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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
This citation template currently triggers a "generic name" error:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Kent, Jeff (1993). The Port Vale Record 1879-1993. Witan Books. ISBN 0-9508981-9-8. |
Sandbox | Kent, Jeff (1993). The Port Vale Record 1879-1993. Witan Books. ISBN 0-9508981-9-8. |
Is this what we want to happen? We do not currently enforce the "Do not wikilink" instructions in the {{
cite book}} documentation, but it looks like this is sort of doing that. Should the documentation about the "generic name" error be updated to include a note reminding editors to use |author-link=
? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=
especially for organizational authors. If we have advice against that, I think we should remove it.
Izno (
talk) 23:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
|author-link=
like they are for human authors?
GoingBatty (
talk) 01:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=[[Central Intelligence Agency]]
or |author=Central Intelligence Agency |author-link=Central Intelligence Agency
Izno (
talk) 02:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=
parameter would be easier. Were you suggesting that organizational authors be treated differently from human authors, or that we should abolish |author-link=
for all authors?
GoingBatty (
talk) 04:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
'%[%[[^|]*%(author%) *|[^%]]*%]%]'
which should catch any piped wikilink with 'author' disambiguators. See the compare in the OP.Hello everyone!
Some years ago someone copied the module to dawiki and it worked fine. But at some point we had some problems with IABot and I wanted to update the module. But I could not find the problem. The user that had been working on the module wrote that his health was not good and we have not heard from him since. A lot of knowledge disappeard with him even if he wrote some notes in the code.
But with a lot of help from Trappist the monk and a few users from dawiki the module was updated on dawiki in December 2021. I tried to make notes and explain the changes I made. But it was messy because of all the changes back and forth.
In January 2022 the module was updated on enwiki so I had the chance to update the Danish module again and this time make the changes more pretty and with better descriptions. Sadly the notes are mostly in Danish.
I could probably have saved a lot of time if there was some good manual somewhere on how to move the module. Perhaps there are some help somewhere. Then I just need to know where. And hopefully other users can save some time when they know how the module was modified on dawiki and why.
To help myself and future users on dawiki I have made some intro on da:Modul:Citation/CS1/sandkasse (sandkasse means sandbox) and the other (sub)mudules + in a table on da:Moduldiskussion:Citation/CS1#Opdatering_2021_pga_IABot. So basicly there is a text saying copy module from enwiki and change 1, 2, 3...
The Danish module have like 30 watchers so there is almost no chance that users from other wikis will find out I wrote those notes. So I'm looking for a place for a "How to copy the module from enwiki to another wiki" and someone to help me write the guide. -- MGA73 ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
=mw.dumpObject (mw.wikibase.getEntity ('Q15403807')["sitelinks"])
Discussion at another-language wiki showed yet another place where the local editors had to edit their Module:Citation/CS1 module to meet their needs.
In order for {{
citation}}
renderings to match the equivalent cs1-template renderings, we constrain the use of |volume=
when |website=
, |script-website=
and |mailinglist=
are used in the citation. We allow {{citation}}
to render |issue=
when |journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |work=
, and their |script-*=
counterparts are used. The lists of those parameter has been moved into
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox.
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Title", Website |
Sandbox | "Title", Website |
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Title", Magazine, no. 123 |
Sandbox | "Title", Magazine, no. 123 |
Is the ignored |volume=
something that should be 'announced' in the way that we 'announce' that |chapter=
is ignored?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
|volume=
used to be displayed under these conditions and now it is not. To your question about an announcement, are you able to do a search to determine how many citations would be impacted? Thanks for your continued work to improve these templates!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
into periodical mode which allows the use of |issue=
. The |volume=
list is a list of parameters that switch {{citation}}
into periodical mode where |volume=
would be inappropriate – |volume=
doesn't make sense in {{
cite web}}
so the {{citation|website=...}}
} equivalent should not support |volume=
.cs1|2 templates invoke either the live Module:Citation/CS1 module or the sandbox Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. The invoked module then loads all of the other modules and the css style sheet, choosing the live or sandbox versions as appropriate. Some wikis do not use the term sandbox to identify their sandboxen so editors at those wikis must tweak their Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that it will load the appropriate sandbox modules. Until now that required changing seven lines of code. I have simplified that so that now, only one line of code needs to be changed.
It occurs to me to wonder if we might modify the sandbox cs1|2 templates (which we call ~/new) so that they pass in a parameter |SandboxSubpageName=
.
{{#invoke:citation/CS1/sandbox|citation
|CitationClass=book
|SandboxSubpageName=sandbox
}}
The module sees that and applies that name with preceding /
to the names of the modules to be loaded. It means that other wiki would change 23ish sandbox templates once instead of one change to the sandbox module every time they update.
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There are currently 20 citations with the title set to Club not live, presumably because www.pitchero.com doesn't return a 404 error as it should. Can this be added to the list of useless titles? -- John of Reading ( talk) 16:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The {{
Cite web}} docs clearly state that the website parameter should display the name of the site, and the examples back that up. Though for some reason, on lots and lots of articles that I see, it's used to display the domain name. For example, where I would think someone would put |website=[[Microsoft]]
on a page on Microsoft's website, I often see |website=www.microsoft.com
or something similar, instead. Have I misunderstood what the examples, docs, and templatedata say? Or is everyone using this parameter incorrectly. Thanks, ―
Levi_OP
Talk 16:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
|website=[[Microsoft]]
. Those should be replaced with |publisher=[[Microsoft]]
. |website=www.microsoft.com
is fine, thought not really needed if you have |publisher=[[Microsoft]]
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
|publisher=Microsoft
rather than |publisher=microsoft.com
.
65.88.88.75 (
talk) 19:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)|website=www.microsoft.com
is not fine. It is the name of the host where the title (and maybe not the whole web site) can be found. It is different from the name of the web site, which in this case happens to be the same as the name of the publisher, Microsoft (although you could spell out the publisher as "Microsoft Corporation" if you were feeling pedantic, and the name of the site would still just be Microsoft). In general, my philosophy for sites where the publisher is more informative than the whole-site name is to use the "work" parameter to give some context to the specific title being cited — is it part of a larger thing, and which level of larger thing would tell readers the most useful information about the citation? For the same reason we neither use street numbers nor "Earth" to quickly describe the residence of someone, we should often neither use the most specific description of a larger work containing the title nor the most general description ("World Wide Web") to describe the work it comes from, but something intermediate, chosen to be informative. Maybe that's the title of a magazine or newspaper, rather than the department within that publication, or the group of publications ("Times-Mirror Newpapers") it comes from. In the case of
[1], for instance, (one of the references in
Microsoft), the publisher is "Microsoft", and it is indeed somewhere in Microsoft's vast web site, so it is not wrong to put |work=Microsoft
, but a more informative and therefore better choice would be |work=Official Microsoft Blog
. To complete the analogy, putting a domain name in the work parameter would be like writing that someone lives in the 02134 zip code — it is informative, roughly at the level a city name might be, but in a format primarily intended for conveying information unambiguously to computers, rather than for communicating to people. The text of an encyclopedia article (and a citation is part of that text) should be for communicating to people. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
|publisher=Microsoft
- given V as the consideration concision and common name is important, similar to our article naming conventions, ease of finding things. The idea that precision is better for verification makes sense, unless other websites (LN) have a different idea what to call the website/publisher, which is probably a common problem because there are no standards. --
Green
C 05:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
CS1 error analysis of the lead section of
East West Rail reports
Script warning: One or more {{
cite web}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
None of the citations has a specific error report. I have tried each paragraph individually in my sandbox: no errors. But as a group: error. No clues as to what is causing the problem.
My commmon.css reads
.harv-error {display: inline !important;} /* display Module:Footnotes errors */
.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
This is the second time today that I have spent a silly amount of time hunting for needles in haystacks (but at least the earlier one could be pinned down using the paragraph method. The faulty citation had author=Doe, John & Doe, Jane (2015)
- if the code could identify that as an error, surely it could have let me into the big secret?
I'm not looking for someone to fix the error, what I want is a more useful error report if at all possible. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
Could somebody have a look at Christopher C. Kraft Jr.? I have no clue what the message refers to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
|date=
and |year=
. Only one is needed.
{{Cite magazine |last=Nystrom |first=Lynn |magazine=Virginia Spectrum |volume=24 |issue=31 |date=April 26, 2002 |title=Kraft selected 2002 Ruffner Medal recipient |publisher=Virginia Tech |year=2002 |url=http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/vtpubs/spectrum/2002/sp2002-0426.pdf |access-date=February 1, 2022 |ref=none}}
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)|year=2002a
to avoid duplicated references.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
|date=3 February 2022a
or |date=February 3, 2022a
. Not an issue with this particular citation because |ref=none
.Is this category working correctly? I see that articles gain tihs warning with url-status=live
, unfit
or usurped
. With that setting, they don't need to have archive-url=
or archive-date=
values. What's the point? Seems more useful to only cause an error on references that set url-status=dead
--
Mikeblas (
talk) 00:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=<dead | live | unfit | usurped | deviated>
(any valid value) without |archive-url=
conveys no meaning to the template. It is |url-status=
that controls how cs1|2 templates are rendered when |archive-url=
is present and has an assigned value. All of these correctly emit the maintenance message and, when in a categorizable namespace, add the article to
Category:CS1 maint: url-status.
{{cite book |title=Title |url-status=live}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=dead}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=usurped}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=unfit}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=deviated}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)|url-status=dead
is not a substitute for {{
dead link}}
.url-status=live
is used to indicate that the URL is live, and that an archive-url is not necessary. Why should that state place the article in a maintenance category? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=live
. The only purpose of |url-status=live
is to specify which of |url=
or |archive-url=
links |title=
when the citation is rendered:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com}}
|url=
links |title=
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |url-status=live}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23}}
|archive-url=
links |title=
; |url=
links 'the original' static text{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23 |url-status=dead}}
|archive-url=
links |title=
; |url=
links 'the original' static text; |url-status=dead
contributes nothing{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23 |url-status=live}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23 |url-status=usurped}}
|url-status=live
, |url-status=usurped
, |url-status=unfit
, |url-status=deviated
. It is expected that a future cs1|2 update will categorize non-contributing |url-status=dead
.If a link is dead and there is no archive then an example could look like this:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)In this case the url is dead but it is not possible to add a |archive-url=
. What would be the correct thing to do there? Remove |url-status=
?
I think often IABot would add {{ Dead link}} but {{ Cite web}} could do the same. So if statues is dead and there is an archive the template does at it do now but if there is no archive the template shows {{ Dead link}}. If would have to be coordinated so that we do not have both templates. -- MGA73 ( talk) 10:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
and }}
so cs1|2 templates cannot know if they are already associated with an adjacent {{
dead link}}
template. It is not the responsibility of cs1|2 to handle the housekeeping duties of {{dead link}}
or any other inline cleanup template.|url-status=
and add {{
dead link}}
. --
Green
C 14:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=
and if IABot sees |url-status=dead
then it acts, such as adding a {{
dead link}}
. There is no guarantee IABot will run on a page in a timely manner - IABot can be shut down for reasons, or not process a page for a long time. I suppose there could be a special purpose bot whose only job is to convert |url-status=dead
to {{
dead link}}
, it will always be checking quickly; it's an added complication and raises the question why not use {{
dead link}}
instead of |url-status=dead
to begin with. Maybe there could be both. If you want to do it on dawiki, it would be fine, but would be a special bot not rely on IABot. I can provide a daily dump of CS1|2 templates in any language (
demonstration page). It's an interesting idea, the unknown is can you trust |url-status=dead
means it is dead, or a user entry error. --
Green
C 15:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
. Instead of that users and IABot could add |url-status=dead
. I think both options would be just as fast (or slow). We also have {{
Webarchive}} but instead of using that template we let the cs1|2 templates handle archive links.{{
Dead link}}
is a universal flag that says the URL is dead. {{
Webarchive}}
contains an archive URL and is useful following a square or bare URL. There would normally be no reason to have {{
Cite web}}{{
Webarchive}} because the archive URL can be contained in {{
Cite web}} thus {{
Webarchive}} is redundant. There are some rare exceptions such as when using the |addlarchives=
flag with {{
Webarchive}}. But normally, it would be [http://example.com]
{{Webarchive}}
. --
Green
C 16:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Continued from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81 § Internationalisation need originally posted by Arjunaraoc.
