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 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 |
Greetings and felicitations. In this citation I have both "chapter-url=" and "url=", but the latter is not working:
Horsburgh, James (1836). "Fernando de Noronha". India Directory, or, Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Brazil and the Interjacent Ports... London: W. H. Allen. p. 31.
Horsburgh, James (1836).
"Fernando de Noronha". India Directory, or, Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Brazil and the Interjacent Ports... London: W. H. Allen. p. 31.
Have I done something wrong, or is there a problem with the code?
Edit: From Horse latitudes#Origin of the term — DocWatson42 ( talk) 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|title=
to |entry=
{{Cite encyclopedia |last=Horsburgh |first=James |year=1836 |entry=Fernando de Noronha |entry-url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_GuY2AQAAMAAJ/page/31/mode/1up |encyclopedia=India Directory, or, Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Brazil and the Interjacent Ports... |url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_GuY2AQAAMAAJ/mode/1up |location=London |publisher=W. H. Allen |page=31}}
{{Cite encyclopedia}}
, as one has to dig a bit to find that information. —
DocWatson42 (
talk) 10:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it) is a discussion which watchers of this page may be interested in. Izno ( talk) 02:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
After generating a citation for an article accessed via JSTOR in a journal which has its own WP article a Digital Object Identifier and an ISSN appeared in its preview. I'm wondering if either is necessary. Mcljlm ( talk) 02:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, an ISSN is an optional part of a citation to a particular article (adding it never hurts, but it is not strictly necessary when a direct URL or DOI is provided to the full text of the article).
An ISSN is particularly helpful in the following circumstances (especially when the ISSN is linked, using template or parameter detailed below):
- In a citation to a periodical that is relatively unknown, as the ISSN can help in verifying the existence and reliability of the journal and procuring a copy of one of its issues to verify the content.
The issn, on the other hand, is almost entirely useless cruft, as far as I can tell. No style guide to my knowledge suggests routinely adding ISSNs for citations, and one saves even more time by not needing to add or look-up
|issn=
parameters. I was just clarifying some of the exceptional examples of citations where its usefulness outweighs its status as status as possible clutter.
Umimmak (
talk) 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)According to JSTOR, the journal American Music uses dates in the format "Season, YYYY", so for example, "Summer, 1993" - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3052555 (and more generally, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter - https://www.jstor.org/journal/americanmusic ) How do we represent this using this template? -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 12:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=Summer 1993
{{sfn|Parsons|1993|p=###}}
to {{sfn|Smith|1993|p=###}}
.
GoingBatty (
talk) 14:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Also we would replace "Autumn" by "Fall"Why? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 01:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=Spring 2023
if treating it as a date, but |issue=Printemps 2023
if treating it as an issue name because the publication used issue names instead of numbers, depending on the circumstances, e.g. if we also have something like |date=13 April 2023
to use more specifically for the date). But |volume=
is a parameter not a search string like Printemps or Autumn might be in some cases, and databases of journal papers are already making that conversion themselves (JSTOR, etc., are not using Band in place of Vol. or Volume when the journal is in German
[1]. I've never seen any major journal indexing site do that). Regardless, going around robotically changing "Autumn" to "Fall" is a
MOS:STYLEVAR fail, since there's nothing wrong with either word, and is probably a
MOS:ENGVAR fail, since "Autumn" is much more common in British and several other forms of non-American English. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
In another
discussion elsewhere (long and meandering) the question was asked: why do we have
when cs1|2 formats publication, archive, and access dates according whatever local |df=
{{use xxx dates}}
is present in the article? It was pointed out that use of |df=
is often merely redundant to {{use xxx dates}}
or in conflict with that template.
My answer was to turn the question around and ask: Because no one has bothered to suggest that we no longer need it? So, the question on the table is: do we need to keep |df=
?
Here are a couple of cirrus searches for articles that use |df=
in cs1|2 templates:
{{
use dmy dates}}
template:
~42,000 articles (search times out){{
use mdy dates}}
template:
~34,200 articlesThese searches suggest that there are more than 76,000 articles with at least one use of |df=
. That is too many to just suddenly deprecate. Sure a bot could be written to remove |df=
but such a bot runs the risk of being declared
WP:COSMETICBOT so removal of these parameters will likely need to be done some other way.
And then there are the articles that have neither of the {{use xxx dates}}
templates:
What to do about those?
