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 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Ive noticed that when a citation error is produced (E.g. "example". {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)), the resulting html has the error split across 2 or more <span>
s, as seen below (Ive split the 2 spans wih a newline).
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_web" title="Template:Cite web">cite web</a>}}</code>: </span>
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code> (<a href="/info/en/?search=Help:CS1_errors#cite_web_url" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>
However, when a maintenance notice is produced (E.g.
"example". 1970.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)), the resulting html is always across 1 entire <span>
, as seen below
<span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_web" title="Template:Cite web">cite web</a>}}</code>: CS1 maint: date and year (<a href="/info/en/?search=Category:CS1_maint:_date_and_year" title="Category:CS1 maint: date and year">link</a>)</span>
Ive also noticed the function for adding errors in the module /Utilities is significantly more advanced than for adding maintenance messages. Is there at all any reason for this? Id assume it would be easier for both to be across 1 entire span, as the same class is used throughout, but there might be some underlying reason im not aware of. Aidan9382 ( talk) 06:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
requires |journal=
so when that parameter is empty of omitted, cs1|2 emits an appropriate error message. But, due to en.wiki politics, that error message is hidden:
{{cite journal |title=Title |date=November}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_journal" title="Template:Cite journal">cite journal</a>}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-hidden-error citation-comment">Cite journal requires <code class="cs1-code">|journal=</code> (<a href="/info/en/?search=Help:CS1_errors#missing_periodical" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> (<a href="/info/en/?search=Help:CS1_errors#bad_date" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>
cs1-hidden-error
class.|website=
and {{
cite news}} requiring |newspaper=
, both of which were subsequently reverted. No-one objected to {{
cite journal}} requiring |journal=
.
Kanguole 16:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
|dead-url=
error messages were the biggest parts of the complaints, sure. But there was a vocal crowd advocating a complete reversion of the 3 September 2020 update. To forstal that, I
disabled missing-news and missing-website tests and
hid deprecated and missing-periodical (journal, magazine) error messaging. We did not have to revert the whole damn thing but as a result, missing periodical error messages are still hidden.@
Trappist the monk: This conversation above has actually made me notice what could be a bug. Due to the way ive got my css setup, not only are all errors shown, but i have seperate background highlighting for each, and I noticed the ;
in the journal example was unhighlighted, and therefore not inside any span tags. I checked with default css (AKA not being able to see the hidden error), and yep, to other people theres just a magically appearing semicolon in the citation error output.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 16:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm using ProveIt and I recently started to add S2CID to my references, but it is not showing in ProveIt by default because it is not in the TemplateData, and it would be nice to have it there. Could someone do this? Thanks! − Arthurfragoso ( talk) 15:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the Help talk space from Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language, so Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 79 isn't part of the category? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This maintenance note seems contrary to the examples listed in Template:Cite AV media notes. This maintenance note states "|others=
is provided to record other (secondary) contributors to the cited source.", but per <<Template:Cite AV media notes#General]], [[Cite AV media notes |title=Album Title |first=First |last=Last |others=<<Artist>> |date=2022 |url=h t t p ://www.wikipedia.org |page=1|type=Type |publisher=Publisher |id=Publisher ID |location=Location>>, others is to be used to list Artist. So when citing CD liners, the album title gets listed under title, but there is no other method for listing artist except for others, which complies with AV media notes guidelines. This CS1 maintenance seems to be the one in error.
Mburrell (
talk) 04:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
|contribution=Media notes
or |contribution="Media notes title"
and |contributor=Authorname
, added to template {{
cite av media}}.
24.105.140.106 (
talk) 18:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)This says there's an error in the bibcode
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)There isn't, it's a valid one. One of the tests needs to be adjusted. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The first letter of the last name of the first author, but somehow its a 7. The regex that confirms if this is valid was only expecting for a letter or dot for this reason. Im not sure if this is a misissuing or what, but for now, ill simply change the regex a bit. If someone who works on citations a lot could follow up on this, that'd be nice. Aidan9382 ( talk) 04:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The double (( )) doesn't seem to do anything though.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Headbomb: Got a response back, it was a misissuing. It's been fixed, but its not gonna update on the database until friday. The new bibcode will end up being 2019ISPAr4219..207F
. I'm telling you now since I'll end up forgetting if i don't.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 19:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, wondered if anyone knows what has happened to category:CS1 errors: dates which has gone up by over 100 entries. New ones in the category do not show an entry in the hidden categories on the page. It could be that some template was changed and the jobqueue is still processing them. Keith D ( talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The instructions don't seem to say what to put for |url-access=
for something that is simply not accessible to the public at all – e.g., a document that may exist but is internal to an institution. For example,
Utah Tech University has a citation to
this, something that appears to only be accessible to employees and/or students of the university. The meaning of the "limited" value seems to be that it is still possible, within some limits, "to freely access this source". But "subscription" is not accurate either, since it is not possible to obtain "a paid subscription with the provider". The limit is more formidable than a "paywall". —
BarrelProof (
talk) 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
|url-access=registration
. Happy editing!
GoingBatty (
talk) 04:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
|url-access=registration
tells cs1|2 templates to emit a tool tip that says: 'Free registration required'. There is no indication at the sign-in page how to get a 'free registration'.The page currently reads: "Do not link to: [...] Commercial sites such as Amazon, unless no alternative exists."
Would it be alright to add an exception clause for open access books, often which are available on commercial sites?
See e.g. [here https://global.oup.com/academic/open-access/titles/?cc=jp&lang=en&].
Even if this is stated or implied elswhere on the page (I didn't see it if it is, sorry), it'd be good to add a short clarification clause where the page talks about linking to commerical sites. Cameron.coombe ( talk) 00:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I've had this problem before and anyone I have asked seems to know of no solution. I posted a query to the help desk to see if more eyes than my circle of editing people could find a solution and they referred me here. We have url and chapter-url, but as far as I can tell, there is no similar way to mark the doi and chapter-doi. And, yes, I know that it isn't required to have a link, but if you are preparing a GA or FA, its good to have them in the article for a review, besides which, as the writer, I may go back and recheck a ref. The case I am working on right now is book and chapter. The url links can't be used as they are proxied. (I am definitely challenged by wikitechnology, so I need step by step instructions that are easy to follow.) Thanks to anyone who might be able to help or offer a solution. SusunW ( talk) 13:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
wikipedialibrary
subdomains in live articles; no reader can follow that url to its destination and I would suspect that most editors do not have privilege of the wikipedialibrary. I've been seeing more of those urls recently.{{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122 |date=2022 |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |location=Toronto |chapter=9 A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |chapter-doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |pages=189-225 |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2}}
|id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}}
:
{{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |date=2022 |chapter=A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}} |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2 |location=Toronto |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |pages=189–225}}
If anyone is looking for something to fix... this search returns about 180 articles that have wikipedialibrary urls.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The following reference from Hurwitz's theorem (number theory) throws an error, because we don't allow links to volumes of journals.
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |volume=
(
help)(note: a PDF version of the paper is available from the given weblink for the volume 39 of the journal, provided by
Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum)But in this case, the content of the link really is the volume of the journal, and the individual paper is more difficult to link. Any suggestions for how to format in a way that both makes sense and makes the templates happy? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello there! A query. For a source like
Sallust (1921) [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C. Cambridge: Harvard University Press – via LacusCurtius.
It isn't really the case that Sallust (who died in 35 BC) wrote the thing in 1921. The year of (this specific Loeb) translation was 1921, but would it be possible to have something like a translation-date
parameter which could place closer to the translator rather than perhaps implying that Sallust lived for two thousand years? (And if some parameter already does this, please direct me to it!) Maybe something like:
Sallust [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C (1921). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thanks. Ifly6 ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
|date=
field should be the date of publication, not the date of translation, which (for citation purposes) is not relevant. I would not compare or contrast Wikipedia citations with any scholarly, academic, or expert reference system. They target very dissimilar audiences.
50.75.226.250 (
talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Hello, could |title=Login
be added as a generic title, |title=Login • Instagram
appears to produce the "Cite uses generic title (help)" but not just |title=Login
.
Keith D (
talk) 18:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Currently the Work section contains the following sentence:
However, at least in the case of journal, the citation format can change from the layout for the 'work' option. For example:
I'm proposing the sentence be changed to the following:
Praemonitus ( talk) 16:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This has both page=
and pages=
as required parameters. Is it possible to make the former unrequired as it is redundant to the latter, similar to the TemplataData of {{
cite news}} and {{
cite book}}?
Kailash29792
(talk) 06:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|page=
documentation (and
|pages=
documentation).|page=
is used to list the singular page within a source that is being cited. |pages=
is used to list the range of pages within a source that is being cited. For citation purposes, we do not care about the total number of pages within a work.|page=3
to get "p. 3" listed in my citation. If instead that same article ran over to a second page, |pages=3–4
to get "pp. 3–4" or |pages=3, 7
to get "pp. 3, 7" in my citation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|pages=
says: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source". The citation style is based on elements from APA and CMOS styles, neither of which cite the total number of pages in a work in a citation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 02:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
are not required parametersfor
{{
cite magazine}}
nor for any of the other 20-ish cs1|2 templates. Are you seeing something somewhere that says that in {{cite magazine}}
|page=
or |pages=
is required? If so, where are you seeing that 'requirement'?|page=
and |pages=
. Indeed, where are you seeing otherwise
Kailash29792?
Izno (
talk) 16:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. ¶ states
In notes, where reference is usually to a particular passage in a book or journal, only the page numbers pertaining to that passage are given. In bibliographies, no page numbers are given for books cited as a whole; for easier location of journal articles or chapters or other sections of a book, the beginning and ending page numbers of the entire article or chapter are given.
My recollection from university are that if one's own library didn't hold a particular journal, it might be possible to get another library to send a copy of an article, and it was expected to include the page range of the article so that the student-employee who actually made the copy would not have to judge where the article began and ended. When using citation templates, we could use cite xxx for the book or article in a bibliography and {{ sfn}} with the page(s) that support the claim in the Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
If you add {{Interlanguage link|Example|sv|Example}} for author "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" will pop up in web cite template. Eurohunter ( talk) 21:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
ill}}
in particular the Mbox with the
image.|author-link=:sv:Example
.{{ill}}
is not going to be supported. The obvious workaround is to construct a manual citation. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 02:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
A couple of months ago,
Jonesey95 pointed out the large number of citations using the author last name "By", and provided a handy search. I was able to expand that to capture a few more, by
adding last1= through last4= to the regexp (and then remove a few by limiting it to the Article namespace). There are, nevertheless, nearly 200 such citations. Jonesey95 wondered if, perhaps, |last=By
could be flagged as a generic name by the CS1 Module,
as names like "Editors" and other generics already are.
David Eppstein correctly pointed out that By is a valid surname, particularly in Norway, as illustrated by three biographical article links to the Norwegian Wikipedia. Jonesey95 conceded that, in the original search, there were two cites to authors named "By" that appeared to be genuine.
Be that as it may, in looking over the results of my search, I noted a couple of patterns:
|last[1234]?=By
with no corresponding |first[1234]?=
parameter at all.|last[1234]?=By
with a corresponding |first[1234]?=
containing a detectably generic string.
|last=By
|first=Provided
. (Such citations also comprise all of the |last2=
|first2=
matches I've seen so far.)|last=By
|first=Audio
is used.|last=By
|first=Admin
which is particularly bizarre (I could see if the first/last were reversed), but whatever..As such, it seems to me that there's more than enough information available to detect abusive uses of |last[1234]?=By
in citations, and to include them in
Category:CS1 errors: generic name, without any of the false-positive flagging of real authors named "By" that David Eppstein was concerned about. There's no reason generic-name detection has to operate exclusively on a single citation parameter in isolation, when it can incorporate the other parameters (or lack thereof) to enable more advanced and accurate detection.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|first=2015-09
that's clearly an issue.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
name_is_numeric
check in the module, as it turns out. It actually looks for any string consisting entirely of non-alphabetic characters. (The actual code is this:) if mw.ustring.match (name, '^[%A]+$')
%A
is the Lua pattern-matching equivalent of [^a-zA-Z]
in standard Perl-Compatible Regular Expression syntax.) So it should already detect "name"s like 2015-09
.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
mw.ustring.match
.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 21:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)local function name_checks
at line 1401 of the current
Module:Citation/CS1), I see that generic-name detection is performed as either a pattern or simple string search on each of the last
and first
parameters in turn. So, detections that target specific paired uses of |last=
& |first=
probably aren't possible with the current code.['full_generic_names']
list, against which a check is run on a joined representation of the entire author name. (So, effectively, undoing the splitting performed by extract_names
before checking the name.) that would allow detection of joined names like these:
provided by
audio by
admin by
^by$
|last=By
that
Jonesey95 originally pointed out, without any false positives on valid uses of |last=By
. And we'll probably find more instances where it's useful for detecting other generics, as well.['full_generic_names']
list would hopefully be much shorter than the ['generic_names']
list used to check first/last names separately, so scanning it hopefully wouldn't have a severe impact on performance. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Could something like that be a workable approach to generic whole-name detection, where the individual first/last name(s) alone don't tell enough of the story?
FeRDNYC (
talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|lastn=
or |firstn=
.
71.105.141.131 (
talk) 23:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|last=By
|first=
(meaning, no first-name value provided). I'd guesstimate 80-90%, from looking through the matches. It's hard to be exact, because you can't search for the lack of a parameter without getting into unworkably complex regular expressions that the server will reject as too expensive.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 00:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)generic_names
regardless.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 00:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)^by$
to the list and the test just happens to catch a real name (surname or given) we have the accept-this-as-written markup that will bypass the error detection. For example, Twitter and Google are both generic names so this cite emits error messages:
{{cite book |first=((Google)) |last=((Twitter)) |title=Title}}
^by$
is a good candidate for the generics, then. The five or six false positives (now that I've looked through the entire list), as you say we can mark as accept-as-written, and there are still close to 195 more that are flaggable.|last=By
|first=<entire_author's_name>
, so it'd be nice to have the generics matching find those as well. I just fixed one...