I have hacked
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox so that it will fetch month names from MediaWiki using the native Scributu function formatDate()
. That function takes the same format and date/time strings as the {{#time:}}
parser function. Seemed to work here and at sq.wiki but I got surprising results at te.wiki. So I hacked a bit of test code that runs from the debug console with this command:
=p.main ('<lang tag>')
where <lang tag>
is an ISO 639-1, -2, -3, or IETF-like language tag known to MediaWiki.
When I run the test at en.wiki for <lang tag>
= te
I get this:
That is the expected result. Compare the test's output against long names and short names in te:మాడ్యూల్:Citation/CS1/Configuration.
When I run the exact same test at te.wiki, I get this:
Long and short month names are the same except for month 10.
It is simple to test this at other wikis. Edit my
sandbox. Copy the code into your clipboard. Change the domain in the url from en
to some other valid tag (the WP code in the tables at
List of Wikipedias). Paste the test code into the edit box and then, in the debug console, enter the =p.main ('<lang tag>')
command with an appropriate language tag (doesn't have to be the same as the WP code in the url).
I'm inclined to keep this modification even though it won't work for all projects because it will work for some. At projects where it won't work, it is easy to disable because the functionality is controlled by a boolean:
local local_date_names_from_mediawiki = true
to disable, set that boolean false
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
local Mediawiki messages? I assume that it is the same basic location at each wiki.
{{cite news|title=News article|section=2|page=3}}
"News article". p. 3. {{
cite news}}
: |section=
ignored (
help){{cite news|title=News article|page=2{{hyphen}}3}}
"News article". p. 2-3.{{cite news|title=News article|department=Section 2|page=3}}
"News article". Section 2. p. 3.What is the proper way to denote a newspaper article on section 2, page 3, using {{
cite news}}
? It seems that I should be able to use |section=
, but I get an error message. The doc page says to use 2{{hyphen}}
3, but that just reads like pp. 2–3 to me. Using |department=
points me in the right direction, but that doesn't seem intuitive. –
Fredddie
™ 21:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|at=§2, p. 3
myself.
Imzadi 1979
→ 21:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)|department=Section 2
.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Is it mandatory, permissible or prohibited to wikilink terms in the text of |quote=
rather than giving the text as is? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 13:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a desire to rename them /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'm a CSS total noob but can you tell me basically why this didn't work? Why does Template:Cite_AV_media_notes give a CSS error simply due to the presence of "others=" when the template's documentation says "others=" is fully supported? Why would any template disallow "others="? Did I write this diff correctly? I'm just kinda curious if this is a bug because it makes no sense. Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|others=
is not supported, it's that it is unsupported when another authorship parameter (author or editor) is not provided. It has its own category relative to the
same in other templates because over 60-70% of these cases are because of AV media (notes) issues.
Izno (
talk) 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|others=
will help readers locate the source, but they weren't the author of the text being cited.
Umimmak (
talk) 22:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|people=
), which is the parameter at issue.
Izno (
talk) 00:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
|author=<!-- not stated -->
). No doubt someone will say "but the performers are essential for readers to locate the source". Really? You have the publisher and the title of the recording (presuming that en.wiki editors transcribe it correctly – which is it: Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire Official Soundtrack or
Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire), and you could even include |id=UPC: 888072173637
. With all of that, locating a copy of the source should not be that difficult.{{
cite AV media}}
, need reworking, primarily because of |people=
and |others=
. I have sometimes thought that a very carefully curated list of the various role parameters that we once had might be brought back as unique parameters for these two templates because we now have an infrastructure that might, with a little tweaking, support them properly.{{Cite AV media notes |author=<!-- not stated --> |title=Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire | title-link=Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire#Soundtrack |year=1996 |publisher=[[Varèse Sarabande]]}}
No doubt someone will sayyeah I'll be that someone I guess. When the AV media in question has a unique title sure you don't need an additional name, but that's not always the case. How many compellation albums are just titled The Best or live albums are just Live at [famous venue]? Or have popular titles like Closer [2]? Maybe there was only one album with that year from that record company, and maybe there is some sort of ID (is there precedent for citing UPC in a bibliography?), but it seems useful to have the option to provide the name of a person associated with the album if the person writing the citation thinks it is necessary to locate a source. FWIW CMoS says to cite liner notes just by citing the album (which they say can begin with the performer, conductor, or composer depending on which is most relevant in discussion), with "(liner notes)" at the end -- which I think I disagree with if there is a listed author, but I was just curious what other style guides said. Umimmak ( talk) 23:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
|id={{
UPC}}
or |id=record-label-catalog-number
(along with |publisher=record-label-name
). As for the generic work titles, in my experience, the proper full title is always "Best of (Artist)" or "(Artist) Live at (Venue)" and the work can be found with this correct title.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 01:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)I am seeing this being reported as an error all over the place (I have the green error display enabled) and I think the problem with most of them is that the Visual Editor defaults the url-status to be "live" rather than omit it. It might be simpler to not regard it as an error, because at the point at which most people create a web citation, the url is live. And later it may be dead, but isn't it a statement of what's going on with the url independent of what's happening with the archive-url? Or ask the Visual Editor team at phabricator to omit the url-status in the absence of an archive-url value. For myself, I would see the opposite as a bigger problem, where there is an archive-url value but no url-status value. Kerry ( talk) 06:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=<anything>
has no meaning or value when |archive-url=
is omitted or empty. |url-status=
is a control parameter that tells the citation template how to link the value in |title=
(and the archive-associated static-text) when the template also has |archive-url=
with an assigned value:
|url-status=live
– use the value in |url=
to link |title=
; link 'Archived' static-text to the value in |archive-url=
|url-status=dead
or |url-status=deviated
or omitted or empty – use the value in |archive-url=
to link |title=
; link 'the original' static-text to the value in |url=
|url-status=unfit
or |url-status=usurped
– use the value in |archive-url=
to link |title=
; do not link to the 'original' static text|archive-url=
, |url-status=
does nothing except needlessly occupy space in wikitext and consume a few processor cycles. We can assume that a url is live when it is first inserted into a cs1|2 template so there is no need to state the obvious. Similarly, the presence of |archive-url=
with an assigned value indicates that the value assigned to |url=
is dead. Again, no need to state the obvious.VE would explain why they are so common. I've been deleting by bot for years, incidentally treated as cosmetic. If it's now producing a green message it's no longer cosmetic. The idea of a permanent bot to remove these is probably untenable as the number of edits would be so frequent as to cause certain backlash - they will keep showing up even in the same article over and over. The community won't abide by bot removal at the rate required, and they won't like the green message because it's so frequent. My initial thought is squelch the green message and enlist the help of bots and tools to add to their standard fixes while making other edits. -- Green C 19:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=dead
to flag the URL is dead instead of {{dead link}}
. This is wrong, but common. We could perhaps look at those more carefully for conversion to {{dead link}}
.
Green
C 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|archive-url=
is empty or omitted, and when |url-access=
has been assigned one of its valid keywords (dead
, deviated
, live
, unfit
, usurped
, or the bot specific bot: unknown
) cs1|2 will add the article to
Category:CS1 maint: url-status.|url-status=live
is ('was', I hope) added, it was only added by when ve added a {{
cite web}}
template and only because the TemplateData had "autovalue": "live",
; see
Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial § Completing the TemplateData information. I
removed the "autovalue":
keyword from the {{cite web}}
TemplateData so, if I'm right, ve should not continue to pointlessly add new instances of |url-status=live
.|archive-display=
(or -placement, -format, -render, etc.); keeps it in the archive-*
family which cements the three together. Most arg names describe the data they hold ("title" contains the title), but there are a few
display options that are comparable, determining how the template displays. For the value names, not sure what would be clear. |archive-display=first
is pretty abstract as is |archive-display=dead
.
Green
C 05:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=live
? Meaning the template will not show an error/maintanance message/category? In most cases IABot will handle the status and I think it should be able to change "live" to "dead" if/when the url dies.This
edit request to
Template:Cite web/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ruf3346 ( talk) 00:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes multiple URLs are useful to direct the reader to multiple pages within the same source. I've found it useful mostly in early work in natural history when the reader might also want to see an associated plate for the text, e.g. (with irrelevant parameters removed):
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |postscript=
(
help)CS1 maint: postscript (
link)This also is occasionally useful when citing articles in newspapers when an article is continued on a page very far from the initial one. I don't have an example off-hand, but for older newspapers there quite often isn't a single URL for the entire source, rather you're linking to individual scanned pages and if the article is on A1 and A42 it can be convenient to the reader to have a URL to both pages.
However neither putting a url in |page=
or |postscript=
seems to be approved so I was wondering what the way to cite sources like this would be in a way that doesn't require the reader to have to put in the effort to find a second page that can be quite far from the first. It seems when people fix "External link in |<param>=" they often just remove the URL which I think ends up being a net loss. Is there a "right" way I can include multiple links within a single citation parameter?
Umimmak (
talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
|page=
are still supported without error messages. URLs in |postscript=
have never been supported, as far as I know. |postscript=
Controls the closing punctuation for a citation, and the modules have gradually been adjusted to detect nonconforming text. Editors are always free to add more information after the closing braces of the citation template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
* {{cite journal | collaboration=GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators | title=Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 | journal=The Lancet | volume=390 | issue=10100 | year=2017 | doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2 | pages=1211–1259}}
Displays as
instead of the expected
(which should generate a harv anchor)
Likewise
* {{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |last2=Smith |first2=K. |last3=Smith |first3=L. | collaboration=Foobar Collaboration |year=2020 | title=Article of Things | journal=Journal of Things | volume=1| issue=2| pages=3 }}
still erroneously display as
instead of the expected
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
|collaboration=
should change. If that consensus exists and I'm just blind to it, I'm not seeing a clear determination of what should change and how it should be changed.Where to put the supplemental material of a source? In the article
Dorfopterus (and in many others) there's a source, Lamsdell & Braddy 2009, which is cited alongside its supplemental material. I have commonly put this information on the |location=
parameter but this now gives an error on the template. Is there any appropiate place to put this info, and if not, could it be given its own parameter?
Super
Ψ
Dro 12:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|location=
refers to place of publication, it is not about an in-source lication. Where is the pertinent (verifying) information? If it is not in the supplement then this need not be cited. If it is in the supplement, you can cite the supplement in parameter |at=
or |department=
and insert that doi only. If there is verification info in both the article and the supplement, I would use for the supplement a short reference. In short refs the |loc=
(location) is actually (and admittedly confusingly) referring to in-source location. You can insert the suplement doi there.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Re: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 79#i18n |script-<param>= error message supplements.
I said that I did that but apparently, I did not. So, now I have. See Special:Diff/1071711376.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
'Lay-url' is mentioned as deprecated (CS1 maint as well) however it's documented in the parameter list (cite book). Presumably should be removed? Neils51 ( talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-url=
is also recommended in
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (the
WP:MEDPOP section).
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Please point me to where the consensus was formed to remove this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, why was this parameter deprecated? Boghog ( talk) 19:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why was it considered to deprecate a parameter encouraged by a project without consulting said project beforehand? Hog Farm Talk 19:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
since at least the end of 2008 (that's a lot of years on a highly used guideline for a couple of editors to be undoing). WP:MEDRS has 389 page watchers, and has included the text about the lay source parameter, with text unchanged for all those years. When deprecating a parameter with such wide and long-standing acceptance, why is the page most affected not notified of the proposal? This de facto, fait accompli method of operating on citation templates should be addressed by the community more broadly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the
|lay-url=
parameter of {{ cite journal}}.