So: what to do about |df=
? Is there ever a legitimate case for using a |df=mdy
formatted publication date in an article that has {{
use dmy dates}}
?
Certainly we can mark the parameter as 'discouraged'. We can tweak
Module:Citation/CS1 to maintenance category message when|df=
is used in an article that has a {{use xxx template}}
. With the category, gnomes can pick away at removing |df=
until the count is sufficiently reduced to avoid torches and pitchforks. What to do with |df=
is used in articles that don't have a {{use xxx dates}}
template?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
rightwhatever wrong is done by the bot. The correct venue is User talk:Citation bot.
English Wikipedia has a nice {{ ill}} template which will put small wikilinked 2-letter language IDs in brackets after a red link – linking to Wikipedia articles in one or more other languages concerning the subject of the red link – to possibly inspire readers who come across the red link to try translating them into English, and to give readers a way to find out about the subject (possibly via Google translate or the like) we don't currently have a page about, in a way that is clear but doesn't waste space. For example, Giuseppe Cesàro . However, there's no way to get similar behavior in CS1 or CS2 citation templates. We're stuck with either (a) a red link, e.g.
Or (b) a single inter-language wikipedia link which puts a full language name in brackets:
Or (c) in these cases I'm tempted to just leave the citation templates out and use {{ ill}}, optionally with {{ wikicite}} if I need a parenthetical reference somewhere else:
The two citation template outputs seem significantly inferior to the {{ ill}} template output. The red link version gives the necessary red link, but doesn't provide link(s) to the possibly multiple other-language wiki pages about the subject. The inter-language wikilink version does not include a red link (in my opinion an unacceptable compromise), wastes space by spelling out the full language name, somewhat confuses readers by appearing in the normal position for a link to English Wikipedia but then pointing off-site to a page in another language, does not allow for multiple inter-language wikilinks, and finally is gratuitously inconsistent with the output of {{ ill}} which is in moderately wide use and therefore likely to be familiar in format to regular Wikipedia readers.
Is there any technically feasible way we could extend the citation templates to instead support output of the style of the {{ ill}} template? It would probably be best to make the specification of inter-language wikilinks a separate parameter instead of trying to reuse the author-link parameter for this. – jacobolus (t) 18:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
What ever happened to the supplement element for cite newspaper? Govvy ( talk) Govvy ( talk) 15:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
|supplement=
. Are you thinking of that or something else?|part=
and |supplement=
because the COinS metadata format supports &rft.part=
. Opinions?{{cite newspaper |work=The Sunday Times |title=A dummy, a surge and then an unstoppable bullet of a shit (off either foot) |p=13 |supplement=Sport |date=22 October 2023}}
|department=
.
{{cite news |newspaper=The Sunday Times |title=A dummy, a surge and then an unstoppable bullet of a shit (off either foot) |p=13 |department=Sport |date=22 October 2023}}
|department=
?
Kanguole 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
|supplement=
as an option.
Govvy (
talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
|department=
. The fact that one publication puts some department in their own pull-out supplement is kind of irrelevant, except that not everyone trying to build a citation is going to think "|department=
is what I'm looking for" when they don't find a |supplement=
. Seems like an easy and helpful tweak to make. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)|department="Sport" department
or |department="Sport" supplement
instead of just |department=Sport
. Same with |series="History's Greatest Battles" series
instead of |series=History's Greatest Battles
, since the bare string "Sport" or "History's Greatest Battles" in the citation has a rather opaque and ambiguous meaning except to people who have really, really studied out citation templates and the order in which they put things, which is probably no one who isn't already on this page right now. Heh. (I make an exception when the name of the thing already indicates what it is, e.g. by including the word "Series" or "Department" or "Supplement"). I would rather like to see our documentation advocate this approach. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)The instructions do not appear to say anywhere what "first name" and "last name" mean. Someone just edited Chōchin'obake to use the Roman form of a name, "Mizuki Shigeru" (水木しげる), writing "first=Mizuki" and "last=Shigeru". Looks ok, except that Mizuki is his family name, and Shigeru is his given name. Something is wrong here: personally I think using "first" and "last" to distinguish parts of a person's name is one of the stupidest ideas in WP, against some tough opposition, but it would be OK if at least the instructions explained what they meant. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|given=
and |surname=
less confusing in cases like this.