FeRDNYC (
talk) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)I don't think that adding 'audio' is worthwhile if there really are only 17 hits; just fix them.: While I understand and can appreciate that position, it does also sort of implicitly assume that no more instances will be created in the future.
|first1=Madhura
|last1=Audio
which definitely feels wrong to me. Business YouTube accounts don't have first and last names, they're not people.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 07:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Wikis that use the cs1|2 module suite and allow local names for Season YYYY–YYYY dates don't work. Fixed in the sandbox. To show that I have not broken anything here, these two should not display error messages:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Winter 2008–2009.{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Summer 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Summer 2008–2009.these three should show error messages:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Spring 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Spring 2008–2009. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Fall 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Fall 2008–2009. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Autumn 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Autumn 2008–2009. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about CS1 being biased against Medieval Catholicism, although this bug did come up when editing the Quran article. The period in "St. Clair" throws an error (regardless of the hyphenation). Just for fun I tested some other possible problematic names I could think of but those seem fine.
{{cite web|vauthors=Warraq I, St. Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS |url=http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html |title=The Origins of the Koran |website=The Debate |access-date=15 March 2011}}
Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS.
"The Origins of the Koran". The Debate. Retrieved 15 March 2011. {{
cite web}}
: Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 2 (
help)
{{cite web|vauthors=Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS |url=http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html |title=The Origins of the Koran |website=The Debate |access-date=15 March 2011}}
Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS. "The Origins of the Koran". The Debate. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
Note this even fails if using the tag display-authors=1
. My brief search didn't yield whether Vancouver says to not use such punctuation.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 23:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1,
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration,
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation and
Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've asked 2 months ago and was ignored. Can the module be updated with the pending changes? Gonnym ( talk) 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|volume=
& |issue=
lists to ~/Configuration; see
discussion|format=
in {{
cite episode}}; see
discussion|archive-url=
is present; see
discussion|volume=
& |issue=
lists to ~/Configuration (see link above)Could someone please expand the "
Cite uses generic title" error to also include "PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions"? There seem to be
272 articles with this text in the |title=
parameter. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Trappist the monk: Could you please consider expanding the "
Cite uses generic name" error to also include |last=Admin
and |author=Admin
("Admin" and "admin")? There seem to be
over 3,300 articles with this text . Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 00:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Originally posted at Village pump (idea lab), it was suggested that here would be a better place.
Hi all, am I the only person who finds the layout of catalogue numbers (eg isbn, jstor, oclc, doi) a bit intrusive? I came across
James Leasor#Bibliography, which is a good example of how they can dominate the screen. I find that small caps
ISBN
9780552105866 are much less wearing on the eye than
ISBN
9780552105866, and are the same size as a standard
url link. I'm sure no-one would advocate
url links this size. Would there be a case for incorporating this into all the the {{cite}} and similar templates? I imagine it would be trivial to implement, but what do others think? I should mention that my prefs/gadgets include "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference lists", but there is still an inconsistency in the relative 'importance' of the information. Cheers,
MinorProphet (
talk) 10:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
|format=
takes a diminished size and could be even smaller than it is if someone wanted it.
Izno (
talk) 17:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
|format=
is a post-discovery helper parameter for |url=
. Identifiers such as those mentioned by the OP are discovery parameters, and should not be visually demoted relative to the rest of the citation. Perhaps all these "ideas" are humorous and I am missing the joke.
172.254.155.50 (
talk) 19:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
|format=
, before the TemplateStyles change, it was actually at 85%, but 85% times the 90% Jonesey makes a comment about was indeed much smaller than the 85% of total. Something in the realm of 76.5%. I bumped it up to 95% then having realized that we were missing the 85% mark.
Izno (
talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Thanks to all for your comments and suggestions. Looks like that's a no, then. MinorProphet ( talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I recently added a citation with the correct s2cid of 250118314, but received a "check value" error; the help directed me to report this here. Clicking the link generated in the citation confirms it is correct. The article I had edited was Linear Elamite. – Scyrme ( talk) 16:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I have some cases where the author of a source has a Wikipedia page, but not on the English-language Wikipedia. Is iy possible to have an inter-language author-link? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
|author=[[:<lang tag>:<author name>|<author name>]]
|author-link=:<lang tag>:<author name>
References
Title? I'm updating/creating templates for EUR-Lex codes with hopes for compatibility with CS1's id
parameter, so I copied the same pattern used in {{
SELIBR}} and others, and they all use {{
Catalog lookup link}}, but is it required? I ask because {{
ECLI}} does its own thing and, as I only started learning template code today, it will take time for me to wrap it in Cll, so I'm just wondering whether I even need to (I know practically I don't because CS1 is not ideal for most law at the moment anyway, but I
raised that issue elsewhere).
As an aside, lookup templates based on Cll, somewhat tailored for CS1, (like SELIBR and those with native support like {{
ISBN}}) still work in CS1 with multiple identifier arguments, which doesn't really make sense for citation purposes. {{Citation|title=Apu|id={{SELIBR|1|2|3|4}}}}
Apu,
SELIBR
1,
2,
3,
4 I doubt it's worth coding an exception over that unless it's easy.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 01:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal to change citation templates which hurt articles' Google ranking and was told about this page. I'm not sure if this discussion will move here, but if not at least there is a link to the VP discussion.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
nofollow
, this should probably be a mainspace-wide issue. Another problem with delinking the "original" url is the case of preemptive archiving. In such cases the original link is not dead, only pre-empted. This is an efficient way of handling possible link rot, as it requires no maintenance, without any degradation of the reader-facing info.
172.254.222.178 (
talk) 11:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=live
, to indicate preemptive archival linking. When used, the citation will continue to link to the original article, with the archive link only being listed as a backup. As such, there is no reason to de-link the originals in those cases, and all of the information is available to disable de-linking for those citations. It shouldn't be a problem.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
According to the documentation for {{
Cite podcast}}, while the parameter |transcripturl=
has been deprecated, the parameter |transcript-url=
should work. However, when using it, the template returns an unknown parameter error:
{{Cite podcast |url=https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right |title=Did economists move democrats to the right? |website=The Science of Politics |publisher=[[Niskanen Center]] |last=Grossman |first=Matt |date=20 April 2022 |time=5:18–7:19 |access-date=6 July 2022 |transcript-url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/did-economists-move-democrats-to-the-right/ |transcript=Transcript }}
{{
cite podcast}}
: Unknown parameter |transcript-url=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript=
ignored (
help)Compare the equivalent {{ Cite AV media}} where the parameter does work:
{{Cite AV media |url=https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right |title=Did economists move democrats to the right? |website=The Science of Politics |publisher=[[Niskanen Center]] |last=Grossman |first=Matt |date=20 April 2022 |time=5:18–7:19 |access-date=6 July 2022 |transcript-url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/did-economists-move-democrats-to-the-right/ |transcript=Transcript }}
I've tried looking at the relevant module to see what change might've caused this, but it's beyond me. Does anyone know what the issue might be? Sincerely, InsaneHacker ( 💬) 11:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite podcast}}
has never supported |transcript=
or |transcript-url=
.Wikitext | {{cite podcast
|
---|---|
Old | Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022). "Did economists move democrats to the right?". The Science of Politics (Podcast). Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right. |
Live | Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022).
"Did economists move democrats to the right?". The Science of Politics (Podcast).
Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. Retrieved 6 July 2022. {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022).
"Did economists move democrats to the right?". The Science of Politics (Podcast).
Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. Retrieved 6 July 2022. {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
|transcript=
and |transcript-url=
are recognized and so not discarded. This shows that
Module:Citation/CS1 does not support these parameters for {{cite podcast}}
and never has. I don't know why {{
cite podcast/old}}
repeats |url=
as a bare url (and I'm not going to spend any time trying to figure that out).|transcript=
, |transcript-format=
, and |transcript-url=
?Well, that explains it. I hope I didn't misunderstand the documentation, which seems to list it as a valid parameter?{{ cite podcast}}
has never supported|transcript=
or|transcript-url=
.
[S]hould the cs1|2 module suite be changed to support. Are the equivalent parameters in {{ Cite AV media}} not from the CS1 module?|transcript=
,|transcript-format=
, and|transcript-url=
?
{{
cite podcast}}
template documentation says nothing about |transcript=
. The deprecated and recently removed parameter tables are generic and are included in most if not all cs1|2 template doc pages.|transcript=
, |transcript-format=
, and |transcript-url=
are supported only by {{
cite AV media}}
and {{
cite episode}}
. Trappist asked for comments on the use of the |transcript=
parameter group.
The parameter group should be supported, but only if designed, applied and documented correctly.
Let's start with definitions: Transcript Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster (3 definitions).
{{
cite sign}}
and {{
cite map}}
could conceivably use this parameter group in rare cases.{{
cite book}}
(an audiobook not specifically published as a print book), {{
cite interview}}
, {{
cite podcast}}
, {{
cite press release}}
, {{
cite speech}}
etc. etc.Application note: Transcripts themselves should be cited as the works they represent if they are expressly published as transcripts, for example such transcript of a speech should still be cited with {{
cite speech}}
. Some transcripts are published with titles different from the original. Others may be cited in non-online media, and therefore such transcripts would not use a URL. There may also be situations where transcripts may have a different title, and a URL. All these cases should be formatted and presented differently. For now, this comment is just exploring the definitiona and their applicability.
68.132.154.35 (
talk) 16:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Following from the above, an implementation proposal:
|transcript=
to |transcript-title=
|transcript-url-access=
|transcript-url-format=
ignored if there is no |transcript-url=
|transcript-url-access=
ignored if there is no |transcript-url=
|id=
(for the transcript) required if there is |transcript-title=
but no |transcript-url=
|transcript-url=[displays |transcript-title=
value]
else |transcript-url=[displays] Transcript
(static text)|transcript-title=
when different from work title|type=transcript
Other, advanced considerations: transcript identifiers, transcript archiving, other-language transcripts. 50.75.226.250 ( talk) 15:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Some history:
In Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 12 we have a list of namespaces that cs1|2 does not categorize. The namespace names there are the canonical (English) names that appear to work in all other wikis when used in a wikilink or url. But, when cs1|2 fetches the namespace name from a non-English wiki, the non-English wiki returns the name in its own language. That means that editors in those other-language wikis must translate (replace) the English names with local names.
I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to fetch the list of talk namespace identifiers from MediaWiki. The namespace list is specific to the local wiki in that local namespace names are the local language names but the namespace identifiers are the same for all wikis: namespace 2 at en.wiki is 'User' and at sq.wiki is 'Përdoruesi'.
This has the further benefit of making sure that the list of talk pages remains up-to-date; for example, at some point, apparently, the 'Book talk' and 'Education Program talk' namespaces and associated subject-namespaces disappeared.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
uncategorized_namespaces_t = {[2=true};
uncategorized_namespaces_t = {[2=true, 14=true};
uncategorized_namespaces_t
to suit their needs.I've tweaked Module:cs1 documentation support to add an uncategorized namespace lister function. This function is intended for use in Help:CS1 errors § Notes. After the next cs1|2 update, add this in place of the manual list:
{{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|uncategorized_namespace_lister}}
→
For convenience, I added one parameter to that function. |all=
when set to any value will emit a simple unordered list of all namespace names and their identifiers. Namespace names with identifiers less than 1 (currently Mainspace (0), Special (-1), and Media (-2), are omitted from the list:
{{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|uncategorized_namespace_lister|all=1}}
→
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Cite book states at
Parameters » Description » URL: "Do not link to any commercial booksellers, such as Amazon; use isbn=
or oclc=
to provide neutral search links for books."
However, if you use the very helpful Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD), book titles hyperlinked to a corresponding Worldcat page will be highlighted in light yellow, indicating a potentially unreliable source. In this case, Worldcat.org is flagged as a "preprint or general repository".
The rationale for this categorization is that Worldcat.org contains self-published books, which are usually not reliable sources. Thus, one should not assume that a book found in a union catalog such as Worldcat.org is necessarily a reliable source. Stated differently, one should not assume that an OCLC link always constitutes a "neutral search".
At the same time, Worldcat.org listings serve important functions, such as helping readers find a book in a nearby library. And editors can identify vanity books (one form of self-published texts) as an unreliable source and not cite them in the first place.
I therefore suggest adding a brief explanatory note {{efn}} at the end of the sentence quoted above that reads something like this:
Thank you for your kind consideration,
Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
|url=
, then my assumption is that the link will take me to a digital copy of the source. Since Worldcat is not hosting the book, but instead providing the ability to find a copy of the book in a library, the URL for the book's listing at Worldcat shouldn't be provided in |url=
. If I see that it is, I assume it's an errant attempt to supply |oclc=
and edit the citation accordingly to remove the URL and make sure the OCLC is listed instead. I take similar action when someone links a book to a publisher's catalog listing/sales page for a book or for third-party sales page like Amazon.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/<id>
on sight when |oclc=<id>
matches. If only ve would stop adding the worldcat url when it writes a template with |oclc=<id>
...Another discussion elsewhere got me wondering why we don't trap the use of CITEREF disambiguators in date-holding parameters that don't contribute to the citation's anchor ID. The parameters that contribute to the anchor ID are:
|date=
|year=
– promotes to |date=
when |date=
not present in the template|publication-date=
– promotes to |date=
when both of |date=
and |year=
are not present in the templateAll other date-holding parameters should not have CITEREF disambiguators. I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation to catch CITEREF disambiguators in parameters where they are not appropriate:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title". Archived from
the original on 11 July 2022a. Retrieved 11 July 2021a. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archive-date= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title". Archived from
the original on 11 July 2022a. Retrieved 11 July 2021a. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archive-date= (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. 2022a. |
Sandbox | Title. 2022a. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (published 2021a). 2022a. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |publication-date= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (published 2021a). 2022a. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |publication-date= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
|archive-date=
plays no part in that and shouldn't; it should only hold the date of the archived snapshot. If an editor must cite the same dynamic webpage updated >1 dailythen multiple cs1|2 templates each with a different
|archive-url=
and |date=
appropriately disambiguated. If required, |ref=CITEREF<something>a
, |ref=CITEREF<something>b
, etc.|archive-date=
is probably a small net positive. The code will not have to error-out any and all disambiguated archive dates except the ones with matching disambiguators, likely a very small percentage of a very small percentage of cases.
