
citation}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite magazine
|
---|---|
Live | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Magazine. Vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7. pp. 12–34. {{
cite magazine}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
Sandbox | Author, Ann (2000). "Article". Magazine. Vol. 3, 5, no. 5, 7. pp. 12–34. {{
cite magazine}} : |last= has generic name (
help)
|
|volume=
and |number=
parameters to contain lists).{{
cite magazine}}
is unchanged, and now extended to other non-journals. However, the combination of |volume=
and |number=
should only occur with magazines and journals, so their formatting is independent of this change.
Kanguole 15:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)|volume=
or |number=
in the wild – it's usually 3/4 or 3–4. If an article is published in several parts with different page ranges in different issues/volumes, they would have to be separate cites.
Kanguole 15:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
|volume=
and |number=
. I used it here as an example to show more clearly, that there is something missing between the volume and the number. I basically "hijacked" this thread for the possible discussion of adding a comma (or dot), because this would be another minor change likely accepted (if even noticed) by the masses, and because this thread already has a nice list of rendered citation templates for quick comparison of the output.Should there be some text added about the general lack of need for the use of editors for newspapers and such. In many cases, the editors probably had nothing to with the article. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 16:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
|department=editorial
.
65.88.88.91 (
talk) 16:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
|editor=<!-- staff writer, no byline -->
(although I personally don't like this very much (for its bad machine-readability) and instead propose to standardize the case by introducing a special keyword like |editor=staff
for it, which could be (actively) ignored by the template for now, but could also be evaluated if we would happen to run into a use case for this in the future - without |editor=
(the template can't see the HTML comment), we never know if no editor was specified in the publication or if the author providing the citation was just too lazy to add it.) --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 21:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)|department=
parameter) and you want to cite both an individual title and author within that section or issue, and the editors of the whole section or issue. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 08:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
|others=Editor (column ed.)
which is a bit clunky. Btw, it would perhaps be more accurate to use the |contributor=
set here, but it is not available for journals.
71.247.146.98 (
talk) 11:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)I generally use the {{ sfn}} citation style, with the sources in an alphabetical list at the end of the article. This lets me cite different pages in each source at different places in the article. In the {{ sfn}} I give the page or pages being cited, e.g.
In the source definition, I would like to give the total number of pages, and in the case of a journal article, the page range, e.g.
This would display something like
Any problem with introducing this? It must have been discussed before. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
(xi+425 pages)
), just like you do, but I would prefer to have a dedicated |total-pages=
parameter for this, because this would ensure a consistent format instead of each editor having to invent his own nomenclature. It would be machine-readable, thereby we would also help to correct the many incorrect total-page info entries in the wild. There even is a
COinS entry for this (&rft.tpages
), also indicating that this is sometimes useful info to have.
Wikidata has
d:Property:P1104 for this and {{
cite Q}} is already prepared to support this once CS1/CS2 would add support for it. Some citation templates in other language-entities of Wikipedia have a parameter for this as well.|Umfang=
for this.|total-pages=
. Editors frequently misinterpret |pages=
as "total pages". It's such a big problem trying to link online books only to end up displaying the empty last page. The |total-pages=
will help reduce (not eliminate) the misuse of |pages=
and increase accuracy of the citation. This is evidence-based, the reality of what users do in practice. There is behavioral demand for |total-pages=
, if we don't provide it, they will do it anyway, and in such a way that it can only be fixed manually. --
Green
C 15:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
|total-pages=
parameter to CS1/CS2 templates now. When specified, the info is displayed in parentheses following the other page info. As the use of this feature is entirely optional, users, who don't need it, can simply continue to not use it as before, but users, who always wanted to have this facility, can now finally use it through documented means. This will make this encyclopeia more convenient to edit, more consistent in its appearance, more machine-readable, and eventually more reliable to use. Since the total number of pages are automatically also reported as part of the COinS metadata we generate, external parties can take advantage of it as well. In the mid- to long run, this will help to fix an uncountable number of incorrectly stated total numbers of pages in external databases (Google Books and Amazon Marketplace come to my mind immediately). So everyone wins.{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |total-pages=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |total-pages=
ignored (
help)Over the years an uncountable number of people have asked for this feature; really? Uncountable? I'd be very surprised if
Google Books and Amazon Marketplaceuse our metadata when composing their pages about some book. Seems to me that you are struggling to find an argument that will convince those who oppose inclusion of
|total-page=
to switch their position.format_pages_sheets()
. I have done that, added error detection, and other cleanup.{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=1 |no-pp=yes}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=2 |no-pp=yes}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=a}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |total-pages=[//example.com 1]}}
|total-pages=
. This must be reverted. The rationale behind your argument is flawed and the opinions expressed debatable. This is a disruptive edit in the middle of a discussion.