Went through WP:MEDRS carefully. Nowhere is it suggested that lay sources should not be cited by themselves. On the contrary it is suggested that such sources be cited alongside citations from "ideal" sources like peer-reviewed bio-medical journals. The document describes "ideal" sources but does not out of hand exclude others, including the popular press. To help non-expert readers (the vast majority of users, surely) find sources and verify wikitext, citations should be simple. A factor of simplicity is that a single citation should correspond to a single source (with one exception, for archived versions of the same source). Adding multiple sources to a single citation is confusing for both data entry editors and the citation consumers. It is also unwieldy. I suggest you look at this as someone who knows nothing of medicine, scientific literature, or citations. That will likely put you among the vast majority of this encyclopedia's readers. 68.174.121.16 ( talk) 19:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Nowhere is it suggested that lay sources should not be cited by themselves. It is equally true that nowhere it is suggested that lay source must be cited by themselves. Also, why is it unwieldy? I think bundling lay sources with the primary source is cleaner because it makes clear what is the primary citation, and what is layman's translation of the original source. And why is it confusing for editors? Quite to the contrary, the
|lay-source=
and |lay-url=
parameters are self explanatory.
Boghog (
talk) 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion? -- Ahecht ( TALK
widely in use. Let us look at that. As I write this, there are:
{{
cite journal}}
|lay-url=
with an assigned value (article name-space; all cs1|2 templates)|lay-url=
with an assigned value (article name-space; {{cite journal}}
only)|lay-date=
, |lay-format=
, |lay-source=
and |lay-url=
may be in use, but widely in use, they are not.
it is recommended by the medicine wikiproject and considered useful by many medicine editors. Of course, but that does not make use of
|lay-url=
and related parameters a proper thing to do.
|lay-*=
parameters are a crude mechanism to insert a second source into a template that is designed to support only one source at a time|lay-*=
parameters lack essential bibliographic information: author(s), title, insource locators|lay-*=
parameter formatting is cryptic and nonstandard|type=Lay source
(or some similar text) would serve to differentiate the pair. Bundling would allow more than one lay source were that desirable. I can imagine a {{
cite lay source}}
wrapper-template that accepts all cs1|2 template parameters plus one |template=book | magazine | news | journal | ...
parameter and automatically sets |type=
to the preferred indicator text or, perhaps, adds a 'Lay source:' prefix to the rendering. You-all should stop looking at change as a bad thing and recognize that your world could be better.|lay-url=
.|lay-url=
and used the external text editor to make a Lua acceptable list. The lists are in
Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/layurl/data.{{#invoke:Sandbox/trappist the monk/layurl|main|list=}}
.|lay-url=
. The lists for these were taken from
Category:FA-Class medicine articles and
Category:GA-Class medicine articles.|lay-url=
is so specialized that no average editor is going to use it regardless, so your point is essentially irrelevant. Hence why it's been used only some 2000 times in nearly 15 years.
Izno (
talk) 02:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite journal |last=Expert |first=Alice |url=
https://www.example.com/extra-peer-reviewed-paper |title=Systematic Review of Scientific Papers |work=Journal of Imp. Sci. |date=December 2021 |pmid=1234567 |doi=10.1136/bmj-2021-066995}} Lay summary in: {{cite news |last=Journalist |first=Joe |url=
https://www.example.com/news-article |title=Explainer: Latest Scientific Breakthrough |date=15 December 2021 |work=Big Times}}</ref>
Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
A med-specific wrapper to {{ citation}} or any other appropriate CS1 template. The wrapper may add parameters more specific to medicine. Under the condition that native CS1 templates that lead to lay sources are not invalidated or considered "inferior". The rationale for this condition is as follows:
|lay-source=
then it should be good enough to stand on its ownAssuming that such a wrapper template is designed and used alongside the native templates, I suggest that in keeping with the above, the template presents the lay source as the main source, and the expert source as additional: as the one the lay source is based on. 65.88.88.47 ( talk) 15:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite lay source}}
. So, I've hacked {{
lay source}}
. Different name because these sources apparently do not want to be viewed as 'citable'.{{lay source}}
requires its own parameter |template=
which gets the name of the cs1|2 template that is appropriate to the lay source; defaults to {{
cite web}}
if omitted. Otherwise, {{lay source}}
accepts any cs1|2 template parameter except |ref=
(so that the rendered lay citation can't be linked-to from the article text by {{
sfn}}
, etc). Using Editor
WhatamIdoing's example from above we would write:
{{lay source |template=cite news |last=Journalist |first=Joe |date=15 December 2021 |title=Explainer: Latest Scientific Breakthrough |work=Big Times |url=https://www.example.com/news-article}}
This is pretty much what I was suggesting above when I suggested {{
cite lay source}}
. Indeed. However, I thought this proposal would be more readily accepted if the interested parties had the lead in designing the wrapper. Also, if a lay source is judged reliable after scrutiny (i.e. represents salient facts correctly and without bias) it is as eminently citable as any other so-judged reliable source. Including sources such as scientific journals. More so, I would think, if the source is more readily understandable and therefore more likely to prove the wikitext verifiable to the reader.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 18:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
the lead in designing the wrapper. As for the
eminently citablecase: switch
{{lay source |template=cite <whatever> ...}}
to {{cite <whatever> ...}}
and suddenly, a normal cs1|2 template.I don’t think a help talk citation page is the place to rewrite, reinterpret, and redefine a 15-year-old guideline, which is what the entire discussion above is doing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
RestoreUn-deprecate |lay-url=
and related parameters pending consensus on their deprecation per
WP:BRD. Their deprecation was based on an all-or-nothing RFC where the closure specifically said there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion
, deprecating the lay- parameters was buried in a list of 60 other items, and the relevant talk pages (
WT:MEDRS,
WT:WikiProject Medicine) were not notified. While the RFC came to the conclusion that most typical changes to cs1/2 are uncontroversial and don't need to undergo routine VPR RfCs to be rolled out
, it's clear from the above discussion that this particular change was non uncontroversial. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-date=
(
help).
Peaceray (
talk) 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Restore |lay-url=
and related parameters pending consensus on their removal per
WP:BRD.
Undeprecate |lay-url=
and related parameters pending consensus on their removal per
WP:BRD.
Restorefor
Undeprecatewhile leaving intact the rest of Ahecht's original proposal. I am open to any alternative wording for the B proposal that moves us towards the goal of un-deprecating the lay summary parameters. Would you please suggest an alternative wording, if you are so inclined? Peaceray ( talk) 23:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-url=
and related parameters". Or even "Keep |lay-url=
and related parameters".
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)|lay-source=
handled this citations perfectly? It is also important to point out that not a single person commented specifically about these lay parameters in the RfC, and in my opinion, the RfC was too broad to be useful. And as stated elsewhere, the appropriate projects were not notified.
Boghog (
talk) 12:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
with |lay-source= handled this citations perfectlyIt did not, as described above. You should want to fully describe the lay source as part of the overall citation so that readers can make an assessment of their quality themselves; I'm actually flabbergasted that the line being taken above is "it's not important enough". You are literally telling us it is important for readers to know the difference. Having it jammed into 3 parameters and without its own full description diminishes the import with which you want to say "this source is provided for your convenience in case you do not understand the math/science/medical/other field with jargon's source and its terminology, but we really want to stress that it is insufficient for the purposes of providing a reliable source for the statement that precedes it".
*::.... However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:
- One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous ....
- Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
- Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
- Talk pages of closely related articles or policies
<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Journal|title=Title}} Lay summary: {{cite news|title=Title}}</ref>
or <ref>{{cite journal|journal=Journal|title=Title}} {{lay source|title=Title|url=https://example.com}}</ref>
is clearly sufficient. If it is the latter, that comes up with a wider issue that your use of the templates does not describe the overall training objective that we stress here regularly and with which basically no people have had a real issue, and which is valuable for new- and old-comers alike: a single citation template covers a single source. It does not cover multiple. Right now you are trying to treat the lay source as part of the 'real' source, when you admit it is not by having the existence of these parameters.A good example, from the most recent medical FA, Menstrual cycle:
The journal article is recent secondary review that complies with WP:MEDRS, and is what the text in the article is sourced to. The lay article from the BBC offers an overview in simpler language; an adjunct for the reader, but not something one would ever cite medical content to; even well written lay sources often have medical errors, and this one has a lot of opinion. But it serves to help the reader understand the terminology so they can then better digest the actual source should they care to (WAID is fond of reminding us that readers don't click on sources anyway). We provide it in a case like this for a simple overview, but we don’t source content to it. It's an adjunct, not a stand-alone, and not the source used.
And while IP68 is stating that our sources have to be accessible; no they don't. The text we write based on our sources should be accessible; the statements about MEDRS above are reinterpretations of MEDRS, and if that is to be done, that should happen at WT:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
re-interpretation of reliable sources.What it has been proposed all along, in one form or other is this:
I strongly oppose any remedy that involves converting lay-urls to actual citation templates. This is not what we should be doing in support of WP:MEDRS, but it is what the cite journal template currently recommends (based on zero consensus). The text at Template:Cite_journal#Deprecated is disputed; will someone please add the disputed tag to the protected template, lest editors begin doing just that? We don’t usually cite medical content to lay sources, and this method leads to doing just that. Lay-urls are adjuncts to medrs sources only. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If I am understanding correctly, one of the reasons for removing the lay parameters was “cost”. What is this cost being measured in terms of? That is, is it server load, load time, template limits, what? And how much is the cost? Specifically, in relation to some other costs, like the craziness of having to edit around 80 parameters when a citation has 40 authors, rather than using et al. (a burden promoted by the cite templates. That creates an editing burden, as well as resulting in horrible citations). I don’t mind waiting for the explanation to allow time for it to be put in language we non-tech editors can understand, but please explain the burden created by this parameter, how is it measured, and put it in the context of other cite template burdens. Thanks in advance; the heat is considerably lowered when one feels heard and respected, rather than labeled in psychiatric terms. I’d appreciate understanding what the precise burden is. My apologies for piecemeal iPad typing. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-*=
parameters should be deprecated and later withdrawn. My initial reasons for supporting deprecation and withdrawal:
|lay-*=
parameters are a crude mechanism to bold-on another source without appropriate bibliographic detail, most notably: authors, lay-source title, insource locators (page numbers etc)|lay-*=
parameters
|lay-*=
parameters only support lay-sources that exist online|lay-*=
parameters are claimed to have been created for
WP:MED, but I can find no evidence to support that in the histories of {{
citation}}
, {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, or {{
cite web}}
, their talk and documentation pages, or in the histories of
WT:MED and
WT:MEDRS. Here is a chronology of the |lay-*=
implementations with first mention of |laysummary=
in
WP:MEDRS and related discussions when I could find them:
{{cite journal}}
by
Samsara (not here since June 2021){{citation}}
by Lifebaka (no longer with us) – edit summary suggests discussion somewhere but does not say where{{cite book}}
by
MZMcBride (
discussion){{cite news}}
by
Ruslik0 reverted (
discussion)
{{cite news}}
by
Aervanath{{cite web}}
by Gadget850 (no longer with us) (
discussion){{
Citation Style documentation}}
:
8 March 2012 version{{Citation Style documentation}}
:
1 July 2012 version|vauthors=
to go nowhere until there is a
Module:Citation/Vanc lying around, and even then I'm not sure we'd withdraw support.
Izno (
talk) 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
to cs1|2 templates that only had |lay-url=
. In cs1|2, |archive-url=
requires |url=
so the result was |archive-url=
requires |url=
. I think that that bug has been fixed.|lay-url=
– I haven't seen this problem in a while. I do know that it used to:
T285191 and
T279268 (where it is marked as resolved). The error was caused only when |url=
was empty or omitted; sort of suggests that |lay-url=
was being treated as a fall-back parameter.Ttm, with a disputed tag on the cite journal page, where did you get consensus to enact this preference across multiple articles (one sample provided) ? In the discussions above, and elsewhere, against this proposal are SG, @ Boghog, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Nikkimaria, Ahecht, Peaceray, Femkemilene, Firefangledfeathers, and Johnbod:. For it are two IPs (don't know how to ping them), Guerillero, and I can't determine from the discussion where others stand, as their comments are generalized. (I think Colin agreed with this proposal, but unclear.) And yet you are systematically installing a cited lay source across medical content, in precisely the way most of us have objected to.