68.132.154.35 (
talk) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
|date=
. |archive-date=
isn't |date=
and is never promoted as such in the module or in documentation.
Izno (
talk) 19:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
|archive-date=
accepts disamibuators. This would be useless, unless there is a case of two or more citations which cite updates of the same webpage on the same day (dab date), with corresponding archives on the same day (dab archive date). Can such a case be ruled out? Does it cost anything to leave the status quo as is regarding dab archive dates? If anything, leaving |archive-date=
out of the particular error-checking routine may be a net plus.
68.132.154.35 (
talk) 19:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"author=Technical Committee ISO/TC 58, Gas cylinders, Subcommittee SC4" is generating a warning. What is wrong with the format? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|author=
must hold only one name. cs1|2 allows one comma in |author=
(for Last, First names). Any more than one comma in |author=
(or any semicolon) is presumed to be a list of human names so cs1|2 emits the maintenance message.{{cite book |author=((Technical Committee ISO/TC 58, Gas cylinders, Subcommittee SC4)) |title=Title}}
|author=
can be deleted.I've been searching through the archives, as well as the documentation at {{
cite web}}. What is the correct value for |website=
? For example, if I had the following citation {{cite web |url=https://news.xbox.com/en-us/ ...
is the domain name |website=news.xbox.com
correct, or should it be |website=Xbox Wire
?
The {{
cite web}}
documentation for this is kinda opaque. It says that website is an alias for work, and that work should be the name of the source. But it doesn't give any examples.
Template:Cite web#Examples says that for my example you'd use |website=Xbox Wire
, as does
Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher. However in the archives for this talk page, I found the following conflicting discussions;
Archive 82:Cite web Website parameter being misused?,
Archive 81:website or publisher parameter,
Archive 77:Bad value in website= field
If the value should be |website=Xbox Wire
, could we get that more clearly spelled out at
Template:Cite web#Website? I know of at least one
lame edit war in the last day that revolved entirely around this issue, and I know I come across {{
cite web}} citations frequently where the domain name |website=news.xbox.com
has been used.
Note: URL was picked at random, and obviously I wouldn't cite the index page of that website. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
website: Title of website; may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work". That's pretty clear, but the underlined text could be added so it says
"website: Title of website (not the domain name, unless that is also the name of the website); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work". It's always seemed clear to me, but I run into this error frequently. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
|website=New York Times
, not: |website=nytimes.com
.
Mathglot (
talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
|newspaper=New York Times
. If it's a web site, then |website=PayPal
.
Mathglot (
talk) 05:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)|website=
should not be the domain name when the website has a clear name. I frequently see people using domain names, e.g. |website=rottentomatoes.com
instead of |website=Rotten Tomatoes
, and I think it should be discouraged. I suggested some language above and I'll try again. How about "website: Title of website (not the domain name when the website has a clear name); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work"? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 14:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
|work=
. Expecting editors to look at the
Examples or
Help:Citation Style 1 where it is clearer what the value should be, is not a good information flow to inform editorial practice.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 14:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)"website: Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work"? Any suggestions for how to modify Template:Cite web#Website? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
One of the pages I'm wanting to edit uses the {{ cite news}} template, but the news article URL that the page links to 404s - the site in question has changed its layout. I've found the new URL on the site, and I'm assuming (but am not completely sure) that the access-date parameter should be changed in the template, since the new URL was accessed on the date I'm editing. Is this correct?
Obviously, the old archive-url link still works, since it's, well, an archive. Should I leave the archive URL as-is, or update it to match the new URL? -- TheSophera ( talk) 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I am reminded that, per Editor Jonesey95, we should have a formal discussion to fully remove support for:
|booktitle=
|chapterurl=
|episodelink=
|mailinglist=
|mapurl=
|nopp=
|publicationdate=
|publicationplace=
|serieslink=
|transcripturl=
All of these, if used in a cs1|2 template, will emit the unknown parameter error message, |transcripturl=
excepted which is deprecated in {{
cite episode}}
.
The only vestiges of these parameters are found in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration except for |transcripturl=
which is also in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist.
Shall we remove support for the above named parameters?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
|chapter-url=
will continue to work fine, but |chapterurl=
will not. The above parameters currently emit an "unknown parameter" error message in preview as well as assigning
Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. That category contains only 69 pages currently, so finally removing the above parameter aliases should not affect the display of articles beyond those 69 pages. Trappist, please correct any of this if it is incorrect. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
|transcripturl=
for which use
this search.|transcripturl=
).|deadurl=
. Is there currently a bot fixing these, and if not might Monkbot be interested in them? They're a bit tedious to do by hand but a bot should find them tasty. Best,
Wham2001 (
talk) 09:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)|trans_chapter=
, |chapter-url=
, and |chapterformat=
are listed in the documentation for {{
Vcite book}}. CS1 started moving away from this mishmash long ago, and is almost done. {{
Vcite book}} has only 123 transclusions, and {{
Vcite web}} has only 93. It would be an interesting exercise to determine if those templates could be converted to {{
cite book}} with appropriate style parameter values without changing their rendered appearance. If so, it would probably make sense to merge them with their corresponding CS1 templates. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Is CSVAN still even maintained?No, and the user who created it mostly by himself has been blocked for a long time now. Izno ( talk) 18:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
{{vcite ...}}
citations fade away and then remove support for the templates via TFD.the user who created it mostly by himself has been blocked for a long time nowWho might that be? The templates
{{
Vcite book}}
, {{
Vcite journal}}
, {{
Vcite news}}
and {{
Vcite web}}
were all created by
Eubulides (
talk ·
contribs), who is no longer around, this is true; but their
block log is clean. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
{{vcite ...}}
templates were created but that 'advantage', if it were an advantage, pretty much went away when MediaWiki enabled
mw:Extension:Scribunto and Lua.{{vcite ...}}
templates in mainspace:
{{
vcite book}}
~30{{
vcite conference}}
none{{
vcite journal}}
~25{{
vcite news}}
~20{{
vcite web}}
~35{{vcite ...}}
templates is on the wane. No doubt the primary reason is that bots, visual editor, RefToobar, Diberri Boghog template filler, etc create cs1|2 templates. If I'm not mistaken,
WP:MED used to be one of the primary users of the {{vcite ...}}
templates. The above searches suggest that WP:MED has moved away from {{vcite ...}}
.|accessdate=
which was controversial in the RFC). As such I think that standardisation on the hyphenated variants is only beneficial. Best,
Wham2001 (
talk) 09:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)|accessdate=
, |airdate=
, |archivedate=
, |archiveurl=
, |authorlink=
, and |origyear=
, is not being contemplated in this discussion, and I beg everyone here not to mention them again in this thread, lest it go off the rails. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out.This is that
necessarydiscussion, a year and a half after the January 2022 RFC. The parameters above have been deprecated since February 2021, have not been used anywhere since March or April 2021, and the proposal now is to remove them from the citation module code entirely. This is how deprecation works, when it works; parameters or methods are deprecated, then removed from use, then discontinued entirely. Historically, with these modules, the process has happened much more smoothly and with a lot less drama. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
|accessdate=
, |airdate=
, |archivedate=
, |archiveurl=
, |authorlink=
, and |origyear=
. Those six parameters are not at issue here; the beginning of mass bot modification to hyphenated parameters prior to a deprecation discussion about those six was the main cause of that RFC and the main objection of participants. Maybe that is the main source of your confusion? That would be understandable, because that discussion got pretty convoluted.remove support for previously deprecated parameters |booktitle=, |chapterurl=, |episodelink=, |mailinglist=, |mapurl=, |nopp=, |publicationdate=, |publicationplace=, |serieslink=, |transcripturl=(note that this is the list of ten parameters, deprecated since February 2021, at the top of this July 2022 discussion). Those changes were generally approved for implementation, but
there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out, so those ten parameters remained in the deprecated state. Now we are having that further discussion, with the goal of moving those ten parameters from deprecated, non-standard, and unused (where they have been since February 2021) to completely unsupported, i.e. removed from the code. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 07:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Please quote where in the April 2021 RFC it specified certain parameters and not others. The RfC question was Should non-hyphenated parameters be fully removed from the CS1/2 family of templates?
The background section said In 2014 an RFC determined that all parameter names in Citation Style 1 templates should have an alias...This meant, for example, that access-date= would be shown as the preferred parameter while accessdate= was shown as acceptable but discouraged from use. In the following years there have been various trends and discussions formally deprecating many of the non-hyphenated parameters, from a small handful (2019 example) to the current list which contains over 70 entries. Many of these are the non-hyphenated variants of the preferred/hyphenated versions, which are being removed to decrease the maintenance burden and increase the uniformity between templates (i.e. "ease of use")...In October 2020, all non-hyphenated parameters were added to the "current list" linked above.
Option C was Option C: Non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated; deprecation should not be continued and bot approval should be revoked. This will also mean that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters.
And the close was: There is a rough consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates (option C). This means that existing hyphenated (e.g. access-date) and non-hyphenated (e.g. accessdate) parameters should both continue to be supported by the templates. Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus.
Where does any of that specify some deprecated parameters and not others? In October 2020, all non-hyphenated parameters were added to the "current list"
and This will also mean that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters.
means, to me, that ALL non-hyphenated parameters were un-deprecated in April 2021. @
Joe Roe: am I misreading this close?
Levivich
block 14:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
non-hyphenated? No one is suggesting to get rid of the hyphenated ones. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
|booktitle=
should be an alias to |book-title=
, |chapterurl=
should be an alias to |chapter-url=
, and so on. That these parameters currently give errors isn't a reason to remove them, it's a reason to fix them and return them to the aliases they used to be. The
April 2021 RFC found consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates and that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters. Assuming that was done, there should be no non-hyphenated parameters on the deprecated parameter list; they should not be throwing off errors; support for these parameters should not be removed; they should be returned to functioning aliases.
Levivich (
talk) 02:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)|chapterurl=
, have been deprecated for a year and a half, currently display error messages, do not (or should not, at least; we may have missed a couple) appear in the documentation, and are not in use in the spaces that are categorized by the citation templates. Nobody is going to have to do any work to implement or clean up after this change. Standard hyphenated multi-word parameters, like |chapter-url=
, will continue to work without any problems. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Is this worth adding to the module, or should I create a new citation template for JIPA?
We will be citing several hundred illustration of the IPA in JIPA, linked via DOI to their host publisher site at CUP. They are subscription for the first 3 years, then free public access. It would be nice if the template could handle this. E.g., something like doi-access= {{#ifexpr:(({{CURRENTYEAR}} - {{{date}}}) > {{{freeage}}})|free}}
, where we could set freeage to 3. (Since for the URL link 'free' is the default, there shouldn't be any confusion that 'freeage' applies to the DOI link.)
See Qaqet language#Further reading, where I used the 'translation' parameter to add a note about the article. It is -- or will be -- in the 'Illustrations of the IPA' section of the journal, and that is the standard wording used in the lit to refer to these JIPA articles, so that phrasing should be included but isn't part of the title. Also there is supplementary material (sound files) online which are a good publicly accessible resource and should be mentioned, but I don't see a param designed to handle that info.
Please ping. Thanks, — kwami ( talk) 21:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|pmc-embargo-date=
. But, embargoed pmcs are relatively common and not constrained to any particular journal. Are there other journals or publishers that have similar doi embargos? I'm not enthusiastic about creating and maintaining code in the cs1|2 module suite that will support only one journal. If doi embargos are a common practice among multiple journals/publishers then we might consider creating |doi-embargo-date=
.|trans-title=
has a defined purpose. Do not misuse cs1|2 parameters for purposes that do not fit with the parameters' defined purposes. Use |department=
for the 'Illustrations of the IPA' section of the journal.
|doi-embargo-date=
has some merit as an idea. The issue is mostly that this is a very hard thing to keep track of manually, since it varies a lot by journal and publisher.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)notes/comments.
|pages=
has a defined purpose. Do not misuse it for something else. If you want to append notes/commentsto a citation, they can go at the end – after the template's closing
}}
and before the reference's closing </ref>
.For your consideration:
May have enough critical mass to be included in the Identifiers group. 50.75.226.250 ( talk) 16:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The meaning of the |url-status=
citation parameter is frequently misunderstood by editors. (See the discussion immediately above this one,
url-status=live without an archive-url, for just one example of literally dozens, if not hundreds, over the years.)
I would argue that this confusion is our fault, because the current parameter name is just terrible. |url-status=
has nothing whatsoever to do with the current status of the citation URL. (An unknowable, since it can change at any moment.) The only effect of |url-status=live
is to prevent the citation's |archive-url=
from being promoted to the primary citation link, the way it otherwise is with the default |url-status=dead
in effect. Like |archive-date=
, NO value of |url-status=
has any meaning unless an |archive-url=
parameter is also provided.
As such, the name of the parameter should clearly start with archive-
. Above, I proposed |archive-status=primary/backup
, but that doesn't account for the third possible value of the existing parameter, |url-status=usurped
. So upon further reflection, I instead propose that we deprecate |url-status=
and replace it with |archive-display=primary/backup/usurped
.
|archive-display=primary
|archive-url=
is the primary citation link and the |url=
becomes a "the original" link. Same as the current default |url-status=dead
.|archive-display=backup
|url=
as the primary link, to support preemptive archival linking of non-dead citations. (Same as |url-status=live
today.)|archive-display=usurped
|url-status=usurped
today, disable all linking to the citation's original |url=
, for situations where the original link has changed without becoming dead.I'm fully conscious of what a colossal PITA it will be to make this change, but I feel it can be done in stages (and with some bot assistance) to ease the pain. More importantly, I feel it's ultimately worth the pain because the current parameter name, |url-status=
, is just bad. It bears almost no relation to the actual meaning of the parameter, in ways that will continue to mislead and confuse editors until we finally fix our stuff. (I'll cross-link this proposal to Village Pump (technical) as well.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 18:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
url-status= has nothing whatsoever to do with the current status of the citation URLwhen in fact it literally does. The whole point of url-status is to determine if the link is dead. You can have url-status=dead without there being an archive link. That way, other people can add the archived link later.