64.18.9.196 (
talk) 02:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|pages=23–24, 27, 29, 30–35, 37, 39, 41–43, 60
(real example from a magazine article) it is easier for the reader to get it from something like |total-pages=18
.I'm not here to build a machine-readable work but a human-readable oneThat's fine. You do not need to be here to build a machine-readable work, and nobody is hindering you to continue to focus on humans only, if you want to. However, others are here to make our contents available to anyone, and for me, this also includes machines (although not primarily). Wikipedia is part of the emerging semantic web. And that's not for the purpose of itself, but for the convenience of the readers as well as the users of the information elsewhere. There are lots of services by third-parties which are basically fed by data from Wikipedia. We don't target them primarily, but anything that serves them (and does not go into our own ways of doing things) will indirectly help us as well as consumers of these services and as researchers and writers of other articles. Total number of pages alone don't matter, but COinS as a whole does, and the more complete and accurate the info, the better.
<ref></ref>
tags or is in a sources section where an article uses {{
sfn}} or any other referencing system is not to use total number of pages, nor is it a way to get round this by not citing a work but listing it as further reading.without it having to become more visual bloat for human readers.I wonder where you see the visual bloating. I mean, it is not that this info wasn't present in articles so far and would now suddenly start to appear. Editors have always been adding total page info to (some) citations and (some more) bibliographic entries where they found it appropriate, and that is perfectly okay per CITEVAR. I consider it more visually displeasing (and also inconvenient) having to append the info at the end of a citation template and seeing this information formatted variously because each editor chooses his/her own styling then to have it included where some style guides recommend to put it, that is, alongside the other page info, and before the identifiers. However, the exact place is certainly debatable, the point is that if the info is included it should be formatted consistently.
Smart people try to learn from other people's experiences and habits- yes they do, but sometimes the answer is to question back "what benefit do you think this adds to Wikipedia?" and that's what I'm doing. I've not seen any argument that either convinces me that it is necessary or beneficial (just because we could doesn't mean we have to or should do) nor convinces me that it won't be misused. I can see a very limited use case but I still think that it is of negligible benefit to (the quality of) Wikipedia but one I am prepared to compromise on if those pushing for it to be included recognise that others have concerns about it's use and that these need to be discussed - not on an article by article case - but more generally about where total pages is appropriate or not. Nthep ( talk) 17:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
parameters for the count of pages (Green reported this as a common problem, I have seen it as well many times, and even two participants of this thread (one supporter and one opposer) admitted that they abused the |page=
parameter for this - this will create incorrect metadata (COinS rft.pages
), so the error is carried on. Switching to |total-pages=
would not only eliminate the distribution of incorrect metadata, but even start to add the correct metadata (rft.tpages
). Secondly, it will also help to find other incorrect usages of the |page=
/ |pages=
parameters, which are quite common, where, for articles spanning over multiple pages, only the start page is given and people assume the publication to be a one-pager, or only the lowest and highest page, rather than the actual range, which might be non-continuous. All this will improve the reliability of our information and not only help third-parties, but directly help our readership, i.e. as it will reduce the number of incorrect library orders based on our pagination data.The biggest problem Wikipedia has is its unreliability. Obviously, it will never become reliable, as its contributors are anonymous and of uncertain expertise. But it can become less unreliable, by a focus on publishing articles that are based on fact, or on articles that explicitly present currently accepted opinion as such, with space also given to major counter-opinions. In order to do that articles must be verified. A first step towards that is to base wikitext on easily verifiable (by humans) citations, and then verify these citations as appropriate to the article. In the sprawl of current Wikipedia, not even the first step of the first step is anywhere close to conclusion. Instead, add-ons such as Wikidata take precious development resources. What this does, is proliferate unreliability. Because the base data is unreliable. Treating citations as bibliograhic entries unfocusses development from the essentials and adds complexity. This thread and others are proof. Citation templates are there for citations easily readable and verifiable by humans and not software, a necessary and urgent requirement. They are not there for whatever one thinks they can cram into them. The total pages info does not belong in a citation. This is a massive waste of time. 65.88.88.46 ( talk) 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
|no-pp=yes
and |pages=nnn pp.