Today, starting with the As, you have made hundreds of these edits, and this leaves the impression you intend to continue. Why and where is the consensus? Please stop. Also, please inform us as to when the unsupported change will be reverted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
|lay-*=
parameters) [affects] hundreds to thousands of articles, leaving in this case, thousands of error messages in Good and Featured articles. In the OP of this subsection you wrote
you have made dozens of these editsbut then changed that text to
you have made hundreds of these edits.
|lay-url=
|lay-url=
|lay-url=
|lay-url=
at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine § WP:MED articles using lay-url= (you fixed
Leech and
Water fluoridation)thousands of error messages in Good and Featured articles.
|lay-url=
errors all use {{
lay source}}
. At this writing, that template is used
73 times in mainspace so 73 is the maximum possible number of |lay-url=
fix-edits that I could have made. While I have made most of these edits, there are other editors who have used {{lay source}}
.|lay-*=
parameters are not
WP:MEDRS-citable sources. I do not dispute that. Yet, the very presence of a lay source inside a WP:MEDRS-citable-source citation makes it appear that the lay source has the imprimatur of WP:MEDRS by virtue of that intimate placement. That same intimate placement makes it appear that clicking the link will take the reader to the source named in the WP:MEDRS-citable source portion of the citation when that is (almost) always not true. This violates
WP:ASTONISH and, particularly
WP:EASTEREGG (yeah, I know, "not policy", but good advice nonetheless). That such links escaped FA scrutiny surprises me.|lay-*=
parameters might be the best course. Of the 73-ish articles that I've fixed, the most templates with |lay-*=
parameters that I remember fixing has been three in the non-WP:MED article
Allison T56.|lay-*=
parameters are a bad design used in a very small fraction of all articles using cs1|2 templates (0.046% = 1,246 ÷ 5,116,342 × 100 – these numbers obtained 27 January 2022; see above). There is no need to perpetuate bad design so no need to un-deprecate these parameters.back dooris already open. Inclusion of a lay source in or directly adjacent to a WP:MEDRS-citable scholarly or academic source, whether by
|lay-*=
or by external link or by some sort of template, opened that door because the pairing of the lay source with an academic or scholarly source will be interpreted by readers as a
WP:MED endorsement of the lay source. If WP:MED are going to include, and by default, endorse a lay source, especially when so closely coupled to an academic or scholarly source, then the lay source should not be presented as a partialbut as a whole that includes all of the appropriate bibliographic detail – just as is done for the paired scholarly or academic source. If WP:MED do not want to endorse lay sources, then none should appear in any WP:MED article where readers may assume a WP:MED endorsement.
something close to a link in a "See also" section, only to an external resourcemakes me wonder if a §§Lay sources subsection of a §Further reading section (perhaps with some sort of appropriate disclaimer), might be an appropriate place to list 'WP:MED-approved' lay sources with all of their proper bibliographic detail.
|lay-*=
parameters), for sake of argument, One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |lay-url= parameter of {{cite journal}}.does not say that you must use this parameter in these templates to provide the information of interest. So out goes the "MEDRS controls this specific parameter". Nor in fact does MEDRS even support any of the argumentation made here in regard to why it should get to control the exact presentation of the citation. Izno ( talk) 00:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
it does not support the proposed replacementIt does not need to. If a guideline is silent on a topic, it's silent on a topic. There isn't magical text that exists in the guideline but doesn't actually exist in the guideline. Izno ( talk) 03:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
CITESTYLE means to protect a change from style X to Y at a level broader than a specific parameter of a specific series of templates. There is an obvious stylistic difference resulting from the use of
|lay-url=
etc versus {{
lay source}} - it's ludicrous to suggest there isn't, even if you think the latter is better.The other reason it's ludicrous is that it would imply these modules can never change. Ever. Even if they have, several times over, and sometimes in quite significant ways. There have indeed been quite significant changes made. And then we get discussions like this, where people who use these templates in practice are surprised - for example, that what the guidelines suggest suddenly results in error messages.
If a guideline is silent on a topic, it's silent on a topic.The guideline is not silent on the issue of lay sources - it makes clear they shouldn't be used as sole citations but only as adjuncts. Sandy and Choess point out that the switch from a parameter to a separate template results in that distinction being lost. Some argue that it should be - but that's not a discussion that belongs here, it's one they should take to the guideline talk page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
They point out: No, they have the opinion that the distinction is lost. Neither in the displayed text, nor in the wikitext, does {{ lay source}} make it unclear it is a lay source. And I would suggest that if {{ lay source}} appeared in its own distinct <ref></ref> that alarm bells would sound regardless.
|lay-*=
parameters. How that is accomplished is up to the editors over there.About to update a reference by adding the archive.org version of the ref URL, but not sure what do put in url-access field. The archive.org version is free, but the article at original URL now available after paying $3.95 per article (which i assume is registration
, rather than limited
). Should the url-access be set to the archive.org access-status of nothing (ie. free without putting "free" in field), OR set to access-status of original URL? (i looked through archived Talk threads and didn't see a post about this issue.) --
EarthFurst (
talk) 23:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
|archive-url=
, |archive-date=
, |url-status=
, and set |url-access=subscription
because that is the closest thing that we have to a paywall access indicator.paywall
keyword for |url-access=
– it would display the red-lock access indicator.|url-access=
is for whatever is in |url=
.
Izno (
talk) 00:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Should a "cite journal" template include a "url=" link to the journal title when the article is behind a paywall? I've always assumed that the doi is sufficient - but I'm about to review a FA candidate and I cannot find any documentation on this. Once a link is included it gets archived and an access-date is needed. It all gets very cluttered. Where has this been discussed? Thanks - Aa77zz ( talk) 12:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|url=
for free resources.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-access=
is for. See
the Cite journal documentation for details. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|url=
with paywalled links.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any parameter in CS1 for it. As has been pointed out in previous discussions (
1,
2), there is a difference between a volume, which refers to a single work broken up into multiple bindings, and a series, which are multiple books on different subjects, but tied together by a common theme and published as an ongoing effort. For this reason, neither "volume", nor "issue" applies. There are a "number" and "series-number" parameter, but neither of them are used in {{
cite book}}
. (It is important to note that, despite being listed as being deprecated in April 2021 on {{
cite book}}
, "series-number" was technically not deprecated. Deprecated implies that it was once in use. However, "series-number" was actually only used by the {{
cite episode}}
. It seems to have simply been mistakenly listed on {{
cite book}}
.) I saw a
suggestion to place the number at the end of the "series" parameter, but that appears to be incorrect, as it should be used to name only the title of the series, not the number. Therefore, it seems that a separate parameter is necessary. Note that widely used citation management software like
Zotero have
implemented such a field. However, if another parameter is not possible, a suggestion of where the series number should be entered would be
For an example, consider
US Air Force Historical Study No. 6. (While this might not be considered more of a {{
cite report}}
than a book, the point remains as no appropriate parameter is available in it either.) –
Noha307 (
talk) 02:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|volume=
parameter. Yes, it means two different things (a volume in a series is not the same as a volume in a multi-volume book) but that's what we use anyway. If you have a multi-volume book that is also part of a book series, I think it would be best to put the volume within the multi-volume book as text in the |title=
parameter, leaving the series number in the |volume=
parameter. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)|series=Series 4
|volume=# or/and title
is perfectly acceptable, and used in the real world. The main thing is that the parameter should only be used when the publisher officially designates a series and publishes titles that again officially are designated as parts of it. We cannot make up our own series name/numbers. As you noted, your example doesn't seem to fit, unless again I am misreading it.
71.245.250.98 (
talk) 14:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)|series=USAF Historical Studies
seems like a reasonable series identifier to me (referring to the list at
https://www.afhra.af.mil/Information/Studies/Numbered-USAF-Historical-Studies/) (or perhaps just |series=Air Historical Studies
, as stated in the paper). Even though it's not identified as volume, I'd probably mark it up as:{{cite report |last1= Dubuque |first1= Jean H. |last2= Gleckner |first2= Robert F. |date= 1951 |title= The Development of the Heavy Bomber, 1918–1994 |series= USAF Historical Studies |volume= 6 |publisher= USAF Historical Division, [[Air University (United States Air Force)|Air University]] |type= Monograph |url= https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/1-50/AFD-090602-028.pdf |via= [[Air Force Historical Research Agency]]}}
How do I correctly cite an article in a physical book, an encyclopaedia, which (like many other books of this nature) has editors and contributors but no authors? See International_Christian_College#External_links -- PeterR2 ( talk) 09:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|chapter=
and using |author=
(or |first=
and |last=
) for its author.
Kanguole 10:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC){{cite book | editor=Cameron, Nigel M de S | contribution=Bible Training Institute, Glasgow | contributor=Grogan, Geoffrey W | title=Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology | location=Edinburgh | publisher=T & T Clark | year=1993 | isbn=0-567-09650-5}}
{{cite dictionary |editor-last=Cameron |editor-first=Nigel M de S |entry=Bible Training Institute, Glasgow |last=Grogan |first=Geoffrey W |dictionary=Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology |location=Edinburgh |publisher=T & T Clark |year=1993 |isbn=0-567-09650-5}}
|entry=
is |article=
though for dictionaries and encyclopedia I prefer |entry=
.
with proper list markup either **
or *:
.Other wikis can set date_name_auto_xlate_enable = true
in their ~/Configuration to have the module automatically translate English month-names to local month-names. In recent
discussion about another wiki's cs1|2 installation I noted that named dates (Christmas, Easter), season dates, and quarterly dates are not automatically translated. I have remedied that with tweaks to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox and
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox.
This new functionality is not supported at en.wiki so was tested at the other wiki.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Right now, the citation filler in the 2010 wikitext editor adds spaces between parameters. The TemplateData for Template:Cite journal tells the visual editor to use editor-hostile wikitext instead. Would anyone mind if we changed the TemplateData so that the visual editor will use the same style that the 2010 wikitext editor is already using?
(See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Suggestion for more background. No, I don't mind if we make this change for all CS1 templates; I'm only asking about {{ cite journal}} because it's the one that causes the most problems for WPMED folks.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
\n
bit, should do it.\n
style should probably be considered for infoboxes, the templates that create tables, and any other templates that we normally want to begin on a separate line.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 06:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
{{_ |_=_}}
?Like how it looks like in the examples. One of them is a news article, but I don't want the [1] box, I want something like, "Jake, Paul (Jan 1 2022). 'Lorem Ipsum'. Is that possible? Tet ( talk to me) 07:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags, like this. Jake, Paul (Jan 1, 2022).
"Lorem Ipsum". Is that what you're looking for? In what Wikipedia article would you want to use {{
cite web}} without the [1] box?
GoingBatty (
talk) 13:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Why were the transcript= and transcript-URL= fields deprecated in this and the {{cite AV... templates? These are useful fields, and their recent removal from use forces editors to use other fields contrary to their designs in order to place transcript information. RSVP here, thanks. 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 ( talk) 23:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
|transcript=
and |transcript-url=
are not deprecated. |transcripturl=
(not hyphenated) is deprecated.The template puts the word "In" before the name of the editors, which seems illogical. Instead, it seems like it should be the name of the encyclopedia. Is this correct?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
illogicalthen it has been so since this 27 June 2007 edit at
{{
Citation/core}}
(which has long-since been superseded by
Module:Citation/CS1). I don't think that it is illogical. Encyclopedia are not cataloged by article-author name but by editor name so an author's article is in the editor's work.
Good day. I ran across a reference using the cite report template that contained only a title plus some parameter errors. While fixing the parameters I looked up the title in Google Scholar and found it was in a US educational system called ERIC. ERIC has IDs that correspond directly to URLs. Example: ERIC ID ED148298 maps to https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED148298 so I'm wondering if there should be a CS1 parameter for ERIC ID? I know id= exists. Thanks Jamplevia ( talk) 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
ERIC}}
. If one believes
this search, that template isn't used much in cs1|2 templates. Creating, maintaining, documenting an |eric=
identifier for such a small number of uses doesn't seem worth the effort when |id={{ERIC|ED148298}}
works.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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
This citation template currently triggers a "generic name" error:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Kent, Jeff (1993). The Port Vale Record 1879-1993. Witan Books. ISBN 0-9508981-9-8. |
Sandbox | Kent, Jeff (1993). The Port Vale Record 1879-1993. Witan Books. ISBN 0-9508981-9-8. |
Is this what we want to happen? We do not currently enforce the "Do not wikilink" instructions in the {{
cite book}} documentation, but it looks like this is sort of doing that. Should the documentation about the "generic name" error be updated to include a note reminding editors to use |author-link=
? –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=
especially for organizational authors. If we have advice against that, I think we should remove it.