Currently the template does not accept a date such as 09 July 2022, giving an unhelpful error message. Instead one must write 9 July 2022. I think it's silly to bother editors with this, the template should accept both styles and silently reformat it. I thought it would be better to ask here before changing it because this template is so widely used. Tercer ( talk) 12:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, annoying editors with a pointless error message in order to teach them a minor stylistic point? You guys are a lost cause. I'm sorry I tried to help. Tercer ( talk) 08:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I entirely agree with @ Tercer. I do a lot filling of refs, and for accuracy's sake I copy-paste the date from the article where possible. Many date formats are unambiguous, but need to be re-formatted to avoid error error messages. These other formats are easily parsed; why trigger an error message when the date is unambiguous?
e.g. for 9 December 2014, the templates should accept:
The current demand for conformity is just a make-work. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC) By all means trigger a warning, but not an error.
Case in point:
{{
cite document}}
: Cite document requires |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |access-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |url=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |via=
ignored (
help)Pinging User:Keith D. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
is not a cs1|2 template. It is merely a redirect to {{
cite journal}}
. As such, cs1|2 sees the template as a {{cite journal}}
template and renders whatever it has been given as a journal-style citation. {{cite journal}}
requires |journal=
so when that parameter is empty or omitted, cs1|2 emits the error message. Pagination rendering follows the {{cite journal}}
format (<colon><space><pagination>).{{cite web |last=Amos |first=David |url=https://www.academia.edu/40640025 |title=Controversies in Coal: Internment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913–1924) |date=January 2017 |pages=10–11 |access-date=5 October 2020 |website=Academia}}
[it] is used to create citations for reports by government departments, instrumentalities, operated companies, etc. Examples include: government printed reports which lack ISSN or ISBN numbers, and reports from major semi-governmental instrumentalities that are freely circulating and available for verification, but which lack a formal ISBN/ISSN publication process.
{{
cite document}}
has existed as a redirect to {{
cite journal}}
ever since it was created way back in 2010. If it were to be altered to redirect to another template, this would require a
WP:RFD first. This would not be necessary if somebody were to alter it to be a full CS1 template in its own right. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is a result of the research and subsequent book produced as part of the AHRC funded project ‘Controversies in Coal: Interment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913-1924) through the Centre for Hidden Histories at the University of Nottingham. The Project ran from September 2016 to April 2017.So find the book bib info and then you have several options: you could do a construction like: "
{cite report}
, published in {cite book}
"; or you could put the two together in cite journal or cite encyclopedia, though the latter might be more appropriate since its effectively a collection of articles. (By the way, speaking of redirects, we really need a {cite collection}
redirect and |collection=
alias for encyclopedia, since that makes up a huge amount of (intended) use cases, which is not obvious at all from the documentation.)
SamuelRiv (
talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
. We cannot make up a probable imaginary provenance for it and retrofit into any other template.
204.19.162.34 (
talk) 17:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
redirect. I replaced the redirects with:
{{
cite arxiv}}
{{
cite book}}
{{
cite citeseerx}}
{{
cite conference}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
{{
cite journal}}
{{
cite news}}
{{
cite periodical}}
{{
cite report}}
{{
cite ssrn}}
{{
cite tech report}}
{{
cite thesis}}
{{
cite web}}
{{cite web}}
(24×) followed by {{cite citeseerx}}
and {{cite ssrn}}
(7× each). It is unlikely that there is a simple 'automated fix' that converts a {{cite document}}
redirect to some other, more correct template. There may be some small subsets of {{cite document}}
use that are amenable to fixes-by-script but, to be fixed properly, most {{cite document}}
redirects will need humans to do the fixing.Hello, can "Page Title" at the start of a |title= be added to the generic title list. Currently about 25 occurrences. Thanks, Keith D Keith D ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Has there been any thought to making sure the various infoboxes and citation tags across different wiki's are the same? I've translated a few items from and to English using the translation tool and more often than not it makes a mess of the citation tags being translated (to a lesser extent, infoboxes). It's a pain in the butt to try and figure out how to fix the citation tags after doing a translation. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
citation tags? Did you mean to write 'citation templates'? What citation templates? What languages? We do have some crude 'translation' templates that are automatically subst'd to a more-or-less appropriate cs1|2 template. For example, the German template de:Vorlage:Literatur is a redirect (
{{
Literatur}}
) to {{
cite book/German}}
. If you copy a {{Literatur}}
template from de.wiki to en.wiki and save,
User:AnomieBOT will subst that template with a 'translated' equivalent ({{
citation}}
). No guarantee that such translations are correct, they often aren't. For other available 'translators' see {{
Non-English citation templates}}
.{{
BLP sources}}
and {{
Citation needed}}
tags. Does that mean that they insist on sources for everything - or that they don't care if something is sourced or not? Looking at sections like
de:Michael Schumacher#Kontroversen, I suspect the latter. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 18:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Is there a proper way to cite a particular section from a particular chapter from a particular part of a particular book, which is a particular supplement to a particular volume of a particular encyclopedia? Namely, there is a NASA publication called " Computers in Spaceflight: the NASA Experience", formally being "Volume: 18, Issue: Supplemet 3" of "Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology", but in fact it is a book and is also published on the Web, with separate webpages for each section. The structure is:
I need to cite that section, and preferably without losing the rest of the structure information (chapter, part, book title and its location within the encyclopedia). Can this be done? {{
cite book}}
doesn't even allow specifying |chapter=
and |section=
at the same time. —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk) 11:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
|title=
(book title), |chapter=
[Chapter 6: Distributing ...], and |at=
(section title) (it appears the sections are each bold title, not each separate webpage).
SamuelRiv (
talk) 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
|at=
looks strange:
|issue=
is not shown at all (without any warnings). —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk) 21:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC){{
cite web}}
:
{{cite web |title=Voyager - The flying computer center |website=NASA History |url=https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch6-2.html}}
{{cite book |last=Tomayko |first=James E. |date=March 1988 |chapter=Distributed Computing On Board Voyager and Galileo §Voyager-The Flying Computer Center |title=Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience |page=173 |id=NASA-CR-182505 |url=https://strives-uploads-prod.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/19880069935/19880069935.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIASEVSKC45ZTTM42XZ&Expires=1600217623&Signature=jw3KXryBL%2B0kfI4iPyx5Z8Eg%2B1w%3D |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200916005338/https://strives-uploads-prod.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/19880069935/19880069935.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIASEVSKC45ZTTM42XZ&Expires=1600217623&Signature=jw3KXryBL%2B0kfI4iPyx5Z8Eg%2B1w%3D |archive-date=2020-09-16}}
|series=
parameter (its usage in the template documentation is at "Complex usage showing effect of using volume parameter and lastauthoramp parameter (with volume and lastauthoramp)"). I agree that in this case "Supplement 3" belongs as part of the volume parameter. You should limit yourself to linking to either the pdf (from the NASA citations page or the one Ttm found) or the the web version, as both are free and readily accessible and you generally want to minimize ambiguity of which source was originally used. The |at=
parameter is supposed to be for any kind of pinpoint (except page), so you would have to denote "sec.", "subsec.", "§", "para.", or whatever you need to do to (ideally) get as precise or as broad a pinpoint as is best for verification. The form Ttm shows is fine too.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 23:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
also complains about external links in |section=
, the best I could do was to use |section=chapter § section
and |section-url=URL
(instead of more logical |section=chapter § [URL|section]
). But it would be much better if the template could handle |chapter=
and |section=
together, with corresponding |...-url=
. Regarding "limit to linking to either the pdf or the the web version", the problem is that the PDF is really huge, so linking to a lightweight web page makes much more sense, but the web version doesn't have proper bibliographic information, thus it also makes sense to link to the NASA bibliographic page for the whole book. After all, {{
cite journal}}
allows multiple simultaneous links (doi, pubmed, jstor, ...) and wiki-linking the journal itself, and {{
cite book}}
also has |isbn=
"linking" to the whole book record even when |url=
is much more specific. —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk) 18:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Unlike all other modules in the cs1|2 module suite, the list of suggestions ( Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions or Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox) is only loaded when it is needed. Editor Tholme points out that the mechanism that decides whether to load ~Suggestions or ~Suggestions/sandbox needs improvement. That editor offered one solution that I knee-jerk reverted. Correctly, my revert was reverted and I have since improved on Editor Tholme's fix.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
|SandboxPath=
. At {{
cite book/new}}
the new parameter is |SandboxPath=/sandbox
. At no.wiki the templates that invoke
no:Modul:Citation/CS1/sandkasse are listed
here.sandbox = '/sandkasse'
in
Module:Citation/CS1. I do think it would be ok if this module checked for variable sandbox in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and not
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. There would be need to be a comment that the sandbox variable needs to be correct in the live module and not only in the sandbox. This would also mean that the sandbox module will need to load
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration first, and then afterward read all the other configuration from
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. I think this should work. Would you be ok with an implementation like this?
Tholme (
talk) 23:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
cfg['sandbox-subpage']
in
Module:Documentation/config? It seems like most wikis uses this.
Tholme (
talk) 00:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
|SandboxPath=
(parameter present without assigned value which returns an empty string; which would make sandbox module name same as live module name):
local sandbox = ((config.SandboxPath and '' ~= config.SandboxPath) and config.SandboxPath) or '/sandbox';
{{cite <whatever>}}
template doesn't have |SandboxPath=
, Module:Citation/CS1 will use whatever default sandbox name is provided in the module.local sandbox = frame:getParent():getTitle():match ('/.+$');
/
in the invoking template's name. But, there is no guarantee that whatever text follows the last /
will be the 'sandbox'. {{cite <whatever>/<country name>}}
so the above will return /<country name>
to the live module.{{cite <whatever>/<country name>}}
wraps a cs1|2 template and it is that template name that is returned by frame:getParent():getTitle()
so if the wrapped template is a sandbox template then perhaps this mechanism will work. At en.wiki there is of course the {{cite <whatever>/new}}
variant that we have used for a very long time in place of {{cite <whatever>/sandbox}}
.International Standard Bibliographic Description. May be used as an authoritative reference in discussion of structured citations.
This
edit request to
Template:Cite book has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the link ISBN (identifier) in {{ cite book}} to ISBN. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
See tecovirimat where a citation to pmc=9300470 is now showing an error. Please increase limit in the validation code. Thanks. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 11:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Whats the issue with this citation? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Whatever it was, it seems fixed now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up that my little handy dandy guide on Citation bot finally got in the Signpost, as intended years ago. Feel free to leave a comment (or make suggestions for other guides on different topics). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The instructions indicate the use of |url-status=deviated, and when the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped. And, at Category:CS1 errors: invalid parameter value it says that these values are valid. However, at Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL it does not accept these values. Can this be fixed so that green hidden "One or more {{ cite news}} templates have maintenance messages" for their use can be avoided? -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=deviated
, |url-status=unfit
, and |url-status=usurped
are all valid:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=deviated}}
|url=
as a secondary link{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=unfit}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=usurped}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=USURPED}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |url-status=USURPED
(
help) – all keywords used in cs1|2 templates must be lowercaseat Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL it does not accept these values? There are 33,867 articles in that category so something must be happening.
Masi, Alessandria (14 December 2015).
"Saudi Coalition, Houthi Rebels Intensify Attacks In Yemen Ahead Of Proposed Ceasefire". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 4 October 2016.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link) [Cite news|last=Masi |first=Alessandria |date=14 December 2015 |title=Saudi Coalition, Houthi Rebels Intensify Attacks In Yemen Ahead Of Proposed Ceasefire |newspaper=International Business Times |url=
http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-coalition-houthi-rebels-intensify-attacks-yemen-ahead-proposed-ceasefire-2223830 |archive-url=
https://web.archive.org/web/20161004172106/http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-coalition-houthi-rebels-intensify-attacks-yemen-ahead-proposed-ceasefire-2223830 |archive-date=4 October 2016 |url-status=unfit ] at
December 2015 Taiz missile attack which yields an error. I marked it as unfit, because the article is occluded at the original website. If "unfit" needs to be checked, then how is the error cleared? --
Bejnar (
talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
unfit
. There is no mechanism to mark urls that are geographically limited – is that your issue? I think that we have discussed this before; if we have, we did not decide to do anything about geographically limited urls. Marking a geographically limited url as unfit does not seem to me to be a good idea; the url is fit to be viewed – it isn't spam or porn or a phishing site, etc – so should not be labeled as unfit
.|url-access=subscription
is the correct parameter to use.requiredaction for most maintenance messages. Alas, some maintenance categories ( Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (54,350), Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (0), Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (74,650)) should emit error messages but those categories apply to so many articles that making them error messages would cause a torches-and-pitchforks uprising; we've seen that kind of uprising before and it isn't pretty.
What is the recommended action when a cite with |url-status=deviated
is converted to a dead link. Normally it is flipped to |url-status=dead
. --
Green
C 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
deviated
url becomes dead
(returns 404) then |url-status=deviated
should be removed. No need to replace it with |url-status=dead
because cs1|2 assumes that the url in |url=
is dead when |archive-url=
has an assigned url."If the value is correct and larger than the currently configured limit of 35900000, please report this at Help talk:Citation Style 1, so that the limit can be updated."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35918775/ Aethyta ( talk) 19:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Ive noticed that when a citation error is produced (E.g. "example". {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(
help)), the resulting html has the error split across 2 or more <span>
s, as seen below (Ive split the 2 spans wih a newline).
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_web" title="Template:Cite web">cite web</a>}}</code>: </span>
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Missing or empty <code class="cs1-code">|url=</code> (<a href="/info/en/?search=Help:CS1_errors#cite_web_url" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>
However, when a maintenance notice is produced (E.g.