Kanguole 13:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|first=Mizuki
just because Mikuki comes first in Japanese order. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 13:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|surname=
|forename=
, or |family=
|given=
. Though of course we wouldn't want
WP:MEATBOT or
WP:COSMETICBOT activity triggering every watchlist in existence by substituting equivalent parameter names that the reader doesn't see and which don't practically matter for editors. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)|familyn=
and |givenn=
are less confusing. I'd also like to see more explanatory text in the documentation for |first=
and |last=
. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 12:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Currently the {{
ISBN}} template supports multiple numbers, e.g., {{
ISBN|1449370829|978-1449370824}}
displays both ISBNs,
ISBN
1449370829,
978-1449370824, for "Java in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference", 6th edition. Should |ISBN=
allow entering both rather than just the ISBN-13? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
s2cid limit needs updated, seen here, here and here. Several pages in that category. Numbers checked, they are correct. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 01:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there some good reason that |work=
if used in {{
Cite book}}
doesn't just alias to that template's version of |title=
? It would resolve a lot of errors and make it easer to convert citations that are using the wrong template for the source type. Even if we wanted a bot to later substitute in |title=
, it would be helpful. There would also be a few cases where the same template is trying to call |title=
and |work=
at the same time, with different (e.g. something in |work=
that really belongs in |series=
) or the redundantly same values, but this will surely be a smaller class of errors to resolve than every {{
Cite book}}
containing |work=
. Just make that stop being an error-by-definition as it presently is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
and |title=
. I've been correcting a few dozens of those recently where |title=
was meant to be |chapter=
and |work=
was meant to be |title=
. This then needed a further correction of |url=
to |chapter-url=
. Those repairs seem quite mechanical, but I suspect they would be difficult to work into a rule. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)|work=
in {{
cite book}}
are in place of |title=
, and having them be equated would make fixing many misapplications of other templates to books easier. And it's just weird and unintitive that |work=
as an alias is functional as a parameter to specify the name of the "
major work" (the italicized thing) in every citation template to which it could seem to apply, except for this one. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|title=
and |work=
, which are not split out specifically from
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,692).0% of the ones I've fixed have been simply work→title. They've been a mixture like title→chapter, work→title; work→series; work→via; title→volume, work→title; and probably others I've forgotten. There have also been a few I've been unable to fix, because they cite a chapter of a named work collected in an anthology, where the pagination and publication information differ between the anthology and the original printing, and I'm not sure what other set of parameters would properly capture the information.I view the disabling of the |work=
parameter in {{
cite book}} as underdiscussed and disruptive, since it hid all of the information editors had added instead of just emitting an error message about it, and until we've cleared all the cases of this, we're continuing to suppress valid citation information in ways that are not clearly understood, as evidenced by our differing experiences cleaning up after this parameter change.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
as well as emitting the error message. Downgrade |work=
from "unsupported" to "deprecated" until we can alter all of these templates so that when support for the parameter is disabled again in the future, we'll have the book citations all fixed up and ready for it, instead of just hiding this parameter, which is almost always a pretty important one.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
that I've fixed have been citations I added over the years, and if I had known about the discussion to remove support for this parameter, or understood that it wouldn't be displayed at all unlike parameters that are merely marked "deprecated", I would have argued the above at one or both of the prior conversations.So with that caveat, I don't think errorand
correct informationare an apposite pair in the second sentence just above. What this
errorfeels like to me is perfectly valid citation information that has been decided ex cathedra et post facto to be suppressed due to a technicality no one was adequately warned about or given opportunity to prepare for.(I could be entirely wrong about this: there may well have been a maintenance message for years, invisible to mobile editors, warning that
|work=
support for {{
cite book}} would be withdrawn in 2023, or there may have been an update to the documentation mentioning that, which I missed because I don't watchlist the template documentation pages, and don't closely reread documentation for updates once I feel I understand it.)The information being missing does provide a strong incentive to reparameterise the affected calls to {{
cite book}}, but the total category membership of
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,692) provides a stronger disincentive to embark on any sort of thorough cleanup. My take is that it's unfixable in its current state, but I'd welcome a narrower
Category:CS1 errors: cite book ignores work to see if that's actually the case.