.One possibility would be to repurpose the deprecated {{
source}} template for use in bibliographies. It could wrap {{
citation}}, then add a few descriptive elements to the end: |total_pages= |page_range= |folio= |binding= etc. It would refer to {{
citation}} for description of all the other parameters. It would give a sort of escape valve for those who prefer more complete bibliographical information without adding complexity to the citation templates. Just possibly, some obscure parameters from those templates could be migrated to the new {{
source}}.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 18:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I raised this in a Phabricator task however it was basically closed as "functions as designed" and I was pointed here. Would be interested in hearing any comment.
Within a CS1 {{
cite journal}}
template if a {{
sic}}
template (with 'nolink' option used) is attempted within the text within the |journal=
parameter then an error is produced indicating that Italic or bold markup not allowed.....
If a {{
not a typo}}
template is used instead then this is accepted and does not produce the error.
An example can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Multiway_number_partitioning&diff=prev&oldid=1048226979
What happens?:
Note the reference to 'markup not allowed'.
Walsh, Toby (2009-07-11). "Where are the really hard manipulation problems? the phase transition in manipulating the veto rule". Proceedings of the 21st International Jont [sic] Conference on Artifical [sic] Intelligence. IJCAI'09. Pasadena, California, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.: 324–329. Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
What should have happened instead?:
I would have expected that the following would be valid syntax.
<ref name="Walsh 324–329">{{cite journal|last=Walsh|first=Toby|date=2009-07-11|title=Where are the really hard manipulation problems? the phase transition in manipulating the veto rule|url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/1661445.1661497|journal=Proceedings of the 21st International {{sic|Jo|nt|nolink=y}} Conference on {{sic|Arti|fical|nolink=y}} Intelligence |series=IJCAI'09|location=Pasadena, California, USA|publisher=Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.|pages=324–329}}</ref>
I can't say that I have tested other citation styles however there are others such as {{
cite web}}
where the sic template seems to work fine. If this is regarded as FAD and no intention to fix then the documentation requires updating. Happy to do that. -
Neils51 (
talk) 03:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
|journal=
but not in other {{cite xxx}} templates. But there are several issues with the module code, so it is not surprising. The bottom line is, this should be fixed. Citation-wise this is not frivolous. All such templates should be compatible.
71.247.146.98 (
talk) 11:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)|journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |website=
, |work=
). {{
sic}} does that, {{
not a typo}} doesn't. The obvious fix would be to correct the two typos in the name of the periodical. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 13:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
to cite conference proceedings? We have {{
cite conference}}
for that.{{
sic}}
template documentation is a message box that has this image:
. That message box is there because {{sic}}
produces output that is not suitable for inclusion in cs1|2 citation metadata. Instead, avoid the issue entirely: perhaps use {{
text}}
or {{
not a typo}}
to mark the spelling errors and prevent auto-spelling correctors from fixing the misspellings and to produce correct metadata:
|book-title=Proceedings of the 21st International {{text|[Jo|nt]}} Conference on {{text|[Arti|fical]}} Intelligence
{{sic}}
italicize its output? The brackets aren't sufficient to set it apart from the rest of the text? As a loanword, per
MOS:FOREIGN, sic should not be italicized (italicized here because
MOS:WORDSASWORDS) – I find it in my 1974 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary which satisfies the rule-of-thumb for loanwords.Walsh, Toby (11 July 2009). Where Are the Really Hard Manipulation Problems? The Phase Transition in Manipulating the Veto Rule (PDF). Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pasadena, California: IJCAI Organization. pp. 324–329.— sbb ( talk) 14:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
|conference=
is not necessary. So:
{{cite conference |last=Walsh |first=Toby |date=2009-07-11 |article=Where Are the Really Hard Manipulation Problems? The Phase Transition in Manipulating the Veto Rule |pages=324–329 |article-url=https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/09/Papers/062.pdf |title=Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence |publisher=[[International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence |IJCAI Organization]] |location=Pasadena, California |url=https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2009 |df=dmy}}
|article=
here because there isn't a |paper=
parameter (probably should be ...).{{sic}}
outputs HTML character entities. That is not allowed in COinS-generating fields. —
sbb (
talk) 15:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
%26%2332%3B%26%2391%3Bsic%26%2393%3B
 [sic]
[sic]
%20%5Bsic%5D
<span>
setting an invisible flag. CS1/CS2 would just strip off the span, when present, and take advantage of the hidden information provided by subordinate helper templates like {{
sic}} to improve its own behaviour.|title=
field there is a higher possibility that it might occur as text, although still rarely. So, if we'd implement this "HTML entity decoding before percent-encoding", the HTML decoding should probably depend on the actual parameter the HTML entity was found in or be disabled when ((accept-this-as-it-is)) syntax is used as well. If we would want to improve the compatibility with specific templates (like {{
sic}}) only it would also be possible to try and change them to not issue HTML entities in the first place. This might not be possible for all such templates, but in the specific case of {{
sic}} it seems as if it could just issue [sic]
instead of  [sic]
. This would not be an improvement for the general case, though.
which CS1/CS2 converts into a normal space internally, so it doesn't show up as a HTML entity in the metadata). Since CS1/CS2 also strips off italics (''
) and boldface ('''
), {{
sic}} could now be considered COinS-safe.<span class="MeTaDaTa:safe-italics::"> normal_output_of_template_sic </span>
::
" in the other examples
above is empty. In other cases, we may need to support a number of other tokens (TBD), so the "MeTaDaTa" string could accept a list of optional tokens in addition to the actual metadata. The general syntax could be something like: <span class="MeTaDaTa[:token1][:token2]...::[metadata]"> normal_output_of_template </span>
class="wikitable sortable"
is two classes, not one). Some other characters shouldn't be used in class names because they may have special meaning elsewhere - for example, if you want to use a class name in the selector of a CSS rule, that class name shouldn't use characters that have special meaning in selectors, and percent is
not among those. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
id=
and name=
attributes, not the class=
attribute, for which only the CDATA bullet is relevant. See
section 7.5.2. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
{{cite xxx}}
or {{citation}}
templates, and manually format citation data. Those templates are not required to be used. —
sbb (
talk) 20:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is how it works at all. Citation modules & templates are there to support citations in order to apply Wikipedia policy. They don't exist to support COinS or any other scheme. Artificially limiting editors of citations because some foreign code has problems is contrary to both spirit and letter of policy. The citation system has enough issues of itself. It certainly does not need the additional problems brought on by external code. 68.173.76.118 ( talk) 00:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
<span>
tag. CS1/2 templates generate COinS metadata based on the content of certain fields. That's it. There's no external code. Wikipedia is probably the largest generator of COinS metadata for citations on the web. External sites and projects are COinS consumers of WP's data. Wikipedia has chosen to take on the responsibility of producing machine-readable citation data, and it only makes sense to support it when CS1/2 citation data is already declared as sets of key-value pairs. —
sbb (
talk) 02:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
title: Title of source. .... What you say also appears to contradict the Example case in the docs.
|article=
isn't listed in the "Full parameter set in vertical format" list in Usage just before Examples. Also, would |book-title=
be the title of the published proceedings? book-title: The title of the published version of the conference proceedings, written in full. May be wikilinked. Formatted in italics. (Not to be confused with conference, below.)