"example". 1970.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)), the resulting html is always across 1 entire <span>
, as seen below
<span class="cs1-maint citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_web" title="Template:Cite web">cite web</a>}}</code>: CS1 maint: date and year (<a href="/info/en/?search=Category:CS1_maint:_date_and_year" title="Category:CS1 maint: date and year">link</a>)</span>
Ive also noticed the function for adding errors in the module /Utilities is significantly more advanced than for adding maintenance messages. Is there at all any reason for this? Id assume it would be easier for both to be across 1 entire span, as the same class is used throughout, but there might be some underlying reason im not aware of. Aidan9382 ( talk) 06:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
requires |journal=
so when that parameter is empty of omitted, cs1|2 emits an appropriate error message. But, due to en.wiki politics, that error message is hidden:
{{cite journal |title=Title |date=November}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
<span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{<a href="/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_journal" title="Template:Cite journal">cite journal</a>}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-hidden-error citation-comment">Cite journal requires <code class="cs1-code">|journal=</code> (<a href="/info/en/?search=Help:CS1_errors#missing_periodical" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Check date values in: <code class="cs1-code">|date=</code> (<a href="/info/en/?search=Help:CS1_errors#bad_date" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span>
cs1-hidden-error
class.|website=
and {{
cite news}} requiring |newspaper=
, both of which were subsequently reverted. No-one objected to {{
cite journal}} requiring |journal=
.
Kanguole 16:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
|dead-url=
error messages were the biggest parts of the complaints, sure. But there was a vocal crowd advocating a complete reversion of the 3 September 2020 update. To forstal that, I
disabled missing-news and missing-website tests and
hid deprecated and missing-periodical (journal, magazine) error messaging. We did not have to revert the whole damn thing but as a result, missing periodical error messages are still hidden.@
Trappist the monk: This conversation above has actually made me notice what could be a bug. Due to the way ive got my css setup, not only are all errors shown, but i have seperate background highlighting for each, and I noticed the ;
in the journal example was unhighlighted, and therefore not inside any span tags. I checked with default css (AKA not being able to see the hidden error), and yep, to other people theres just a magically appearing semicolon in the citation error output.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 16:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm using ProveIt and I recently started to add S2CID to my references, but it is not showing in ProveIt by default because it is not in the TemplateData, and it would be nice to have it there. Could someone do this? Thanks! − Arthurfragoso ( talk) 15:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the Help talk space from Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language, so Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 79 isn't part of the category? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 03:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This maintenance note seems contrary to the examples listed in Template:Cite AV media notes. This maintenance note states "|others=
is provided to record other (secondary) contributors to the cited source.", but per <<Template:Cite AV media notes#General]], [[Cite AV media notes |title=Album Title |first=First |last=Last |others=<<Artist>> |date=2022 |url=h t t p ://www.wikipedia.org |page=1|type=Type |publisher=Publisher |id=Publisher ID |location=Location>>, others is to be used to list Artist. So when citing CD liners, the album title gets listed under title, but there is no other method for listing artist except for others, which complies with AV media notes guidelines. This CS1 maintenance seems to be the one in error.
Mburrell (
talk) 04:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
|contribution=Media notes
or |contribution="Media notes title"
and |contributor=Authorname
, added to template {{
cite av media}}.
24.105.140.106 (
talk) 18:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)This says there's an error in the bibcode
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)There isn't, it's a valid one. One of the tests needs to be adjusted. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The first letter of the last name of the first author, but somehow its a 7. The regex that confirms if this is valid was only expecting for a letter or dot for this reason. Im not sure if this is a misissuing or what, but for now, ill simply change the regex a bit. If someone who works on citations a lot could follow up on this, that'd be nice. Aidan9382 ( talk) 04:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The double (( )) doesn't seem to do anything though.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@
Headbomb: Got a response back, it was a misissuing. It's been fixed, but its not gonna update on the database until friday. The new bibcode will end up being 2019ISPAr4219..207F
. I'm telling you now since I'll end up forgetting if i don't.
Aidan9382 (
talk) 19:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, wondered if anyone knows what has happened to category:CS1 errors: dates which has gone up by over 100 entries. New ones in the category do not show an entry in the hidden categories on the page. It could be that some template was changed and the jobqueue is still processing them. Keith D ( talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The instructions don't seem to say what to put for |url-access=
for something that is simply not accessible to the public at all – e.g., a document that may exist but is internal to an institution. For example,
Utah Tech University has a citation to
this, something that appears to only be accessible to employees and/or students of the university. The meaning of the "limited" value seems to be that it is still possible, within some limits, "to freely access this source". But "subscription" is not accurate either, since it is not possible to obtain "a paid subscription with the provider". The limit is more formidable than a "paywall". —
BarrelProof (
talk) 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
|url-access=registration
. Happy editing!
GoingBatty (
talk) 04:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
|url-access=registration
tells cs1|2 templates to emit a tool tip that says: 'Free registration required'. There is no indication at the sign-in page how to get a 'free registration'.The page currently reads: "Do not link to: [...] Commercial sites such as Amazon, unless no alternative exists."
Would it be alright to add an exception clause for open access books, often which are available on commercial sites?
See e.g. [here https://global.oup.com/academic/open-access/titles/?cc=jp&lang=en&].
Even if this is stated or implied elswhere on the page (I didn't see it if it is, sorry), it'd be good to add a short clarification clause where the page talks about linking to commerical sites. Cameron.coombe ( talk) 00:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I've had this problem before and anyone I have asked seems to know of no solution. I posted a query to the help desk to see if more eyes than my circle of editing people could find a solution and they referred me here. We have url and chapter-url, but as far as I can tell, there is no similar way to mark the doi and chapter-doi. And, yes, I know that it isn't required to have a link, but if you are preparing a GA or FA, its good to have them in the article for a review, besides which, as the writer, I may go back and recheck a ref. The case I am working on right now is book and chapter. The url links can't be used as they are proxied. (I am definitely challenged by wikitechnology, so I need step by step instructions that are easy to follow.) Thanks to anyone who might be able to help or offer a solution. SusunW ( talk) 13:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
wikipedialibrary
subdomains in live articles; no reader can follow that url to its destination and I would suspect that most editors do not have privilege of the wikipedialibrary. I've been seeing more of those urls recently.{{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122 |date=2022 |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |location=Toronto |chapter=9 A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |chapter-doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |pages=189-225 |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2}}
|id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}}
:
{{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |date=2022 |chapter=A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}} |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2 |location=Toronto |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |pages=189–225}}
If anyone is looking for something to fix... this search returns about 180 articles that have wikipedialibrary urls.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The following reference from Hurwitz's theorem (number theory) throws an error, because we don't allow links to volumes of journals.
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |volume=
(
help)(note: a PDF version of the paper is available from the given weblink for the volume 39 of the journal, provided by
Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum)But in this case, the content of the link really is the volume of the journal, and the individual paper is more difficult to link. Any suggestions for how to format in a way that both makes sense and makes the templates happy? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello there! A query. For a source like
Sallust (1921) [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C. Cambridge: Harvard University Press – via LacusCurtius.
It isn't really the case that Sallust (who died in 35 BC) wrote the thing in 1921. The year of (this specific Loeb) translation was 1921, but would it be possible to have something like a translation-date
parameter which could place closer to the translator rather than perhaps implying that Sallust lived for two thousand years? (And if some parameter already does this, please direct me to it!) Maybe something like:
Sallust [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C (1921). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thanks. Ifly6 ( talk) 13:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
|date=
field should be the date of publication, not the date of translation, which (for citation purposes) is not relevant. I would not compare or contrast Wikipedia citations with any scholarly, academic, or expert reference system. They target very dissimilar audiences.
50.75.226.250 (
talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Hello, could |title=Login
be added as a generic title, |title=Login • Instagram
appears to produce the "Cite uses generic title (help)" but not just |title=Login
.
Keith D (
talk) 18:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Currently the Work section contains the following sentence:
However, at least in the case of journal, the citation format can change from the layout for the 'work' option. For example:
I'm proposing the sentence be changed to the following:
Praemonitus ( talk) 16:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
This has both page=
and pages=
as required parameters. Is it possible to make the former unrequired as it is redundant to the latter, similar to the TemplataData of {{
cite news}} and {{
cite book}}?
Kailash29792
(talk) 06:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|page=
documentation (and
|pages=
documentation).|page=
is used to list the singular page within a source that is being cited. |pages=
is used to list the range of pages within a source that is being cited. For citation purposes, we do not care about the total number of pages within a work.|page=3
to get "p. 3" listed in my citation. If instead that same article ran over to a second page, |pages=3–4
to get "pp. 3–4" or |pages=3, 7
to get "pp. 3, 7" in my citation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 16:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|pages=
says: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source". The citation style is based on elements from APA and CMOS styles, neither of which cite the total number of pages in a work in a citation.
Imzadi 1979
→ 02:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|page=
and |pages=
are not required parametersfor
{{
cite magazine}}
nor for any of the other 20-ish cs1|2 templates. Are you seeing something somewhere that says that in {{cite magazine}}
|page=
or |pages=
is required? If so, where are you seeing that 'requirement'?|page=
and |pages=
. Indeed, where are you seeing otherwise
Kailash29792?
Izno (
talk) 16:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed. ¶ states
In notes, where reference is usually to a particular passage in a book or journal, only the page numbers pertaining to that passage are given. In bibliographies, no page numbers are given for books cited as a whole; for easier location of journal articles or chapters or other sections of a book, the beginning and ending page numbers of the entire article or chapter are given.
My recollection from university are that if one's own library didn't hold a particular journal, it might be possible to get another library to send a copy of an article, and it was expected to include the page range of the article so that the student-employee who actually made the copy would not have to judge where the article began and ended. When using citation templates, we could use cite xxx for the book or article in a bibliography and {{ sfn}} with the page(s) that support the claim in the Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 11:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
If you add {{Interlanguage link|Example|sv|Example}} for author "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" will pop up in web cite template. Eurohunter ( talk) 21:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
{{
ill}}
in particular the Mbox with the
image.|author-link=:sv:Example
.{{ill}}
is not going to be supported. The obvious workaround is to construct a manual citation. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 02:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
A couple of months ago,
Jonesey95 pointed out the large number of citations using the author last name "By", and provided a handy search. I was able to expand that to capture a few more, by
adding last1= through last4= to the regexp (and then remove a few by limiting it to the Article namespace). There are, nevertheless, nearly 200 such citations. Jonesey95 wondered if, perhaps, |last=By
could be flagged as a generic name by the CS1 Module,
as names like "Editors" and other generics already are.
David Eppstein correctly pointed out that By is a valid surname, particularly in Norway, as illustrated by three biographical article links to the Norwegian Wikipedia. Jonesey95 conceded that, in the original search, there were two cites to authors named "By" that appeared to be genuine.
Be that as it may, in looking over the results of my search, I noted a couple of patterns:
|last[1234]?=By
with no corresponding |first[1234]?=
parameter at all.|last[1234]?=By
with a corresponding |first[1234]?=
containing a detectably generic string.
|last=By
|first=Provided
. (Such citations also comprise all of the |last2=
|first2=
matches I've seen so far.)|last=By
|first=Audio
is used.|last=By
|first=Admin
which is particularly bizarre (I could see if the first/last were reversed), but whatever..As such, it seems to me that there's more than enough information available to detect abusive uses of |last[1234]?=By
in citations, and to include them in
Category:CS1 errors: generic name, without any of the false-positive flagging of real authors named "By" that David Eppstein was concerned about. There's no reason generic-name detection has to operate exclusively on a single citation parameter in isolation, when it can incorporate the other parameters (or lack thereof) to enable more advanced and accurate detection.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 19:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|first=2015-09
that's clearly an issue.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
name_is_numeric
check in the module, as it turns out. It actually looks for any string consisting entirely of non-alphabetic characters. (The actual code is this:) if mw.ustring.match (name, '^[%A]+$')
%A
is the Lua pattern-matching equivalent of [^a-zA-Z]
in standard Perl-Compatible Regular Expression syntax.) So it should already detect "name"s like 2015-09
.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 21:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
mw.ustring.match
.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 21:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)local function name_checks
at line 1401 of the current
Module:Citation/CS1), I see that generic-name detection is performed as either a pattern or simple string search on each of the last
and first
parameters in turn. So, detections that target specific paired uses of |last=
& |first=
probably aren't possible with the current code.['full_generic_names']
list, against which a check is run on a joined representation of the entire author name. (So, effectively, undoing the splitting performed by extract_names
before checking the name.) that would allow detection of joined names like these:
provided by
audio by
admin by
^by$
|last=By
that
Jonesey95 originally pointed out, without any false positives on valid uses of |last=By
. And we'll probably find more instances where it's useful for detecting other generics, as well.['full_generic_names']
list would hopefully be much shorter than the ['generic_names']
list used to check first/last names separately, so scanning it hopefully wouldn't have a severe impact on performance. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Could something like that be a workable approach to generic whole-name detection, where the individual first/last name(s) alone don't tell enough of the story?
FeRDNYC (
talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|lastn=
or |firstn=
.
71.105.141.131 (
talk) 23:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|last=By
|first=
(meaning, no first-name value provided). I'd guesstimate 80-90%, from looking through the matches. It's hard to be exact, because you can't search for the lack of a parameter without getting into unworkably complex regular expressions that the server will reject as too expensive.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 00:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)generic_names
regardless.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 00:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)^by$
to the list and the test just happens to catch a real name (surname or given) we have the accept-this-as-written markup that will bypass the error detection. For example, Twitter and Google are both generic names so this cite emits error messages:
{{cite book |first=((Google)) |last=((Twitter)) |title=Title}}
^by$
is a good candidate for the generics, then. The five or six false positives (now that I've looked through the entire list), as you say we can mark as accept-as-written, and there are still close to 195 more that are flaggable.|last=By
|first=<entire_author's_name>
, so it'd be nice to have the generics matching find those as well. I just fixed one...
FeRDNYC (
talk) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)I don't think that adding 'audio' is worthwhile if there really are only 17 hits; just fix them.: While I understand and can appreciate that position, it does also sort of implicitly assume that no more instances will be created in the future.
|first1=Madhura
|last1=Audio
which definitely feels wrong to me. Business YouTube accounts don't have first and last names, they're not people.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 07:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Wikis that use the cs1|2 module suite and allow local names for Season YYYY–YYYY dates don't work. Fixed in the sandbox. To show that I have not broken anything here, these two should not display error messages:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Winter 2008–2009.{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Summer 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Summer 2008–2009.these three should show error messages:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Spring 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Spring 2008–2009. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Fall 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Fall 2008–2009. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Autumn 2008–2009}}
→ Title. Autumn 2008–2009. {{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about CS1 being biased against Medieval Catholicism, although this bug did come up when editing the Quran article. The period in "St. Clair" throws an error (regardless of the hyphenation). Just for fun I tested some other possible problematic names I could think of but those seem fine.