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
uses |work=
.|work=
as a valid parameter; it should not. So far as I can tell,
Template:Cite book/doc (the canonical documentation) has never listed |work=
as a valid {{cite book}}
parameter.|work=
. Does it really serve the reader to continue not displaying that information while we clean out the category? It looks like it will take years.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
parameter for {{
cite book}} also suppresses |publisher=
and |edition=
(at least at
Special:Permalink/1183496933, under #Sources). Is this behaviour intended?
Folly Mox (
talk) 18:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Whitburn, Joel (2010).
The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits (9th ed.). Clarkson Potter/Ten Speed.
ISBN
978-0-8230-8554-5. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Whitburn, Joel (2010).
The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits (9th ed.). Clarkson Potter/Ten Speed.
ISBN
978-0-8230-8554-5. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
|work=
in {{
citation}}. Previously that has been exclusively meaning a periodical.
Izno (
talk) 21:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Question: Is it appropriate to add "(subscription required)" or the parameter "url-access=subscription" when the source is an archived-URL? Specifically, we have numerous archived HighBeam URLs on Wikipedia, but they do not require registration or subscription to access. In this example the "url-access" parameter was used, producing the red padlock icon next to the dead HighBeam url. (But how does this information help the reader?) I suggest we add guidance that says "Subscription templates should not be used in connection with dead or archived links and URLs, especially when the archive-URL is freely accessible." – S. Rich ( talk) 23:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|url-access=subscription
or {{
Subscription}} from citations with Highbeam URLs. In the example you kindly provided, but I don't understand the value of adding "(archived article)".
GoingBatty (
talk) 16:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Meaning well,
GoingBatty made this tweak to the docs
[2], adding the the following to the documentation of |url=
: "If the registration/limited/subscription access to the source goes dead and is no longer available, then remove this parameter (and add
". But I just tested that in a sandbox, and the result was a red error message reading "{{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)".
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
values if possible)
So what do we want to actually be done in such a case? The issues I see:
|url-access=[registration/limited/subscription]
will no longer be true.|url-status=dead
will need to be added.|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
will almost never be applicable, because the material was paywalled away from the archiver bots.I think if I ran across this situation right now (and checked for a usable archive-url and found none), I would remove |url-access=[whatever]
, add |url-status=dead
, and append a {{
dead link|{{subst:DATE}}|fix-attempted=yes}}
after the </ref>
. Pretty much, the citation needs to be replaced with an equivalent source, since the one cited is no longer
verifiable. But maybe someone else has another idea. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
|url=
parameter. I meant remove the |url-access=
parameter (or other matching access-indicator parameter). I've revised my edit to make this more clear.
GoingBatty (
talk) 15:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)This thread was started to discuss the guidance about tagging citations with "subscription" parameters and templates. E.g., when we have a source that does not require a subscription should the citation have "subscription" notations? This occurs when sources such as Questia and HighBeam go dead. (When they were alive readers were required to subscribe or register to access them.) As Questia and HighBeam are defunct, we only have archived copies of their material. I want to make clear that those archived urls do NOT need a subscription or registration to access. Removing "subscription" notations is helpful in that regard. In the HighBeam cases, is a "{{ dead link}}" helpful? I don't think so. 1. If there is no archive url then nothing can be done. (I've run the "fix dead link" tool on dozens of these links and there are no repairs.) 2. If there is an archive url for the HighBeam link, then a "{{ dead link}}" tag is not needed or helpful. (Such a tag only clutters the citation.) So, I think the guidance should stand as is. E.g., we tell editors that they should remove "subscription required" notations when the urls do not require a subscription. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I sometimes see something like
this, where |access-date=
is removed from various {{
cite web}}
, {{
cite news}}
, etc., that do have URLs. Is this desirable for some reason? Is is absolutely undesirable? Is it a "no one really cares"? matter? We seem to have this parameter because something like it is present in most citation styles in the "real world", and on WP gives some indication when was the last time someone actually looked at the source to see if it's still valid for what the article currently is claiming and seeming to rely on that source for. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
from deadlinked web sources where an archive exists and the claim is not tagged in any way (which can necessitate finding a different archive). I also remove it from print sources, since it's always unnecessary in those cases.I only take these actions as part of constructive citation repair, never as the only action in a diff, and never en masse.I would love it if |access-date=
would gracefully fail for print sources, and just not display anything for {{
cite book}} and {{
cite journal}}. All other use cases are too borderline or on balance beneficial, and removing support for the parameter is a def no go due to citation scripts always providing it.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
gracefully fail for print sourcesWhat does that mean?