Izno (
talk) 23:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
|author-link=
like they are for human authors?
GoingBatty (
talk) 01:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=[[Central Intelligence Agency]]
or |author=Central Intelligence Agency |author-link=Central Intelligence Agency
Izno (
talk) 02:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
|author=
parameter would be easier. Were you suggesting that organizational authors be treated differently from human authors, or that we should abolish |author-link=
for all authors?
GoingBatty (
talk) 04:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
'%[%[[^|]*%(author%) *|[^%]]*%]%]'
which should catch any piped wikilink with 'author' disambiguators. See the compare in the OP.Hello everyone!
Some years ago someone copied the module to dawiki and it worked fine. But at some point we had some problems with IABot and I wanted to update the module. But I could not find the problem. The user that had been working on the module wrote that his health was not good and we have not heard from him since. A lot of knowledge disappeard with him even if he wrote some notes in the code.
But with a lot of help from Trappist the monk and a few users from dawiki the module was updated on dawiki in December 2021. I tried to make notes and explain the changes I made. But it was messy because of all the changes back and forth.
In January 2022 the module was updated on enwiki so I had the chance to update the Danish module again and this time make the changes more pretty and with better descriptions. Sadly the notes are mostly in Danish.
I could probably have saved a lot of time if there was some good manual somewhere on how to move the module. Perhaps there are some help somewhere. Then I just need to know where. And hopefully other users can save some time when they know how the module was modified on dawiki and why.
To help myself and future users on dawiki I have made some intro on da:Modul:Citation/CS1/sandkasse (sandkasse means sandbox) and the other (sub)mudules + in a table on da:Moduldiskussion:Citation/CS1#Opdatering_2021_pga_IABot. So basicly there is a text saying copy module from enwiki and change 1, 2, 3...
The Danish module have like 30 watchers so there is almost no chance that users from other wikis will find out I wrote those notes. So I'm looking for a place for a "How to copy the module from enwiki to another wiki" and someone to help me write the guide. -- MGA73 ( talk) 11:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
=mw.dumpObject (mw.wikibase.getEntity ('Q15403807')["sitelinks"])
Discussion at another-language wiki showed yet another place where the local editors had to edit their Module:Citation/CS1 module to meet their needs.
In order for {{
citation}}
renderings to match the equivalent cs1-template renderings, we constrain the use of |volume=
when |website=
, |script-website=
and |mailinglist=
are used in the citation. We allow {{citation}}
to render |issue=
when |journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |work=
, and their |script-*=
counterparts are used. The lists of those parameter has been moved into
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox.
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Title", Website |
Sandbox | "Title", Website |
Wikitext | {{citation
|
---|---|
Live | "Title", Magazine, no. 123 |
Sandbox | "Title", Magazine, no. 123 |
Is the ignored |volume=
something that should be 'announced' in the way that we 'announce' that |chapter=
is ignored?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
|volume=
used to be displayed under these conditions and now it is not. To your question about an announcement, are you able to do a search to determine how many citations would be impacted? Thanks for your continued work to improve these templates!
GoingBatty (
talk) 02:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
into periodical mode which allows the use of |issue=
. The |volume=
list is a list of parameters that switch {{citation}}
into periodical mode where |volume=
would be inappropriate – |volume=
doesn't make sense in {{
cite web}}
so the {{citation|website=...}}
} equivalent should not support |volume=
.cs1|2 templates invoke either the live Module:Citation/CS1 module or the sandbox Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. The invoked module then loads all of the other modules and the css style sheet, choosing the live or sandbox versions as appropriate. Some wikis do not use the term sandbox to identify their sandboxen so editors at those wikis must tweak their Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that it will load the appropriate sandbox modules. Until now that required changing seven lines of code. I have simplified that so that now, only one line of code needs to be changed.
It occurs to me to wonder if we might modify the sandbox cs1|2 templates (which we call ~/new) so that they pass in a parameter |SandboxSubpageName=
.
{{#invoke:citation/CS1/sandbox|citation
|CitationClass=book
|SandboxSubpageName=sandbox
}}
The module sees that and applies that name with preceding /
to the names of the modules to be loaded. It means that other wiki would change 23ish sandbox templates once instead of one change to the sandbox module every time they update.
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There are currently 20 citations with the title set to Club not live, presumably because www.pitchero.com doesn't return a 404 error as it should. Can this be added to the list of useless titles? -- John of Reading ( talk) 16:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The {{
Cite web}} docs clearly state that the website parameter should display the name of the site, and the examples back that up. Though for some reason, on lots and lots of articles that I see, it's used to display the domain name. For example, where I would think someone would put |website=[[Microsoft]]
on a page on Microsoft's website, I often see |website=www.microsoft.com
or something similar, instead. Have I misunderstood what the examples, docs, and templatedata say? Or is everyone using this parameter incorrectly. Thanks, ―
Levi_OP
Talk 16:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
|website=[[Microsoft]]
. Those should be replaced with |publisher=[[Microsoft]]
. |website=www.microsoft.com
is fine, thought not really needed if you have |publisher=[[Microsoft]]
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 16:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
|publisher=Microsoft
rather than |publisher=microsoft.com
.
65.88.88.75 (
talk) 19:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)|website=www.microsoft.com
is not fine. It is the name of the host where the title (and maybe not the whole web site) can be found. It is different from the name of the web site, which in this case happens to be the same as the name of the publisher, Microsoft (although you could spell out the publisher as "Microsoft Corporation" if you were feeling pedantic, and the name of the site would still just be Microsoft). In general, my philosophy for sites where the publisher is more informative than the whole-site name is to use the "work" parameter to give some context to the specific title being cited — is it part of a larger thing, and which level of larger thing would tell readers the most useful information about the citation? For the same reason we neither use street numbers nor "Earth" to quickly describe the residence of someone, we should often neither use the most specific description of a larger work containing the title nor the most general description ("World Wide Web") to describe the work it comes from, but something intermediate, chosen to be informative. Maybe that's the title of a magazine or newspaper, rather than the department within that publication, or the group of publications ("Times-Mirror Newpapers") it comes from. In the case of
[1], for instance, (one of the references in
Microsoft), the publisher is "Microsoft", and it is indeed somewhere in Microsoft's vast web site, so it is not wrong to put |work=Microsoft
, but a more informative and therefore better choice would be |work=Official Microsoft Blog
. To complete the analogy, putting a domain name in the work parameter would be like writing that someone lives in the 02134 zip code — it is informative, roughly at the level a city name might be, but in a format primarily intended for conveying information unambiguously to computers, rather than for communicating to people. The text of an encyclopedia article (and a citation is part of that text) should be for communicating to people. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
|publisher=Microsoft
- given V as the consideration concision and common name is important, similar to our article naming conventions, ease of finding things. The idea that precision is better for verification makes sense, unless other websites (LN) have a different idea what to call the website/publisher, which is probably a common problem because there are no standards. --
Green
C 05:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
CS1 error analysis of the lead section of
East West Rail reports
Script warning: One or more {{
cite web}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
None of the citations has a specific error report. I have tried each paragraph individually in my sandbox: no errors. But as a group: error. No clues as to what is causing the problem.
My commmon.css reads
.harv-error {display: inline !important;} /* display Module:Footnotes errors */
.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
This is the second time today that I have spent a silly amount of time hunting for needles in haystacks (but at least the earlier one could be pinned down using the paragraph method. The faulty citation had author=Doe, John & Doe, Jane (2015)
- if the code could identify that as an error, surely it could have let me into the big secret?
I'm not looking for someone to fix the error, what I want is a more useful error report if at all possible. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
.mw-parser-output span.cs1-maint {display: inline;} /* display Citation Style 1 maintenance messages */
Could somebody have a look at Christopher C. Kraft Jr.? I have no clue what the message refers to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
|date=
and |year=
. Only one is needed.
{{Cite magazine |last=Nystrom |first=Lynn |magazine=Virginia Spectrum |volume=24 |issue=31 |date=April 26, 2002 |title=Kraft selected 2002 Ruffner Medal recipient |publisher=Virginia Tech |year=2002 |url=http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/vtpubs/spectrum/2002/sp2002-0426.pdf |access-date=February 1, 2022 |ref=none}}
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)|year=2002a
to avoid duplicated references.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
|date=3 February 2022a
or |date=February 3, 2022a
. Not an issue with this particular citation because |ref=none
.Is this category working correctly? I see that articles gain tihs warning with url-status=live
, unfit
or usurped
. With that setting, they don't need to have archive-url=
or archive-date=
values. What's the point? Seems more useful to only cause an error on references that set url-status=dead
--
Mikeblas (
talk) 00:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=<dead | live | unfit | usurped | deviated>
(any valid value) without |archive-url=
conveys no meaning to the template. It is |url-status=
that controls how cs1|2 templates are rendered when |archive-url=
is present and has an assigned value. All of these correctly emit the maintenance message and, when in a categorizable namespace, add the article to
Category:CS1 maint: url-status.
{{cite book |title=Title |url-status=live}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=dead}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=usurped}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=unfit}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link){{cite book |title=Title |url-status=deviated}}
→ Title.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)|url-status=dead
is not a substitute for {{
dead link}}
.url-status=live
is used to indicate that the URL is live, and that an archive-url is not necessary. Why should that state place the article in a maintenance category? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=live
. The only purpose of |url-status=live
is to specify which of |url=
or |archive-url=
links |title=
when the citation is rendered:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com}}
|url=
links |title=
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |url-status=live}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23}}
|archive-url=
links |title=
; |url=
links 'the original' static text{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23 |url-status=dead}}
|archive-url=
links |title=
; |url=
links 'the original' static text; |url-status=dead
contributes nothing{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23 |url-status=live}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-01-23 |url-status=usurped}}
|url-status=live
, |url-status=usurped
, |url-status=unfit
, |url-status=deviated
. It is expected that a future cs1|2 update will categorize non-contributing |url-status=dead
.If a link is dead and there is no archive then an example could look like this:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)In this case the url is dead but it is not possible to add a |archive-url=
. What would be the correct thing to do there? Remove |url-status=
?
I think often IABot would add {{ Dead link}} but {{ Cite web}} could do the same. So if statues is dead and there is an archive the template does at it do now but if there is no archive the template shows {{ Dead link}}. If would have to be coordinated so that we do not have both templates. -- MGA73 ( talk) 10:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
and }}
so cs1|2 templates cannot know if they are already associated with an adjacent {{
dead link}}
template. It is not the responsibility of cs1|2 to handle the housekeeping duties of {{dead link}}
or any other inline cleanup template.|url-status=
and add {{
dead link}}
. --
Green
C 14:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=
and if IABot sees |url-status=dead
then it acts, such as adding a {{
dead link}}
. There is no guarantee IABot will run on a page in a timely manner - IABot can be shut down for reasons, or not process a page for a long time. I suppose there could be a special purpose bot whose only job is to convert |url-status=dead
to {{
dead link}}
, it will always be checking quickly; it's an added complication and raises the question why not use {{
dead link}}
instead of |url-status=dead
to begin with. Maybe there could be both. If you want to do it on dawiki, it would be fine, but would be a special bot not rely on IABot. I can provide a daily dump of CS1|2 templates in any language (
demonstration page). It's an interesting idea, the unknown is can you trust |url-status=dead
means it is dead, or a user entry error. --
Green
C 15:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
dead link}}
. Instead of that users and IABot could add |url-status=dead
. I think both options would be just as fast (or slow). We also have {{
Webarchive}} but instead of using that template we let the cs1|2 templates handle archive links.{{
Dead link}}
is a universal flag that says the URL is dead. {{
Webarchive}}
contains an archive URL and is useful following a square or bare URL. There would normally be no reason to have {{
Cite web}}{{
Webarchive}} because the archive URL can be contained in {{
Cite web}} thus {{
Webarchive}} is redundant. There are some rare exceptions such as when using the |addlarchives=
flag with {{
Webarchive}}. But normally, it would be [http://example.com]
{{Webarchive}}
. --
Green
C 16:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Continued from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 81 § Internationalisation need originally posted by Arjunaraoc.