{{cite web|vauthors=Warraq I, St. Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS |url=http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html |title=The Origins of the Koran |website=The Debate |access-date=15 March 2011}}
Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS.
"The Origins of the Koran". The Debate. Retrieved 15 March 2011. {{
cite web}}
: Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 2 (
help)
{{cite web|vauthors=Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS |url=http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html |title=The Origins of the Koran |website=The Debate |access-date=15 March 2011}}
Warraq I, St Clair-Tisdall W, de la Croix CC, O'Conner TS. "The Origins of the Koran". The Debate. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
Note this even fails if using the tag display-authors=1
. My brief search didn't yield whether Vancouver says to not use such punctuation.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 23:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1,
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration,
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation and
Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've asked 2 months ago and was ignored. Can the module be updated with the pending changes? Gonnym ( talk) 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
|volume=
& |issue=
lists to ~/Configuration; see
discussion|format=
in {{
cite episode}}; see
discussion|archive-url=
is present; see
discussion|volume=
& |issue=
lists to ~/Configuration (see link above)Could someone please expand the "
Cite uses generic title" error to also include "PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions"? There seem to be
272 articles with this text in the |title=
parameter. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@
Trappist the monk: Could you please consider expanding the "
Cite uses generic name" error to also include |last=Admin
and |author=Admin
("Admin" and "admin")? There seem to be
over 3,300 articles with this text . Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 00:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Originally posted at Village pump (idea lab), it was suggested that here would be a better place.
Hi all, am I the only person who finds the layout of catalogue numbers (eg isbn, jstor, oclc, doi) a bit intrusive? I came across
James Leasor#Bibliography, which is a good example of how they can dominate the screen. I find that small caps
ISBN
9780552105866 are much less wearing on the eye than
ISBN
9780552105866, and are the same size as a standard
url link. I'm sure no-one would advocate
url links this size. Would there be a case for incorporating this into all the the {{cite}} and similar templates? I imagine it would be trivial to implement, but what do others think? I should mention that my prefs/gadgets include "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference lists", but there is still an inconsistency in the relative 'importance' of the information. Cheers,
MinorProphet (
talk) 10:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
|format=
takes a diminished size and could be even smaller than it is if someone wanted it.
Izno (
talk) 17:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
|format=
is a post-discovery helper parameter for |url=
. Identifiers such as those mentioned by the OP are discovery parameters, and should not be visually demoted relative to the rest of the citation. Perhaps all these "ideas" are humorous and I am missing the joke.
172.254.155.50 (
talk) 19:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
|format=
, before the TemplateStyles change, it was actually at 85%, but 85% times the 90% Jonesey makes a comment about was indeed much smaller than the 85% of total. Something in the realm of 76.5%. I bumped it up to 95% then having realized that we were missing the 85% mark.
Izno (
talk) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Thanks to all for your comments and suggestions. Looks like that's a no, then. MinorProphet ( talk) 17:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I recently added a citation with the correct s2cid of 250118314, but received a "check value" error; the help directed me to report this here. Clicking the link generated in the citation confirms it is correct. The article I had edited was Linear Elamite. – Scyrme ( talk) 16:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I have some cases where the author of a source has a Wikipedia page, but not on the English-language Wikipedia. Is iy possible to have an inter-language author-link? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
|author=[[:<lang tag>:<author name>|<author name>]]
|author-link=:<lang tag>:<author name>
References
Title? I'm updating/creating templates for EUR-Lex codes with hopes for compatibility with CS1's id
parameter, so I copied the same pattern used in {{
SELIBR}} and others, and they all use {{
Catalog lookup link}}, but is it required? I ask because {{
ECLI}} does its own thing and, as I only started learning template code today, it will take time for me to wrap it in Cll, so I'm just wondering whether I even need to (I know practically I don't because CS1 is not ideal for most law at the moment anyway, but I
raised that issue elsewhere).
As an aside, lookup templates based on Cll, somewhat tailored for CS1, (like SELIBR and those with native support like {{
ISBN}}) still work in CS1 with multiple identifier arguments, which doesn't really make sense for citation purposes. {{Citation|title=Apu|id={{SELIBR|1|2|3|4}}}}
Apu,
SELIBR
1,
2,
3,
4 I doubt it's worth coding an exception over that unless it's easy.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 01:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal to change citation templates which hurt articles' Google ranking and was told about this page. I'm not sure if this discussion will move here, but if not at least there is a link to the VP discussion.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 17:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
nofollow
, this should probably be a mainspace-wide issue. Another problem with delinking the "original" url is the case of preemptive archiving. In such cases the original link is not dead, only pre-empted. This is an efficient way of handling possible link rot, as it requires no maintenance, without any degradation of the reader-facing info.
172.254.222.178 (
talk) 11:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=live
, to indicate preemptive archival linking. When used, the citation will continue to link to the original article, with the archive link only being listed as a backup. As such, there is no reason to de-link the originals in those cases, and all of the information is available to disable de-linking for those citations. It shouldn't be a problem.
FeRDNYC (
talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
According to the documentation for {{
Cite podcast}}, while the parameter |transcripturl=
has been deprecated, the parameter |transcript-url=
should work. However, when using it, the template returns an unknown parameter error:
{{Cite podcast |url=https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right |title=Did economists move democrats to the right? |website=The Science of Politics |publisher=[[Niskanen Center]] |last=Grossman |first=Matt |date=20 April 2022 |time=5:18–7:19 |access-date=6 July 2022 |transcript-url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/did-economists-move-democrats-to-the-right/ |transcript=Transcript }}
{{
cite podcast}}
: Unknown parameter |transcript-url=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript=
ignored (
help)Compare the equivalent {{ Cite AV media}} where the parameter does work:
{{Cite AV media |url=https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right |title=Did economists move democrats to the right? |website=The Science of Politics |publisher=[[Niskanen Center]] |last=Grossman |first=Matt |date=20 April 2022 |time=5:18–7:19 |access-date=6 July 2022 |transcript-url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/did-economists-move-democrats-to-the-right/ |transcript=Transcript }}
I've tried looking at the relevant module to see what change might've caused this, but it's beyond me. Does anyone know what the issue might be? Sincerely, InsaneHacker ( 💬) 11:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite podcast}}
has never supported |transcript=
or |transcript-url=
.Wikitext | {{cite podcast
|
---|---|
Old | Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022). "Did economists move democrats to the right?". The Science of Politics (Podcast). Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. https://soundcloud.com/user-735940457-95015381/did-economists-move-the-democrats-to-the-right. |
Live | Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022).
"Did economists move democrats to the right?". The Science of Politics (Podcast).
Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. Retrieved 6 July 2022. {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Grossman, Matt (20 April 2022).
"Did economists move democrats to the right?". The Science of Politics (Podcast).
Niskanen Center. Event occurs at 5:18–7:19. Retrieved 6 July 2022. {{
cite podcast}} : Unknown parameter |transcript-url= ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |transcript= ignored (
help)
|
|transcript=
and |transcript-url=
are recognized and so not discarded. This shows that
Module:Citation/CS1 does not support these parameters for {{cite podcast}}
and never has. I don't know why {{
cite podcast/old}}
repeats |url=
as a bare url (and I'm not going to spend any time trying to figure that out).|transcript=
, |transcript-format=
, and |transcript-url=
?Well, that explains it. I hope I didn't misunderstand the documentation, which seems to list it as a valid parameter?{{ cite podcast}}
has never supported|transcript=
or|transcript-url=
.
[S]hould the cs1|2 module suite be changed to support. Are the equivalent parameters in {{ Cite AV media}} not from the CS1 module?|transcript=
,|transcript-format=
, and|transcript-url=
?
{{
cite podcast}}
template documentation says nothing about |transcript=
. The deprecated and recently removed parameter tables are generic and are included in most if not all cs1|2 template doc pages.|transcript=
, |transcript-format=
, and |transcript-url=
are supported only by {{
cite AV media}}
and {{
cite episode}}
. Trappist asked for comments on the use of the |transcript=
parameter group.
The parameter group should be supported, but only if designed, applied and documented correctly.
Let's start with definitions: Transcript Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster (3 definitions).
{{
cite sign}}
and {{
cite map}}
could conceivably use this parameter group in rare cases.{{
cite book}}
(an audiobook not specifically published as a print book), {{
cite interview}}
, {{
cite podcast}}
, {{
cite press release}}
, {{
cite speech}}
etc. etc.Application note: Transcripts themselves should be cited as the works they represent if they are expressly published as transcripts, for example such transcript of a speech should still be cited with {{
cite speech}}
. Some transcripts are published with titles different from the original. Others may be cited in non-online media, and therefore such transcripts would not use a URL. There may also be situations where transcripts may have a different title, and a URL. All these cases should be formatted and presented differently. For now, this comment is just exploring the definitiona and their applicability.
68.132.154.35 (
talk) 16:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Following from the above, an implementation proposal:
|transcript=
to |transcript-title=
|transcript-url-access=
|transcript-url-format=
ignored if there is no |transcript-url=
|transcript-url-access=
ignored if there is no |transcript-url=
|id=
(for the transcript) required if there is |transcript-title=
but no |transcript-url=
|transcript-url=[displays |transcript-title=
value]
else |transcript-url=[displays] Transcript
(static text)|transcript-title=
when different from work title|type=transcript
Other, advanced considerations: transcript identifiers, transcript archiving, other-language transcripts. 50.75.226.250 ( talk) 15:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Some history:
In Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 12 we have a list of namespaces that cs1|2 does not categorize. The namespace names there are the canonical (English) names that appear to work in all other wikis when used in a wikilink or url. But, when cs1|2 fetches the namespace name from a non-English wiki, the non-English wiki returns the name in its own language. That means that editors in those other-language wikis must translate (replace) the English names with local names.
I have hacked Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to fetch the list of talk namespace identifiers from MediaWiki. The namespace list is specific to the local wiki in that local namespace names are the local language names but the namespace identifiers are the same for all wikis: namespace 2 at en.wiki is 'User' and at sq.wiki is 'Përdoruesi'.
This has the further benefit of making sure that the list of talk pages remains up-to-date; for example, at some point, apparently, the 'Book talk' and 'Education Program talk' namespaces and associated subject-namespaces disappeared.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
uncategorized_namespaces_t = {[2=true};
uncategorized_namespaces_t = {[2=true, 14=true};
uncategorized_namespaces_t
to suit their needs.I've tweaked Module:cs1 documentation support to add an uncategorized namespace lister function. This function is intended for use in Help:CS1 errors § Notes. After the next cs1|2 update, add this in place of the manual list:
{{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|uncategorized_namespace_lister}}
→
For convenience, I added one parameter to that function. |all=
when set to any value will emit a simple unordered list of all namespace names and their identifiers. Namespace names with identifiers less than 1 (currently Mainspace (0), Special (-1), and Media (-2), are omitted from the list:
{{#invoke:cs1 documentation support|uncategorized_namespace_lister|all=1}}
→
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Cite book states at
Parameters » Description » URL: "Do not link to any commercial booksellers, such as Amazon; use isbn=
or oclc=
to provide neutral search links for books."
However, if you use the very helpful Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector (UPSD), book titles hyperlinked to a corresponding Worldcat page will be highlighted in light yellow, indicating a potentially unreliable source. In this case, Worldcat.org is flagged as a "preprint or general repository".
The rationale for this categorization is that Worldcat.org contains self-published books, which are usually not reliable sources. Thus, one should not assume that a book found in a union catalog such as Worldcat.org is necessarily a reliable source. Stated differently, one should not assume that an OCLC link always constitutes a "neutral search".
At the same time, Worldcat.org listings serve important functions, such as helping readers find a book in a nearby library. And editors can identify vanity books (one form of self-published texts) as an unreliable source and not cite them in the first place.
I therefore suggest adding a brief explanatory note {{efn}} at the end of the sentence quoted above that reads something like this:
Thank you for your kind consideration,
Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
|url=
, then my assumption is that the link will take me to a digital copy of the source. Since Worldcat is not hosting the book, but instead providing the ability to find a copy of the book in a library, the URL for the book's listing at Worldcat shouldn't be provided in |url=
. If I see that it is, I assume it's an errant attempt to supply |oclc=
and edit the citation accordingly to remove the URL and make sure the OCLC is listed instead. I take similar action when someone links a book to a publisher's catalog listing/sales page for a book or for third-party sales page like Amazon.
Imzadi 1979
→ 04:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/<id>
on sight when |oclc=<id>
matches. If only ve would stop adding the worldcat url when it writes a template with |oclc=<id>
...Another discussion elsewhere got me wondering why we don't trap the use of CITEREF disambiguators in date-holding parameters that don't contribute to the citation's anchor ID. The parameters that contribute to the anchor ID are:
|date=
|year=
– promotes to |date=
when |date=
not present in the template|publication-date=
– promotes to |date=
when both of |date=
and |year=
are not present in the templateAll other date-holding parameters should not have CITEREF disambiguators. I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation to catch CITEREF disambiguators in parameters where they are not appropriate:
Wikitext | {{cite web
|
---|---|
Live |
"Title". Archived from
the original on 11 July 2022a. Retrieved 11 July 2021a. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archive-date= (
help)
|
Sandbox |
"Title". Archived from
the original on 11 July 2022a. Retrieved 11 July 2021a. {{
cite web}} : Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archive-date= (
help)
|
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. 2022a. |
Sandbox | Title. 2022a. |
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title (published 2021a). 2022a. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |publication-date= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title (published 2021a). 2022a. {{
cite book}} : Check date values in: |publication-date= (
help)
|
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
|archive-date=
plays no part in that and shouldn't; it should only hold the date of the archived snapshot. If an editor must cite the same dynamic webpage updated >1 dailythen multiple cs1|2 templates each with a different
|archive-url=
and |date=
appropriately disambiguated. If required, |ref=CITEREF<something>a
, |ref=CITEREF<something>b
, etc.|archive-date=
is probably a small net positive. The code will not have to error-out any and all disambiguated archive dates except the ones with matching disambiguators, likely a very small percentage of a very small percentage of cases.