|title=
in any {{cite xxx}}
template is the title of the work I'm referring to, and I don't care if the title is italicized, quoted, etc. (because the choice of cite template does that for me). So from a principle of least surprise, I would expect to use |title=
for this citation (unless, of course, my assumption that use case 1. is not the most commonly-used one).|title=
be quoted, not italicized, if |book-title=
(or perhaps better named, |proceedings-title=
) is also defined. Otherwise, if only one is given, italicize |title=
. Is that reasonable? —
sbb (
talk) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
. Maybe someday we will. In the normal case I wouldn't have rewritten your citation as I did except that you included a link to the proceedings and |book-title=
doesn't have a matching url parameter.{{
cite encyclopedia}}
I tend to avoid |title=
and use |entry=
and |encyclopedia=
. I can imagine something similar for {{cite conference}}
(which perhaps should be {{
cite proceedings}}
) so |prceedings=
and |paper=
. |conference=
should go away.|book-title=
where |booktitle=
went??! I remembered that booktitle used to work and at some point stopped working, but didn't remember why. This constant churn in parameter names needs to stop. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A workaround suggested by Trappist the Monk was
I consider this incorrect. "[Jont]" means that the source wrote something a little different, and the Wikipedia editor saw fit to change it. Such changes are often made when it's necessary to change the capitalization or number of a word at the beginning of a quote.
In this case, "Jont" is what was actually written in the source. If it's necessary to draw attention to the misspelling it should be written "Jont [sic]". If the sic template is misdesigned, why not just write "[sic]". Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your input. A good read. And thanks to
Trappist the monk for the red warning reminder. I think that I had forgotten about that as {{
sic}}
usage in {{
cite web}}
works so well. Interesting points about it being ACMs error as I was sure I had found a PDF from the conference publishers where all the page footers contained the 'jont' error however can no longer locate. The original paper exists elsewhere and is fine.
Jonesey95's request to ACM has had immediate results, they have fixed their typos, so the article link item will need a further edit. When I have made requests to Google to fix, say, book titles, I have often received a quick response from a real person acknowledging the request however there is usually a six month wait before actual correction. I think the point made about the level of reference and error needs further discussion. I have often taken the stance that if the original material is correct then it doesn't deserve to be 'besmirched' by a subsequent incorrect reference by a third-party. Perhaps that stance, 'silently fixing' such errors is incorrect. The point made about the ability to search for a catalogued misspelled reference would seem valid. Quite often the refs in error tend to be newspaper based which may reflect the extensive use of OCR.
Neils51 (
talk) 11:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Matthiaspaul - pls revert your edit @ this template. The nowiki tag you added is messing things up. I have commented at that talk page too. 65.88.88.69 ( talk) 19:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
{{sic|wrong spelling|expected=correct spelling|nolink=y}}
abc {{Template:Sic/sandbox|wrong spelling|expected=correct spelling|nolink=y}} xyz
If a |publisher=
is included in {{
cite journal}} (as unusual as that may be), it is inserted between the journal name and the volume and issue numbers:
{{cite journal |last1=Uthor |first1=A. |title=Reconsidering gizmos |journal=International Rehashing |volume=45 |issue=123 |publisher=Springervier <!--maybe to distinguish it from the more famous "International Rehashing" journal published by Elsespringer?-->}}
Is this a bug? With the bolded volume number I suppose it's not so confusing, but it seems more confusing if there's no volume number:
{{cite journal |last1=Uthor |first1=A. |title=Reconsidering gizmos |journal=International Rehashing |volume=<!--this journal doesn't use volume numbers--> |issue=123 |publisher=Springervier}}
In that case, there seems to be little cue that the (123) is an issue number. I would expect this placement...
...but perhaps there's some known problem with that of which I wouldn't know.
— 2d37 ( talk) 09:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
citation/core}}
, the
wikitext version of {{
cite journal}}
rendered your example citations as:
{{citation/core}}
until the conversion to lua. At the time of the lua conversion, the new lua version of the template was intended to be indistinguishable from the wikitext template and, for your examples, still is:Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Old | Uthor, A.. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing (Springervier) 45 (123). |
Live | Uthor, A. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing. 45 (123). Springervier. |
Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
---|---|
Old | Uthor, A.. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing (Springervier) (123). |
Live | Uthor, A. "Reconsidering gizmos". International Rehashing (123). Springervier. |
|publisher=
in the {{citation/core}}
version? Don't know. I suspect that the subject did not come up or if it did, was deemed acceptable because |publisher=
use in {{cite journal}}
is comparatively rare.|edition=
. This is a guess. Normally the edition info would follow the title, and then the edition's publisher would follow. It is not unusual for works to have editions by different publishers. Then the particulars of the edition (volume etc.).
66.108.237.246 (
talk) 11:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)