I have hacked
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox so that it will fetch month names from MediaWiki using the native Scributu function formatDate()
. That function takes the same format and date/time strings as the {{#time:}}
parser function. Seemed to work here and at sq.wiki but I got surprising results at te.wiki. So I hacked a bit of test code that runs from the debug console with this command:
=p.main ('<lang tag>')
where <lang tag>
is an ISO 639-1, -2, -3, or IETF-like language tag known to MediaWiki.
When I run the test at en.wiki for <lang tag>
= te
I get this:
That is the expected result. Compare the test's output against long names and short names in te:మాడ్యూల్:Citation/CS1/Configuration.
When I run the exact same test at te.wiki, I get this:
Long and short month names are the same except for month 10.
It is simple to test this at other wikis. Edit my
sandbox. Copy the code into your clipboard. Change the domain in the url from en
to some other valid tag (the WP code in the tables at
List of Wikipedias). Paste the test code into the edit box and then, in the debug console, enter the =p.main ('<lang tag>')
command with an appropriate language tag (doesn't have to be the same as the WP code in the url).
I'm inclined to keep this modification even though it won't work for all projects because it will work for some. At projects where it won't work, it is easy to disable because the functionality is controlled by a boolean:
local local_date_names_from_mediawiki = true
to disable, set that boolean false
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
local Mediawiki messages? I assume that it is the same basic location at each wiki.
{{cite news|title=News article|section=2|page=3}}
"News article". p. 3. {{
cite news}}
: |section=
ignored (
help){{cite news|title=News article|page=2{{hyphen}}3}}
"News article". p. 2-3.{{cite news|title=News article|department=Section 2|page=3}}
"News article". Section 2. p. 3.What is the proper way to denote a newspaper article on section 2, page 3, using {{
cite news}}
? It seems that I should be able to use |section=
, but I get an error message. The doc page says to use 2{{hyphen}}
3, but that just reads like pp. 2–3 to me. Using |department=
points me in the right direction, but that doesn't seem intuitive. –
Fredddie
™ 21:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|at=§2, p. 3
myself.
Imzadi 1979
→ 21:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)|department=Section 2
.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Is it mandatory, permissible or prohibited to wikilink terms in the text of |quote=
rather than giving the text as is? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 13:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a desire to rename them /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 12:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi guys. I'm a CSS total noob but can you tell me basically why this didn't work? Why does Template:Cite_AV_media_notes give a CSS error simply due to the presence of "others=" when the template's documentation says "others=" is fully supported? Why would any template disallow "others="? Did I write this diff correctly? I'm just kinda curious if this is a bug because it makes no sense. Thanks. — Smuckola (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|others=
is not supported, it's that it is unsupported when another authorship parameter (author or editor) is not provided. It has its own category relative to the
same in other templates because over 60-70% of these cases are because of AV media (notes) issues.
Izno (
talk) 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|others=
will help readers locate the source, but they weren't the author of the text being cited.
Umimmak (
talk) 22:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
|people=
), which is the parameter at issue.
Izno (
talk) 00:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
|author=<!-- not stated -->
). No doubt someone will say "but the performers are essential for readers to locate the source". Really? You have the publisher and the title of the recording (presuming that en.wiki editors transcribe it correctly – which is it: Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire Official Soundtrack or
Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire), and you could even include |id=UPC: 888072173637
. With all of that, locating a copy of the source should not be that difficult.{{
cite AV media}}
, need reworking, primarily because of |people=
and |others=
. I have sometimes thought that a very carefully curated list of the various role parameters that we once had might be brought back as unique parameters for these two templates because we now have an infrastructure that might, with a little tweaking, support them properly.{{Cite AV media notes |author=<!-- not stated --> |title=Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire | title-link=Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire#Soundtrack |year=1996 |publisher=[[Varèse Sarabande]]}}
No doubt someone will sayyeah I'll be that someone I guess. When the AV media in question has a unique title sure you don't need an additional name, but that's not always the case. How many compellation albums are just titled The Best or live albums are just Live at [famous venue]? Or have popular titles like Closer [2]? Maybe there was only one album with that year from that record company, and maybe there is some sort of ID (is there precedent for citing UPC in a bibliography?), but it seems useful to have the option to provide the name of a person associated with the album if the person writing the citation thinks it is necessary to locate a source. FWIW CMoS says to cite liner notes just by citing the album (which they say can begin with the performer, conductor, or composer depending on which is most relevant in discussion), with "(liner notes)" at the end -- which I think I disagree with if there is a listed author, but I was just curious what other style guides said. Umimmak ( talk) 23:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
|id={{
UPC}}
or |id=record-label-catalog-number
(along with |publisher=record-label-name
). As for the generic work titles, in my experience, the proper full title is always "Best of (Artist)" or "(Artist) Live at (Venue)" and the work can be found with this correct title.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 01:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)I am seeing this being reported as an error all over the place (I have the green error display enabled) and I think the problem with most of them is that the Visual Editor defaults the url-status to be "live" rather than omit it. It might be simpler to not regard it as an error, because at the point at which most people create a web citation, the url is live. And later it may be dead, but isn't it a statement of what's going on with the url independent of what's happening with the archive-url? Or ask the Visual Editor team at phabricator to omit the url-status in the absence of an archive-url value. For myself, I would see the opposite as a bigger problem, where there is an archive-url value but no url-status value. Kerry ( talk) 06:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=<anything>
has no meaning or value when |archive-url=
is omitted or empty. |url-status=
is a control parameter that tells the citation template how to link the value in |title=
(and the archive-associated static-text) when the template also has |archive-url=
with an assigned value:
|url-status=live
– use the value in |url=
to link |title=
; link 'Archived' static-text to the value in |archive-url=
|url-status=dead
or |url-status=deviated
or omitted or empty – use the value in |archive-url=
to link |title=
; link 'the original' static-text to the value in |url=
|url-status=unfit
or |url-status=usurped
– use the value in |archive-url=
to link |title=
; do not link to the 'original' static text|archive-url=
, |url-status=
does nothing except needlessly occupy space in wikitext and consume a few processor cycles. We can assume that a url is live when it is first inserted into a cs1|2 template so there is no need to state the obvious. Similarly, the presence of |archive-url=
with an assigned value indicates that the value assigned to |url=
is dead. Again, no need to state the obvious.VE would explain why they are so common. I've been deleting by bot for years, incidentally treated as cosmetic. If it's now producing a green message it's no longer cosmetic. The idea of a permanent bot to remove these is probably untenable as the number of edits would be so frequent as to cause certain backlash - they will keep showing up even in the same article over and over. The community won't abide by bot removal at the rate required, and they won't like the green message because it's so frequent. My initial thought is squelch the green message and enlist the help of bots and tools to add to their standard fixes while making other edits. -- Green C 19:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=dead
to flag the URL is dead instead of {{dead link}}
. This is wrong, but common. We could perhaps look at those more carefully for conversion to {{dead link}}
.
Green
C 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
|archive-url=
is empty or omitted, and when |url-access=
has been assigned one of its valid keywords (dead
, deviated
, live
, unfit
, usurped
, or the bot specific bot: unknown
) cs1|2 will add the article to
Category:CS1 maint: url-status.|url-status=live
is ('was', I hope) added, it was only added by when ve added a {{
cite web}}
template and only because the TemplateData had "autovalue": "live",
; see
Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial § Completing the TemplateData information. I
removed the "autovalue":
keyword from the {{cite web}}
TemplateData so, if I'm right, ve should not continue to pointlessly add new instances of |url-status=live
.|archive-display=
(or -placement, -format, -render, etc.); keeps it in the archive-*
family which cements the three together. Most arg names describe the data they hold ("title" contains the title), but there are a few
display options that are comparable, determining how the template displays. For the value names, not sure what would be clear. |archive-display=first
is pretty abstract as is |archive-display=dead
.
Green
C 05:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=live
? Meaning the template will not show an error/maintanance message/category? In most cases IABot will handle the status and I think it should be able to change "live" to "dead" if/when the url dies.This
edit request to
Template:Cite web/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ruf3346 ( talk) 00:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes multiple URLs are useful to direct the reader to multiple pages within the same source. I've found it useful mostly in early work in natural history when the reader might also want to see an associated plate for the text, e.g. (with irrelevant parameters removed):
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |postscript=
(
help)CS1 maint: postscript (
link)This also is occasionally useful when citing articles in newspapers when an article is continued on a page very far from the initial one. I don't have an example off-hand, but for older newspapers there quite often isn't a single URL for the entire source, rather you're linking to individual scanned pages and if the article is on A1 and A42 it can be convenient to the reader to have a URL to both pages.
However neither putting a url in |page=
or |postscript=
seems to be approved so I was wondering what the way to cite sources like this would be in a way that doesn't require the reader to have to put in the effort to find a second page that can be quite far from the first. It seems when people fix "External link in |<param>=" they often just remove the URL which I think ends up being a net loss. Is there a "right" way I can include multiple links within a single citation parameter?
Umimmak (
talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
|page=
are still supported without error messages. URLs in |postscript=
have never been supported, as far as I know. |postscript=
Controls the closing punctuation for a citation, and the modules have gradually been adjusted to detect nonconforming text. Editors are always free to add more information after the closing braces of the citation template. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
* {{cite journal | collaboration=GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators | title=Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 | journal=The Lancet | volume=390 | issue=10100 | year=2017 | doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2 | pages=1211–1259}}
Displays as
instead of the expected
(which should generate a harv anchor)
Likewise
* {{cite journal |last=Smith |first=J. |last2=Smith |first2=K. |last3=Smith |first3=L. | collaboration=Foobar Collaboration |year=2020 | title=Article of Things | journal=Journal of Things | volume=1| issue=2| pages=3 }}
still erroneously display as
instead of the expected
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
|collaboration=
should change. If that consensus exists and I'm just blind to it, I'm not seeing a clear determination of what should change and how it should be changed.Where to put the supplemental material of a source? In the article
Dorfopterus (and in many others) there's a source, Lamsdell & Braddy 2009, which is cited alongside its supplemental material. I have commonly put this information on the |location=
parameter but this now gives an error on the template. Is there any appropiate place to put this info, and if not, could it be given its own parameter?
Super
Ψ
Dro 12:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|location=
refers to place of publication, it is not about an in-source lication. Where is the pertinent (verifying) information? If it is not in the supplement then this need not be cited. If it is in the supplement, you can cite the supplement in parameter |at=
or |department=
and insert that doi only. If there is verification info in both the article and the supplement, I would use for the supplement a short reference. In short refs the |loc=
(location) is actually (and admittedly confusingly) referring to in-source location. You can insert the suplement doi there.
68.173.76.118 (
talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Re: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 79#i18n |script-<param>= error message supplements.
I said that I did that but apparently, I did not. So, now I have. See Special:Diff/1071711376.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
'Lay-url' is mentioned as deprecated (CS1 maint as well) however it's documented in the parameter list (cite book). Presumably should be removed? Neils51 ( talk) 00:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-url=
is also recommended in
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (the
WP:MEDPOP section).
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Please point me to where the consensus was formed to remove this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, why was this parameter deprecated? Boghog ( talk) 19:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, why was it considered to deprecate a parameter encouraged by a project without consulting said project beforehand? Hog Farm Talk 19:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
since at least the end of 2008 (that's a lot of years on a highly used guideline for a couple of editors to be undoing). WP:MEDRS has 389 page watchers, and has included the text about the lay source parameter, with text unchanged for all those years. When deprecating a parameter with such wide and long-standing acceptance, why is the page most affected not notified of the proposal? This de facto, fait accompli method of operating on citation templates should be addressed by the community more broadly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the
|lay-url=
parameter of {{ cite journal}}.