68.132.154.35 (
talk) 19:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
|date=
. |archive-date=
isn't |date=
and is never promoted as such in the module or in documentation.
Izno (
talk) 19:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
|archive-date=
accepts disamibuators. This would be useless, unless there is a case of two or more citations which cite updates of the same webpage on the same day (dab date), with corresponding archives on the same day (dab archive date). Can such a case be ruled out? Does it cost anything to leave the status quo as is regarding dab archive dates? If anything, leaving |archive-date=
out of the particular error-checking routine may be a net plus.
68.132.154.35 (
talk) 19:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"author=Technical Committee ISO/TC 58, Gas cylinders, Subcommittee SC4" is generating a warning. What is wrong with the format? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|author=
must hold only one name. cs1|2 allows one comma in |author=
(for Last, First names). Any more than one comma in |author=
(or any semicolon) is presumed to be a list of human names so cs1|2 emits the maintenance message.{{cite book |author=((Technical Committee ISO/TC 58, Gas cylinders, Subcommittee SC4)) |title=Title}}
|author=
can be deleted.I've been searching through the archives, as well as the documentation at {{
cite web}}. What is the correct value for |website=
? For example, if I had the following citation {{cite web |url=https://news.xbox.com/en-us/ ...
is the domain name |website=news.xbox.com
correct, or should it be |website=Xbox Wire
?
The {{
cite web}}
documentation for this is kinda opaque. It says that website is an alias for work, and that work should be the name of the source. But it doesn't give any examples.
Template:Cite web#Examples says that for my example you'd use |website=Xbox Wire
, as does
Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher. However in the archives for this talk page, I found the following conflicting discussions;
Archive 82:Cite web Website parameter being misused?,
Archive 81:website or publisher parameter,
Archive 77:Bad value in website= field
If the value should be |website=Xbox Wire
, could we get that more clearly spelled out at
Template:Cite web#Website? I know of at least one
lame edit war in the last day that revolved entirely around this issue, and I know I come across {{
cite web}} citations frequently where the domain name |website=news.xbox.com
has been used.
Note: URL was picked at random, and obviously I wouldn't cite the index page of that website. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
website: Title of website; may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work". That's pretty clear, but the underlined text could be added so it says
"website: Title of website (not the domain name, unless that is also the name of the website); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work". It's always seemed clear to me, but I run into this error frequently. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
|website=New York Times
, not: |website=nytimes.com
.
Mathglot (
talk) 02:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
|newspaper=New York Times
. If it's a web site, then |website=PayPal
.
Mathglot (
talk) 05:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)|website=
should not be the domain name when the website has a clear name. I frequently see people using domain names, e.g. |website=rottentomatoes.com
instead of |website=Rotten Tomatoes
, and I think it should be discouraged. I suggested some language above and I'll try again. How about "website: Title of website (not the domain name when the website has a clear name); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work"? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 14:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
|work=
. Expecting editors to look at the
Examples or
Help:Citation Style 1 where it is clearer what the value should be, is not a good information flow to inform editorial practice.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 14:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)"website: Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name); may be wikilinked. Displays in italics. Aliases: work"? Any suggestions for how to modify Template:Cite web#Website? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
One of the pages I'm wanting to edit uses the {{ cite news}} template, but the news article URL that the page links to 404s - the site in question has changed its layout. I've found the new URL on the site, and I'm assuming (but am not completely sure) that the access-date parameter should be changed in the template, since the new URL was accessed on the date I'm editing. Is this correct?
Obviously, the old archive-url link still works, since it's, well, an archive. Should I leave the archive URL as-is, or update it to match the new URL? -- TheSophera ( talk) 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I am reminded that, per Editor Jonesey95, we should have a formal discussion to fully remove support for:
|booktitle=
|chapterurl=
|episodelink=
|mailinglist=
|mapurl=
|nopp=
|publicationdate=
|publicationplace=
|serieslink=
|transcripturl=
All of these, if used in a cs1|2 template, will emit the unknown parameter error message, |transcripturl=
excepted which is deprecated in {{
cite episode}}
.
The only vestiges of these parameters are found in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration except for |transcripturl=
which is also in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist.
Shall we remove support for the above named parameters?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
|chapter-url=
will continue to work fine, but |chapterurl=
will not. The above parameters currently emit an "unknown parameter" error message in preview as well as assigning
Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. That category contains only 69 pages currently, so finally removing the above parameter aliases should not affect the display of articles beyond those 69 pages. Trappist, please correct any of this if it is incorrect. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 16:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
|transcripturl=
for which use
this search.|transcripturl=
).|deadurl=
. Is there currently a bot fixing these, and if not might Monkbot be interested in them? They're a bit tedious to do by hand but a bot should find them tasty. Best,
Wham2001 (
talk) 09:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)|trans_chapter=
, |chapter-url=
, and |chapterformat=
are listed in the documentation for {{
Vcite book}}. CS1 started moving away from this mishmash long ago, and is almost done. {{
Vcite book}} has only 123 transclusions, and {{
Vcite web}} has only 93. It would be an interesting exercise to determine if those templates could be converted to {{
cite book}} with appropriate style parameter values without changing their rendered appearance. If so, it would probably make sense to merge them with their corresponding CS1 templates. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 18:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Is CSVAN still even maintained?No, and the user who created it mostly by himself has been blocked for a long time now. Izno ( talk) 18:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
{{vcite ...}}
citations fade away and then remove support for the templates via TFD.the user who created it mostly by himself has been blocked for a long time nowWho might that be? The templates
{{
Vcite book}}
, {{
Vcite journal}}
, {{
Vcite news}}
and {{
Vcite web}}
were all created by
Eubulides (
talk ·
contribs), who is no longer around, this is true; but their
block log is clean. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
{{vcite ...}}
templates were created but that 'advantage', if it were an advantage, pretty much went away when MediaWiki enabled
mw:Extension:Scribunto and Lua.{{vcite ...}}
templates in mainspace:
{{
vcite book}}
~30{{
vcite conference}}
none{{
vcite journal}}
~25{{
vcite news}}
~20{{
vcite web}}
~35{{vcite ...}}
templates is on the wane. No doubt the primary reason is that bots, visual editor, RefToobar, Diberri Boghog template filler, etc create cs1|2 templates. If I'm not mistaken,
WP:MED used to be one of the primary users of the {{vcite ...}}
templates. The above searches suggest that WP:MED has moved away from {{vcite ...}}
.|accessdate=
which was controversial in the RFC). As such I think that standardisation on the hyphenated variants is only beneficial. Best,
Wham2001 (
talk) 09:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)|accessdate=
, |airdate=
, |archivedate=
, |archiveurl=
, |authorlink=
, and |origyear=
, is not being contemplated in this discussion, and I beg everyone here not to mention them again in this thread, lest it go off the rails. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out.This is that
necessarydiscussion, a year and a half after the January 2022 RFC. The parameters above have been deprecated since February 2021, have not been used anywhere since March or April 2021, and the proposal now is to remove them from the citation module code entirely. This is how deprecation works, when it works; parameters or methods are deprecated, then removed from use, then discontinued entirely. Historically, with these modules, the process has happened much more smoothly and with a lot less drama. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
|accessdate=
, |airdate=
, |archivedate=
, |archiveurl=
, |authorlink=
, and |origyear=
. Those six parameters are not at issue here; the beginning of mass bot modification to hyphenated parameters prior to a deprecation discussion about those six was the main cause of that RFC and the main objection of participants. Maybe that is the main source of your confusion? That would be understandable, because that discussion got pretty convoluted.remove support for previously deprecated parameters |booktitle=, |chapterurl=, |episodelink=, |mailinglist=, |mapurl=, |nopp=, |publicationdate=, |publicationplace=, |serieslink=, |transcripturl=(note that this is the list of ten parameters, deprecated since February 2021, at the top of this July 2022 discussion). Those changes were generally approved for implementation, but
there is no consensus on removal of deprecated parameters in this discussion, and further discussion will be necessary to roll that part out, so those ten parameters remained in the deprecated state. Now we are having that further discussion, with the goal of moving those ten parameters from deprecated, non-standard, and unused (where they have been since February 2021) to completely unsupported, i.e. removed from the code. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 07:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Please quote where in the April 2021 RFC it specified certain parameters and not others. The RfC question was Should non-hyphenated parameters be fully removed from the CS1/2 family of templates?
The background section said In 2014 an RFC determined that all parameter names in Citation Style 1 templates should have an alias...This meant, for example, that access-date= would be shown as the preferred parameter while accessdate= was shown as acceptable but discouraged from use. In the following years there have been various trends and discussions formally deprecating many of the non-hyphenated parameters, from a small handful (2019 example) to the current list which contains over 70 entries. Many of these are the non-hyphenated variants of the preferred/hyphenated versions, which are being removed to decrease the maintenance burden and increase the uniformity between templates (i.e. "ease of use")...In October 2020, all non-hyphenated parameters were added to the "current list" linked above.
Option C was Option C: Non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated; deprecation should not be continued and bot approval should be revoked. This will also mean that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters.
And the close was: There is a rough consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates (option C). This means that existing hyphenated (e.g. access-date) and non-hyphenated (e.g. accessdate) parameters should both continue to be supported by the templates. Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus.
Where does any of that specify some deprecated parameters and not others? In October 2020, all non-hyphenated parameters were added to the "current list"
and This will also mean that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters.
means, to me, that ALL non-hyphenated parameters were un-deprecated in April 2021. @
Joe Roe: am I misreading this close?
Levivich
block 14:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
non-hyphenated? No one is suggesting to get rid of the hyphenated ones. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
|booktitle=
should be an alias to |book-title=
, |chapterurl=
should be an alias to |chapter-url=
, and so on. That these parameters currently give errors isn't a reason to remove them, it's a reason to fix them and return them to the aliases they used to be. The
April 2021 RFC found consensus that non-hyphenated parameters should not be deprecated in citation templates and that the deprecated parameter list will need to be updated to remove the non-hyphenated parameters. Assuming that was done, there should be no non-hyphenated parameters on the deprecated parameter list; they should not be throwing off errors; support for these parameters should not be removed; they should be returned to functioning aliases.
Levivich (
talk) 02:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)|chapterurl=
, have been deprecated for a year and a half, currently display error messages, do not (or should not, at least; we may have missed a couple) appear in the documentation, and are not in use in the spaces that are categorized by the citation templates. Nobody is going to have to do any work to implement or clean up after this change. Standard hyphenated multi-word parameters, like |chapter-url=
, will continue to work without any problems. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Is this worth adding to the module, or should I create a new citation template for JIPA?
We will be citing several hundred illustration of the IPA in JIPA, linked via DOI to their host publisher site at CUP. They are subscription for the first 3 years, then free public access. It would be nice if the template could handle this. E.g., something like doi-access= {{#ifexpr:(({{CURRENTYEAR}} - {{{date}}}) > {{{freeage}}})|free}}
, where we could set freeage to 3. (Since for the URL link 'free' is the default, there shouldn't be any confusion that 'freeage' applies to the DOI link.)
See Qaqet language#Further reading, where I used the 'translation' parameter to add a note about the article. It is -- or will be -- in the 'Illustrations of the IPA' section of the journal, and that is the standard wording used in the lit to refer to these JIPA articles, so that phrasing should be included but isn't part of the title. Also there is supplementary material (sound files) online which are a good publicly accessible resource and should be mentioned, but I don't see a param designed to handle that info.
Please ping. Thanks, — kwami ( talk) 21:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
|pmc-embargo-date=
. But, embargoed pmcs are relatively common and not constrained to any particular journal. Are there other journals or publishers that have similar doi embargos? I'm not enthusiastic about creating and maintaining code in the cs1|2 module suite that will support only one journal. If doi embargos are a common practice among multiple journals/publishers then we might consider creating |doi-embargo-date=
.|trans-title=
has a defined purpose. Do not misuse cs1|2 parameters for purposes that do not fit with the parameters' defined purposes. Use |department=
for the 'Illustrations of the IPA' section of the journal.
|doi-embargo-date=
has some merit as an idea. The issue is mostly that this is a very hard thing to keep track of manually, since it varies a lot by journal and publisher.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 02:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)notes/comments.
|pages=
has a defined purpose. Do not misuse it for something else. If you want to append notes/commentsto a citation, they can go at the end – after the template's closing
}}
and before the reference's closing </ref>
.For your consideration:
May have enough critical mass to be included in the Identifiers group. 50.75.226.250 ( talk) 16:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The meaning of the |url-status=
citation parameter is frequently misunderstood by editors. (See the discussion immediately above this one,
url-status=live without an archive-url, for just one example of literally dozens, if not hundreds, over the years.)
I would argue that this confusion is our fault, because the current parameter name is just terrible. |url-status=
has nothing whatsoever to do with the current status of the citation URL. (An unknowable, since it can change at any moment.) The only effect of |url-status=live
is to prevent the citation's |archive-url=
from being promoted to the primary citation link, the way it otherwise is with the default |url-status=dead
in effect. Like |archive-date=
, NO value of |url-status=
has any meaning unless an |archive-url=
parameter is also provided.
As such, the name of the parameter should clearly start with archive-
. Above, I proposed |archive-status=primary/backup
, but that doesn't account for the third possible value of the existing parameter, |url-status=usurped
. So upon further reflection, I instead propose that we deprecate |url-status=
and replace it with |archive-display=primary/backup/usurped
.
|archive-display=primary
|archive-url=
is the primary citation link and the |url=
becomes a "the original" link. Same as the current default |url-status=dead
.|archive-display=backup
|url=
as the primary link, to support preemptive archival linking of non-dead citations. (Same as |url-status=live
today.)|archive-display=usurped
|url-status=usurped
today, disable all linking to the citation's original |url=
, for situations where the original link has changed without becoming dead.I'm fully conscious of what a colossal PITA it will be to make this change, but I feel it can be done in stages (and with some bot assistance) to ease the pain. More importantly, I feel it's ultimately worth the pain because the current parameter name, |url-status=
, is just bad. It bears almost no relation to the actual meaning of the parameter, in ways that will continue to mislead and confuse editors until we finally fix our stuff. (I'll cross-link this proposal to Village Pump (technical) as well.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 18:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
url-status= has nothing whatsoever to do with the current status of the citation URLwhen in fact it literally does. The whole point of url-status is to determine if the link is dead. You can have url-status=dead without there being an archive link. That way, other people can add the archived link later.
Currently the template does not accept a date such as 09 July 2022, giving an unhelpful error message. Instead one must write 9 July 2022. I think it's silly to bother editors with this, the template should accept both styles and silently reformat it. I thought it would be better to ask here before changing it because this template is so widely used. Tercer ( talk) 12:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, annoying editors with a pointless error message in order to teach them a minor stylistic point? You guys are a lost cause. I'm sorry I tried to help. Tercer ( talk) 08:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I entirely agree with @ Tercer. I do a lot filling of refs, and for accuracy's sake I copy-paste the date from the article where possible. Many date formats are unambiguous, but need to be re-formatted to avoid error error messages. These other formats are easily parsed; why trigger an error message when the date is unambiguous?
e.g. for 9 December 2014, the templates should accept:
The current demand for conformity is just a make-work. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC) By all means trigger a warning, but not an error.
Case in point:
{{
cite document}}
: Cite document requires |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |access-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |url=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |via=
ignored (
help)Pinging User:Keith D. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 12:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
is not a cs1|2 template. It is merely a redirect to {{
cite journal}}
. As such, cs1|2 sees the template as a {{cite journal}}
template and renders whatever it has been given as a journal-style citation. {{cite journal}}
requires |journal=
so when that parameter is empty or omitted, cs1|2 emits the error message. Pagination rendering follows the {{cite journal}}
format (<colon><space><pagination>).{{cite web |last=Amos |first=David |url=https://www.academia.edu/40640025 |title=Controversies in Coal: Internment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913–1924) |date=January 2017 |pages=10–11 |access-date=5 October 2020 |website=Academia}}
[it] is used to create citations for reports by government departments, instrumentalities, operated companies, etc. Examples include: government printed reports which lack ISSN or ISBN numbers, and reports from major semi-governmental instrumentalities that are freely circulating and available for verification, but which lack a formal ISBN/ISSN publication process.
{{
cite document}}
has existed as a redirect to {{
cite journal}}
ever since it was created way back in 2010. If it were to be altered to redirect to another template, this would require a
WP:RFD first. This would not be necessary if somebody were to alter it to be a full CS1 template in its own right. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 13:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is a result of the research and subsequent book produced as part of the AHRC funded project ‘Controversies in Coal: Interment, Impoundment and Intrigue at Harworth Colliery (1913-1924) through the Centre for Hidden Histories at the University of Nottingham. The Project ran from September 2016 to April 2017.So find the book bib info and then you have several options: you could do a construction like: "
{cite report}
, published in {cite book}
"; or you could put the two together in cite journal or cite encyclopedia, though the latter might be more appropriate since its effectively a collection of articles. (By the way, speaking of redirects, we really need a {cite collection}
redirect and |collection=
alias for encyclopedia, since that makes up a huge amount of (intended) use cases, which is not obvious at all from the documentation.)
SamuelRiv (
talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
. We cannot make up a probable imaginary provenance for it and retrofit into any other template.
204.19.162.34 (
talk) 17:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
redirect. I replaced the redirects with:
{{
cite arxiv}}
{{
cite book}}
{{
cite citeseerx}}
{{
cite conference}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
{{
cite journal}}
{{
cite news}}
{{
cite periodical}}
{{
cite report}}
{{
cite ssrn}}
{{
cite tech report}}
{{
cite thesis}}
{{
cite web}}
{{cite web}}
(24×) followed by {{cite citeseerx}}
and {{cite ssrn}}
(7× each). It is unlikely that there is a simple 'automated fix' that converts a {{cite document}}
redirect to some other, more correct template. There may be some small subsets of {{cite document}}
use that are amenable to fixes-by-script but, to be fixed properly, most {{cite document}}
redirects will need humans to do the fixing.Hello, can "Page Title" at the start of a |title= be added to the generic title list. Currently about 25 occurrences. Thanks, Keith D Keith D ( talk) 23:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Has there been any thought to making sure the various infoboxes and citation tags across different wiki's are the same? I've translated a few items from and to English using the translation tool and more often than not it makes a mess of the citation tags being translated (to a lesser extent, infoboxes). It's a pain in the butt to try and figure out how to fix the citation tags after doing a translation. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
citation tags? Did you mean to write 'citation templates'? What citation templates? What languages? We do have some crude 'translation' templates that are automatically subst'd to a more-or-less appropriate cs1|2 template. For example, the German template de:Vorlage:Literatur is a redirect (
{{
Literatur}}
) to {{
cite book/German}}
. If you copy a {{Literatur}}
template from de.wiki to en.wiki and save,
User:AnomieBOT will subst that template with a 'translated' equivalent ({{
citation}}
). No guarantee that such translations are correct, they often aren't. For other available 'translators' see {{
Non-English citation templates}}
.{{
BLP sources}}
and {{
Citation needed}}
tags. Does that mean that they insist on sources for everything - or that they don't care if something is sourced or not? Looking at sections like
de:Michael Schumacher#Kontroversen, I suspect the latter. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 18:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Is there a proper way to cite a particular section from a particular chapter from a particular part of a particular book, which is a particular supplement to a particular volume of a particular encyclopedia? Namely, there is a NASA publication called " Computers in Spaceflight: the NASA Experience", formally being "Volume: 18, Issue: Supplemet 3" of "Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology", but in fact it is a book and is also published on the Web, with separate webpages for each section. The structure is:
I need to cite that section, and preferably without losing the rest of the structure information (chapter, part, book title and its location within the encyclopedia). Can this be done? {{
cite book}}
doesn't even allow specifying |chapter=
and |section=
at the same time. —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk) 11:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
|title=
(book title), |chapter=
[Chapter 6: Distributing ...], and |at=
(section title) (it appears the sections are each bold title, not each separate webpage).
SamuelRiv (
talk) 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
|at=
looks strange:
|issue=
is not shown at all (without any warnings). —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk) 21:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC){{
cite web}}
:
{{cite web |title=Voyager - The flying computer center |website=NASA History |url=https://history.nasa.gov/computers/Ch6-2.html}}
{{cite book |last=Tomayko |first=James E. |date=March 1988 |chapter=Distributed Computing On Board Voyager and Galileo §Voyager-The Flying Computer Center |title=Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience |page=173 |id=NASA-CR-182505 |url=https://strives-uploads-prod.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/19880069935/19880069935.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIASEVSKC45ZTTM42XZ&Expires=1600217623&Signature=jw3KXryBL%2B0kfI4iPyx5Z8Eg%2B1w%3D |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200916005338/https://strives-uploads-prod.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/19880069935/19880069935.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIASEVSKC45ZTTM42XZ&Expires=1600217623&Signature=jw3KXryBL%2B0kfI4iPyx5Z8Eg%2B1w%3D |archive-date=2020-09-16}}
|series=
parameter (its usage in the template documentation is at "Complex usage showing effect of using volume parameter and lastauthoramp parameter (with volume and lastauthoramp)"). I agree that in this case "Supplement 3" belongs as part of the volume parameter. You should limit yourself to linking to either the pdf (from the NASA citations page or the one Ttm found) or the the web version, as both are free and readily accessible and you generally want to minimize ambiguity of which source was originally used. The |at=
parameter is supposed to be for any kind of pinpoint (except page), so you would have to denote "sec.", "subsec.", "§", "para.", or whatever you need to do to (ideally) get as precise or as broad a pinpoint as is best for verification. The form Ttm shows is fine too.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 23:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
also complains about external links in |section=
, the best I could do was to use |section=chapter § section
and |section-url=URL
(instead of more logical |section=chapter § [URL|section]
). But it would be much better if the template could handle |chapter=
and |section=
together, with corresponding |...-url=
. Regarding "limit to linking to either the pdf or the the web version", the problem is that the PDF is really huge, so linking to a lightweight web page makes much more sense, but the web version doesn't have proper bibliographic information, thus it also makes sense to link to the NASA bibliographic page for the whole book. After all, {{
cite journal}}
allows multiple simultaneous links (doi, pubmed, jstor, ...) and wiki-linking the journal itself, and {{
cite book}}
also has |isbn=
"linking" to the whole book record even when |url=
is much more specific. —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk) 18:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Unlike all other modules in the cs1|2 module suite, the list of suggestions ( Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions or Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions/sandbox) is only loaded when it is needed. Editor Tholme points out that the mechanism that decides whether to load ~Suggestions or ~Suggestions/sandbox needs improvement. That editor offered one solution that I knee-jerk reverted. Correctly, my revert was reverted and I have since improved on Editor Tholme's fix.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
|SandboxPath=
. At {{
cite book/new}}
the new parameter is |SandboxPath=/sandbox
. At no.wiki the templates that invoke
no:Modul:Citation/CS1/sandkasse are listed
here.sandbox = '/sandkasse'
in
Module:Citation/CS1. I do think it would be ok if this module checked for variable sandbox in
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and not
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. There would be need to be a comment that the sandbox variable needs to be correct in the live module and not only in the sandbox. This would also mean that the sandbox module will need to load
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration first, and then afterward read all the other configuration from
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. I think this should work. Would you be ok with an implementation like this?
Tholme (
talk) 23:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
cfg['sandbox-subpage']
in
Module:Documentation/config? It seems like most wikis uses this.
Tholme (
talk) 00:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
|SandboxPath=
(parameter present without assigned value which returns an empty string; which would make sandbox module name same as live module name):
local sandbox = ((config.SandboxPath and '' ~= config.SandboxPath) and config.SandboxPath) or '/sandbox';
{{cite <whatever>}}
template doesn't have |SandboxPath=
, Module:Citation/CS1 will use whatever default sandbox name is provided in the module.local sandbox = frame:getParent():getTitle():match ('/.+$');
/
in the invoking template's name. But, there is no guarantee that whatever text follows the last /
will be the 'sandbox'. {{cite <whatever>/<country name>}}
so the above will return /<country name>
to the live module.{{cite <whatever>/<country name>}}
wraps a cs1|2 template and it is that template name that is returned by frame:getParent():getTitle()
so if the wrapped template is a sandbox template then perhaps this mechanism will work. At en.wiki there is of course the {{cite <whatever>/new}}
variant that we have used for a very long time in place of {{cite <whatever>/sandbox}}
.International Standard Bibliographic Description. May be used as an authoritative reference in discussion of structured citations.
This
edit request to
Template:Cite book has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the link ISBN (identifier) in {{ cite book}} to ISBN. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
See tecovirimat where a citation to pmc=9300470 is now showing an error. Please increase limit in the validation code. Thanks. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 11:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Whats the issue with this citation? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Whatever it was, it seems fixed now. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Just a heads up that my little handy dandy guide on Citation bot finally got in the Signpost, as intended years ago. Feel free to leave a comment (or make suggestions for other guides on different topics). Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The instructions indicate the use of |url-status=deviated, and when the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting |url-status=unfit or |url-status=usurped. And, at Category:CS1 errors: invalid parameter value it says that these values are valid. However, at Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL it does not accept these values. Can this be fixed so that green hidden "One or more {{ cite news}} templates have maintenance messages" for their use can be avoided? -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
|url-status=deviated
, |url-status=unfit
, and |url-status=usurped
are all valid:
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=deviated}}
|url=
as a secondary link{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=unfit}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=usurped}}
{{cite book |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2022-08-03 |url-status=USURPED}}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |url-status=USURPED
(
help) – all keywords used in cs1|2 templates must be lowercaseat Category:CS1 maint: unfit URL it does not accept these values? There are 33,867 articles in that category so something must be happening.
Masi, Alessandria (14 December 2015).
"Saudi Coalition, Houthi Rebels Intensify Attacks In Yemen Ahead Of Proposed Ceasefire". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 4 October 2016.{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link) [Cite news|last=Masi |first=Alessandria |date=14 December 2015 |title=Saudi Coalition, Houthi Rebels Intensify Attacks In Yemen Ahead Of Proposed Ceasefire |newspaper=International Business Times |url=
http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-coalition-houthi-rebels-intensify-attacks-yemen-ahead-proposed-ceasefire-2223830 |archive-url=
https://web.archive.org/web/20161004172106/http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-coalition-houthi-rebels-intensify-attacks-yemen-ahead-proposed-ceasefire-2223830 |archive-date=4 October 2016 |url-status=unfit ] at
December 2015 Taiz missile attack which yields an error. I marked it as unfit, because the article is occluded at the original website. If "unfit" needs to be checked, then how is the error cleared? --
Bejnar (
talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
unfit
. There is no mechanism to mark urls that are geographically limited – is that your issue? I think that we have discussed this before; if we have, we did not decide to do anything about geographically limited urls. Marking a geographically limited url as unfit does not seem to me to be a good idea; the url is fit to be viewed – it isn't spam or porn or a phishing site, etc – so should not be labeled as unfit
.|url-access=subscription
is the correct parameter to use.requiredaction for most maintenance messages. Alas, some maintenance categories ( Category:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (54,350), Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (0), Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (74,650)) should emit error messages but those categories apply to so many articles that making them error messages would cause a torches-and-pitchforks uprising; we've seen that kind of uprising before and it isn't pretty.
What is the recommended action when a cite with |url-status=deviated
is converted to a dead link. Normally it is flipped to |url-status=dead
. --
Green
C 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
deviated
url becomes dead
(returns 404) then |url-status=deviated
should be removed. No need to replace it with |url-status=dead
because cs1|2 assumes that the url in |url=
is dead when |archive-url=
has an assigned url."If the value is correct and larger than the currently configured limit of 35900000, please report this at Help talk:Citation Style 1, so that the limit can be updated."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35918775/ Aethyta ( talk) 19:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)