Went through WP:MEDRS carefully. Nowhere is it suggested that lay sources should not be cited by themselves. On the contrary it is suggested that such sources be cited alongside citations from "ideal" sources like peer-reviewed bio-medical journals. The document describes "ideal" sources but does not out of hand exclude others, including the popular press. To help non-expert readers (the vast majority of users, surely) find sources and verify wikitext, citations should be simple. A factor of simplicity is that a single citation should correspond to a single source (with one exception, for archived versions of the same source). Adding multiple sources to a single citation is confusing for both data entry editors and the citation consumers. It is also unwieldy. I suggest you look at this as someone who knows nothing of medicine, scientific literature, or citations. That will likely put you among the vast majority of this encyclopedia's readers. 68.174.121.16 ( talk) 19:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Nowhere is it suggested that lay sources should not be cited by themselves. It is equally true that nowhere it is suggested that lay source must be cited by themselves. Also, why is it unwieldy? I think bundling lay sources with the primary source is cleaner because it makes clear what is the primary citation, and what is layman's translation of the original source. And why is it confusing for editors? Quite to the contrary, the
|lay-source=
and |lay-url=
parameters are self explanatory.
Boghog (
talk) 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion? -- Ahecht ( TALK
widely in use. Let us look at that. As I write this, there are:
{{
cite journal}}
|lay-url=
with an assigned value (article name-space; all cs1|2 templates)|lay-url=
with an assigned value (article name-space; {{cite journal}}
only)|lay-date=
, |lay-format=
, |lay-source=
and |lay-url=
may be in use, but widely in use, they are not.
it is recommended by the medicine wikiproject and considered useful by many medicine editors. Of course, but that does not make use of
|lay-url=
and related parameters a proper thing to do.
|lay-*=
parameters are a crude mechanism to insert a second source into a template that is designed to support only one source at a time|lay-*=
parameters lack essential bibliographic information: author(s), title, insource locators|lay-*=
parameter formatting is cryptic and nonstandard|type=Lay source
(or some similar text) would serve to differentiate the pair. Bundling would allow more than one lay source were that desirable. I can imagine a {{
cite lay source}}
wrapper-template that accepts all cs1|2 template parameters plus one |template=book | magazine | news | journal | ...
parameter and automatically sets |type=
to the preferred indicator text or, perhaps, adds a 'Lay source:' prefix to the rendering. You-all should stop looking at change as a bad thing and recognize that your world could be better.|lay-url=
.|lay-url=
and used the external text editor to make a Lua acceptable list. The lists are in
Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/layurl/data.{{#invoke:Sandbox/trappist the monk/layurl|main|list=}}
.|lay-url=
. The lists for these were taken from
Category:FA-Class medicine articles and
Category:GA-Class medicine articles.|lay-url=
is so specialized that no average editor is going to use it regardless, so your point is essentially irrelevant. Hence why it's been used only some 2000 times in nearly 15 years.
Izno (
talk) 02:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite journal |last=Expert |first=Alice |url=
https://www.example.com/extra-peer-reviewed-paper |title=Systematic Review of Scientific Papers |work=Journal of Imp. Sci. |date=December 2021 |pmid=1234567 |doi=10.1136/bmj-2021-066995}} Lay summary in: {{cite news |last=Journalist |first=Joe |url=
https://www.example.com/news-article |title=Explainer: Latest Scientific Breakthrough |date=15 December 2021 |work=Big Times}}</ref>
Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
A med-specific wrapper to {{ citation}} or any other appropriate CS1 template. The wrapper may add parameters more specific to medicine. Under the condition that native CS1 templates that lead to lay sources are not invalidated or considered "inferior". The rationale for this condition is as follows:
|lay-source=
then it should be good enough to stand on its ownAssuming that such a wrapper template is designed and used alongside the native templates, I suggest that in keeping with the above, the template presents the lay source as the main source, and the expert source as additional: as the one the lay source is based on. 65.88.88.47 ( talk) 15:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite lay source}}
. So, I've hacked {{
lay source}}
. Different name because these sources apparently do not want to be viewed as 'citable'.{{lay source}}
requires its own parameter |template=
which gets the name of the cs1|2 template that is appropriate to the lay source; defaults to {{
cite web}}
if omitted. Otherwise, {{lay source}}
accepts any cs1|2 template parameter except |ref=
(so that the rendered lay citation can't be linked-to from the article text by {{
sfn}}
, etc). Using Editor
WhatamIdoing's example from above we would write:
{{lay source |template=cite news |last=Journalist |first=Joe |date=15 December 2021 |title=Explainer: Latest Scientific Breakthrough |work=Big Times |url=https://www.example.com/news-article}}
This is pretty much what I was suggesting above when I suggested {{
cite lay source}}
. Indeed. However, I thought this proposal would be more readily accepted if the interested parties had the lead in designing the wrapper. Also, if a lay source is judged reliable after scrutiny (i.e. represents salient facts correctly and without bias) it is as eminently citable as any other so-judged reliable source. Including sources such as scientific journals. More so, I would think, if the source is more readily understandable and therefore more likely to prove the wikitext verifiable to the reader.
65.88.88.69 (
talk) 18:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
the lead in designing the wrapper. As for the
eminently citablecase: switch
{{lay source |template=cite <whatever> ...}}
to {{cite <whatever> ...}}
and suddenly, a normal cs1|2 template.I don’t think a help talk citation page is the place to rewrite, reinterpret, and redefine a 15-year-old guideline, which is what the entire discussion above is doing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
RestoreUn-deprecate |lay-url=
and related parameters pending consensus on their deprecation per
WP:BRD. Their deprecation was based on an all-or-nothing RFC where the closure specifically said there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion
, deprecating the lay- parameters was buried in a list of 60 other items, and the relevant talk pages (
WT:MEDRS,
WT:WikiProject Medicine) were not notified. While the RFC came to the conclusion that most typical changes to cs1/2 are uncontroversial and don't need to undergo routine VPR RfCs to be rolled out
, it's clear from the above discussion that this particular change was non uncontroversial. --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-date=
(
help).
Peaceray (
talk) 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Restore |lay-url=
and related parameters pending consensus on their removal per
WP:BRD.
Undeprecate |lay-url=
and related parameters pending consensus on their removal per
WP:BRD.
Restorefor
Undeprecatewhile leaving intact the rest of Ahecht's original proposal. I am open to any alternative wording for the B proposal that moves us towards the goal of un-deprecating the lay summary parameters. Would you please suggest an alternative wording, if you are so inclined? Peaceray ( talk) 23:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-url=
and related parameters". Or even "Keep |lay-url=
and related parameters".
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)|lay-source=
handled this citations perfectly? It is also important to point out that not a single person commented specifically about these lay parameters in the RfC, and in my opinion, the RfC was too broad to be useful. And as stated elsewhere, the appropriate projects were not notified.
Boghog (
talk) 12:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
with |lay-source= handled this citations perfectlyIt did not, as described above. You should want to fully describe the lay source as part of the overall citation so that readers can make an assessment of their quality themselves; I'm actually flabbergasted that the line being taken above is "it's not important enough". You are literally telling us it is important for readers to know the difference. Having it jammed into 3 parameters and without its own full description diminishes the import with which you want to say "this source is provided for your convenience in case you do not understand the math/science/medical/other field with jargon's source and its terminology, but we really want to stress that it is insufficient for the purposes of providing a reliable source for the statement that precedes it".
*::.... However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:
- One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous ....
- Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
- Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
- Talk pages of closely related articles or policies
<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Journal|title=Title}} Lay summary: {{cite news|title=Title}}</ref>
or <ref>{{cite journal|journal=Journal|title=Title}} {{lay source|title=Title|url=https://example.com}}</ref>
is clearly sufficient. If it is the latter, that comes up with a wider issue that your use of the templates does not describe the overall training objective that we stress here regularly and with which basically no people have had a real issue, and which is valuable for new- and old-comers alike: a single citation template covers a single source. It does not cover multiple. Right now you are trying to treat the lay source as part of the 'real' source, when you admit it is not by having the existence of these parameters.A good example, from the most recent medical FA, Menstrual cycle:
The journal article is recent secondary review that complies with WP:MEDRS, and is what the text in the article is sourced to. The lay article from the BBC offers an overview in simpler language; an adjunct for the reader, but not something one would ever cite medical content to; even well written lay sources often have medical errors, and this one has a lot of opinion. But it serves to help the reader understand the terminology so they can then better digest the actual source should they care to (WAID is fond of reminding us that readers don't click on sources anyway). We provide it in a case like this for a simple overview, but we don’t source content to it. It's an adjunct, not a stand-alone, and not the source used.
And while IP68 is stating that our sources have to be accessible; no they don't. The text we write based on our sources should be accessible; the statements about MEDRS above are reinterpretations of MEDRS, and if that is to be done, that should happen at WT:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
re-interpretation of reliable sources.What it has been proposed all along, in one form or other is this:
I strongly oppose any remedy that involves converting lay-urls to actual citation templates. This is not what we should be doing in support of WP:MEDRS, but it is what the cite journal template currently recommends (based on zero consensus). The text at Template:Cite_journal#Deprecated is disputed; will someone please add the disputed tag to the protected template, lest editors begin doing just that? We don’t usually cite medical content to lay sources, and this method leads to doing just that. Lay-urls are adjuncts to medrs sources only. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If I am understanding correctly, one of the reasons for removing the lay parameters was “cost”. What is this cost being measured in terms of? That is, is it server load, load time, template limits, what? And how much is the cost? Specifically, in relation to some other costs, like the craziness of having to edit around 80 parameters when a citation has 40 authors, rather than using et al. (a burden promoted by the cite templates. That creates an editing burden, as well as resulting in horrible citations). I don’t mind waiting for the explanation to allow time for it to be put in language we non-tech editors can understand, but please explain the burden created by this parameter, how is it measured, and put it in the context of other cite template burdens. Thanks in advance; the heat is considerably lowered when one feels heard and respected, rather than labeled in psychiatric terms. I’d appreciate understanding what the precise burden is. My apologies for piecemeal iPad typing. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
|lay-*=
parameters should be deprecated and later withdrawn. My initial reasons for supporting deprecation and withdrawal:
|lay-*=
parameters are a crude mechanism to bold-on another source without appropriate bibliographic detail, most notably: authors, lay-source title, insource locators (page numbers etc)|lay-*=
parameters
|lay-*=
parameters only support lay-sources that exist online|lay-*=
parameters are claimed to have been created for
WP:MED, but I can find no evidence to support that in the histories of {{
citation}}
, {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, or {{
cite web}}
, their talk and documentation pages, or in the histories of
WT:MED and
WT:MEDRS. Here is a chronology of the |lay-*=
implementations with first mention of |laysummary=
in
WP:MEDRS and related discussions when I could find them:
{{cite journal}}
by
Samsara (not here since June 2021){{citation}}
by Lifebaka (no longer with us) – edit summary suggests discussion somewhere but does not say where{{cite book}}
by
MZMcBride (
discussion){{cite news}}
by
Ruslik0 reverted (
discussion)
{{cite news}}
by
Aervanath{{cite web}}
by Gadget850 (no longer with us) (
discussion){{
Citation Style documentation}}
:
8 March 2012 version{{Citation Style documentation}}
:
1 July 2012 version|vauthors=
to go nowhere until there is a
Module:Citation/Vanc lying around, and even then I'm not sure we'd withdraw support.
Izno (
talk) 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
to cs1|2 templates that only had |lay-url=
. In cs1|2, |archive-url=
requires |url=
so the result was |archive-url=
requires |url=
. I think that that bug has been fixed.|lay-url=
– I haven't seen this problem in a while. I do know that it used to:
T285191 and
T279268 (where it is marked as resolved). The error was caused only when |url=
was empty or omitted; sort of suggests that |lay-url=
was being treated as a fall-back parameter.Ttm, with a disputed tag on the cite journal page, where did you get consensus to enact this preference across multiple articles (one sample provided) ? In the discussions above, and elsewhere, against this proposal are SG, @ Boghog, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Nikkimaria, Ahecht, Peaceray, Femkemilene, Firefangledfeathers, and Johnbod:. For it are two IPs (don't know how to ping them), Guerillero, and I can't determine from the discussion where others stand, as their comments are generalized. (I think Colin agreed with this proposal, but unclear.) And yet you are systematically installing a cited lay source across medical content, in precisely the way most of us have objected to.
Today, starting with the As, you have made hundreds of these edits, and this leaves the impression you intend to continue. Why and where is the consensus? Please stop. Also, please inform us as to when the unsupported change will be reverted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
|lay-*=
parameters) [affects] hundreds to thousands of articles, leaving in this case, thousands of error messages in Good and Featured articles. In the OP of this subsection you wrote
you have made dozens of these editsbut then changed that text to
you have made hundreds of these edits.
|lay-url=
|lay-url=
|lay-url=
|lay-url=
at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine § WP:MED articles using lay-url= (you fixed
Leech and
Water fluoridation)thousands of error messages in Good and Featured articles.
|lay-url=
errors all use {{
lay source}}
. At this writing, that template is used
73 times in mainspace so 73 is the maximum possible number of |lay-url=
fix-edits that I could have made. While I have made most of these edits, there are other editors who have used {{lay source}}
.|lay-*=
parameters are not
WP:MEDRS-citable sources. I do not dispute that. Yet, the very presence of a lay source inside a WP:MEDRS-citable-source citation makes it appear that the lay source has the imprimatur of WP:MEDRS by virtue of that intimate placement. That same intimate placement makes it appear that clicking the link will take the reader to the source named in the WP:MEDRS-citable source portion of the citation when that is (almost) always not true. This violates
WP:ASTONISH and, particularly
WP:EASTEREGG (yeah, I know, "not policy", but good advice nonetheless). That such links escaped FA scrutiny surprises me.|lay-*=
parameters might be the best course. Of the 73-ish articles that I've fixed, the most templates with |lay-*=
parameters that I remember fixing has been three in the non-WP:MED article
Allison T56.|lay-*=
parameters are a bad design used in a very small fraction of all articles using cs1|2 templates (0.046% = 1,246 ÷ 5,116,342 × 100 – these numbers obtained 27 January 2022; see above). There is no need to perpetuate bad design so no need to un-deprecate these parameters.back dooris already open. Inclusion of a lay source in or directly adjacent to a WP:MEDRS-citable scholarly or academic source, whether by
|lay-*=
or by external link or by some sort of template, opened that door because the pairing of the lay source with an academic or scholarly source will be interpreted by readers as a
WP:MED endorsement of the lay source. If WP:MED are going to include, and by default, endorse a lay source, especially when so closely coupled to an academic or scholarly source, then the lay source should not be presented as a partialbut as a whole that includes all of the appropriate bibliographic detail – just as is done for the paired scholarly or academic source. If WP:MED do not want to endorse lay sources, then none should appear in any WP:MED article where readers may assume a WP:MED endorsement.
something close to a link in a "See also" section, only to an external resourcemakes me wonder if a §§Lay sources subsection of a §Further reading section (perhaps with some sort of appropriate disclaimer), might be an appropriate place to list 'WP:MED-approved' lay sources with all of their proper bibliographic detail.
|lay-*=
parameters), for sake of argument, One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |lay-url= parameter of {{cite journal}}.does not say that you must use this parameter in these templates to provide the information of interest. So out goes the "MEDRS controls this specific parameter". Nor in fact does MEDRS even support any of the argumentation made here in regard to why it should get to control the exact presentation of the citation. Izno ( talk) 00:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
it does not support the proposed replacementIt does not need to. If a guideline is silent on a topic, it's silent on a topic. There isn't magical text that exists in the guideline but doesn't actually exist in the guideline. Izno ( talk) 03:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
CITESTYLE means to protect a change from style X to Y at a level broader than a specific parameter of a specific series of templates. There is an obvious stylistic difference resulting from the use of
|lay-url=
etc versus {{
lay source}} - it's ludicrous to suggest there isn't, even if you think the latter is better.The other reason it's ludicrous is that it would imply these modules can never change. Ever. Even if they have, several times over, and sometimes in quite significant ways. There have indeed been quite significant changes made. And then we get discussions like this, where people who use these templates in practice are surprised - for example, that what the guidelines suggest suddenly results in error messages.
If a guideline is silent on a topic, it's silent on a topic.The guideline is not silent on the issue of lay sources - it makes clear they shouldn't be used as sole citations but only as adjuncts. Sandy and Choess point out that the switch from a parameter to a separate template results in that distinction being lost. Some argue that it should be - but that's not a discussion that belongs here, it's one they should take to the guideline talk page. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
They point out: No, they have the opinion that the distinction is lost. Neither in the displayed text, nor in the wikitext, does {{ lay source}} make it unclear it is a lay source. And I would suggest that if {{ lay source}} appeared in its own distinct <ref></ref> that alarm bells would sound regardless.
|lay-*=
parameters. How that is accomplished is up to the editors over there.About to update a reference by adding the archive.org version of the ref URL, but not sure what do put in url-access field. The archive.org version is free, but the article at original URL now available after paying $3.95 per article (which i assume is registration
, rather than limited
). Should the url-access be set to the archive.org access-status of nothing (ie. free without putting "free" in field), OR set to access-status of original URL? (i looked through archived Talk threads and didn't see a post about this issue.) --
EarthFurst (
talk) 23:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
|archive-url=
, |archive-date=
, |url-status=
, and set |url-access=subscription
because that is the closest thing that we have to a paywall access indicator.paywall
keyword for |url-access=
– it would display the red-lock access indicator.|url-access=
is for whatever is in |url=
.
Izno (
talk) 00:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Should a "cite journal" template include a "url=" link to the journal title when the article is behind a paywall? I've always assumed that the doi is sufficient - but I'm about to review a FA candidate and I cannot find any documentation on this. Once a link is included it gets archived and an access-date is needed. It all gets very cluttered. Where has this been discussed? Thanks - Aa77zz ( talk) 12:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|url=
for free resources.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|url-access=
is for. See
the Cite journal documentation for details. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
|url=
with paywalled links.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 15:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any parameter in CS1 for it. As has been pointed out in previous discussions (
1,
2), there is a difference between a volume, which refers to a single work broken up into multiple bindings, and a series, which are multiple books on different subjects, but tied together by a common theme and published as an ongoing effort. For this reason, neither "volume", nor "issue" applies. There are a "number" and "series-number" parameter, but neither of them are used in {{
cite book}}
. (It is important to note that, despite being listed as being deprecated in April 2021 on {{
cite book}}
, "series-number" was technically not deprecated. Deprecated implies that it was once in use. However, "series-number" was actually only used by the {{
cite episode}}
. It seems to have simply been mistakenly listed on {{
cite book}}
.) I saw a
suggestion to place the number at the end of the "series" parameter, but that appears to be incorrect, as it should be used to name only the title of the series, not the number. Therefore, it seems that a separate parameter is necessary. Note that widely used citation management software like
Zotero have
implemented such a field. However, if another parameter is not possible, a suggestion of where the series number should be entered would be
For an example, consider
US Air Force Historical Study No. 6. (While this might not be considered more of a {{
cite report}}
than a book, the point remains as no appropriate parameter is available in it either.) –
Noha307 (
talk) 02:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|volume=
parameter. Yes, it means two different things (a volume in a series is not the same as a volume in a multi-volume book) but that's what we use anyway. If you have a multi-volume book that is also part of a book series, I think it would be best to put the volume within the multi-volume book as text in the |title=
parameter, leaving the series number in the |volume=
parameter. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)|series=Series 4
|volume=# or/and title
is perfectly acceptable, and used in the real world. The main thing is that the parameter should only be used when the publisher officially designates a series and publishes titles that again officially are designated as parts of it. We cannot make up our own series name/numbers. As you noted, your example doesn't seem to fit, unless again I am misreading it.
71.245.250.98 (
talk) 14:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)|series=USAF Historical Studies
seems like a reasonable series identifier to me (referring to the list at
https://www.afhra.af.mil/Information/Studies/Numbered-USAF-Historical-Studies/) (or perhaps just |series=Air Historical Studies
, as stated in the paper). Even though it's not identified as volume, I'd probably mark it up as:{{cite report |last1= Dubuque |first1= Jean H. |last2= Gleckner |first2= Robert F. |date= 1951 |title= The Development of the Heavy Bomber, 1918–1994 |series= USAF Historical Studies |volume= 6 |publisher= USAF Historical Division, [[Air University (United States Air Force)|Air University]] |type= Monograph |url= https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/1-50/AFD-090602-028.pdf |via= [[Air Force Historical Research Agency]]}}
How do I correctly cite an article in a physical book, an encyclopaedia, which (like many other books of this nature) has editors and contributors but no authors? See International_Christian_College#External_links -- PeterR2 ( talk) 09:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
|chapter=
and using |author=
(or |first=
and |last=
) for its author.
Kanguole 10:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC){{cite book | editor=Cameron, Nigel M de S | contribution=Bible Training Institute, Glasgow | contributor=Grogan, Geoffrey W | title=Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology | location=Edinburgh | publisher=T & T Clark | year=1993 | isbn=0-567-09650-5}}
{{cite dictionary |editor-last=Cameron |editor-first=Nigel M de S |entry=Bible Training Institute, Glasgow |last=Grogan |first=Geoffrey W |dictionary=Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology |location=Edinburgh |publisher=T & T Clark |year=1993 |isbn=0-567-09650-5}}
|entry=
is |article=
though for dictionaries and encyclopedia I prefer |entry=
.
with proper list markup either **
or *:
.Other wikis can set date_name_auto_xlate_enable = true
in their ~/Configuration to have the module automatically translate English month-names to local month-names. In recent
discussion about another wiki's cs1|2 installation I noted that named dates (Christmas, Easter), season dates, and quarterly dates are not automatically translated. I have remedied that with tweaks to
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox and
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox.
This new functionality is not supported at en.wiki so was tested at the other wiki.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Right now, the citation filler in the 2010 wikitext editor adds spaces between parameters. The TemplateData for Template:Cite journal tells the visual editor to use editor-hostile wikitext instead. Would anyone mind if we changed the TemplateData so that the visual editor will use the same style that the 2010 wikitext editor is already using?
(See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Suggestion for more background. No, I don't mind if we make this change for all CS1 templates; I'm only asking about {{ cite journal}} because it's the one that causes the most problems for WPMED folks.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
\n
bit, should do it.\n
style should probably be considered for infoboxes, the templates that create tables, and any other templates that we normally want to begin on a separate line.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 06:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
{{_ |_=_}}
?Like how it looks like in the examples. One of them is a news article, but I don't want the [1] box, I want something like, "Jake, Paul (Jan 1 2022). 'Lorem Ipsum'. Is that possible? Tet ( talk to me) 07:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags, like this. Jake, Paul (Jan 1, 2022).
"Lorem Ipsum". Is that what you're looking for? In what Wikipedia article would you want to use {{
cite web}} without the [1] box?
GoingBatty (
talk) 13:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Why were the transcript= and transcript-URL= fields deprecated in this and the {{cite AV... templates? These are useful fields, and their recent removal from use forces editors to use other fields contrary to their designs in order to place transcript information. RSVP here, thanks. 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 ( talk) 23:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
|transcript=
and |transcript-url=
are not deprecated. |transcripturl=
(not hyphenated) is deprecated.The template puts the word "In" before the name of the editors, which seems illogical. Instead, it seems like it should be the name of the encyclopedia. Is this correct?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
illogicalthen it has been so since this 27 June 2007 edit at
{{
Citation/core}}
(which has long-since been superseded by
Module:Citation/CS1). I don't think that it is illogical. Encyclopedia are not cataloged by article-author name but by editor name so an author's article is in the editor's work.
Good day. I ran across a reference using the cite report template that contained only a title plus some parameter errors. While fixing the parameters I looked up the title in Google Scholar and found it was in a US educational system called ERIC. ERIC has IDs that correspond directly to URLs. Example: ERIC ID ED148298 maps to https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED148298 so I'm wondering if there should be a CS1 parameter for ERIC ID? I know id= exists. Thanks Jamplevia ( talk) 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
ERIC}}
. If one believes
this search, that template isn't used much in cs1|2 templates. Creating, maintaining, documenting an |eric=
identifier for such a small number of uses doesn't seem worth the effort when |id={{ERIC|ED148298}}
works.