gracefully fail for print sourcesby which I mean
just not display anything for {{ cite book}} and {{ cite journal}}.Folly Mox ( talk) 19:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
from citations that have URLs, since it does indicate to the editor when the material was last examined (at least by someone who remembered to update the parameter).If we come to the conclusion that for readers the parameter no longer serves a purpose when both |archive-url=
is present and |url-status=dead
(whether that parameter is literally present or not – don't want to re-open that worm-can), or when there is no URL at all, then the thing to do would be to have the template suppress display of the access date in the reader's output. But we need not lose the editor-facing functionality it provides. It's very significant sometimes, e.g. when a complex paragraph is entirely cited to one source, and that source has something like |access-date=30 June 2009
but the article has been substantively edited many, many times in the interim, this is a good sign that unsourced material has probably been injected into that paragraph and that it either needs to be removed, or a source found for it, and the already-present citation needs to be re-applied to the material that was actually taken from it, often as a split <ref name="Foo 2009">...</ref>
and some <ref name="Foo 2009" />
instances for particular sentences or claims within sentences, depending on how complex the material got over time. As a side point, for this same reason I would like the see |access-date=
also supported again as a parameter in every citation type, and stop being reported as an error in those without URLs. It should simply be display-suppressed when in such citations. Unlike some of the other parameterization discussed above that I think is of dubious use and ends up just being redundant cruft, this actually serves an encyclopedia-building purpose for all editors. PS: It seems particularly weird to me to have this parameter throw an error and get removed by people when a literal |url=
parameter is replaced by a shortcut parameter like |jstor=
that generates the same URL for the reader. I dont' see any point to that at all. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=
parameter is for. |access-date=
tells us when an editor of our site examined that source, and this is meaningful not only for detecting linkrot, as Hawkeye7 discusses below, for also for alerting us to aging citation verification that needs to be revisited. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
tells us when an editor of our site last examined that source, and this is meaningful not only for detecting linkrot but also for alerting us to aging citation verification that needs to be revisited, because the material claimed to be cited to that source may have changed significantly in the interim by intervening edits. Whether the content in the source could have changed has nothing to do with that (though is also a relevant concern and a completely severable rationale for |access-date=
usage, with various websites that aren't JSTOR). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
as a heuristic for potential source–text integrity degradation due to intervening edits is a clever use case I hadn't considered, and will also concede that, given the relative infrequency of publication dates for web sources, using |access-date=
as an approximation of |date=
is something I do myself. It's certainly not always an unnecessary parameter, and sometimes it's deeply useful.
Folly Mox (
talk) 01:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
as a way of telling when a particular claim was cited is parameter overloading unrelated to its original purpose. As we all know, it's to tell which version was consulted of a source whose content is changeable. Using it as |ref-added-date=
is possible, sure, but a shaky claim cited in 2009 to a 2009 source is not less likely to be factual than a shaky claim cited in 2023 to a 1955 source. When the cite was added shouldn't affect our instinct of whether or not to verify it and see if newer information is available: that's |date=
.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|year=2023a
as a confusing disambiguation device, which comes also at the cost of "warring" date formatting (|year=1999
, |date=1999
), when there is probably a better way to do that disambiguation and elminate the parameter redundancy. But using |access-date=
to signal "I checked this source on this date", as its name implies, comes at no confusion or redundancy cost. I've argued elsewhere that |language=en
is not helpful because it's trying to aid a tiny class of users (at other wikis) in a way better done by improving their own import scripts; but |access-date=
would be useful for all editors here doing
WP:V /
WP:NOR maintenance in articles, and we don't seem to have an alternative that is practical (digging through years of page history is not practical except at the simplest and most slowly-changing articles). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
comes at no confusion or redundancy cost– this is self-evidently false. A vanishingly small proportion of Wiki editors have adopted your proposed idiosyncratic approach, and in practice the access-date parameter is nearly meaningless, or rather, making clear sense of it requires checking the page history anyway. – jacobolus (t) 17:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
git blame
command used by computer programmers. It would indeed be pretty useful to have a tool like that. But access-date on citations is an extremely poor and limited substitute. –
jacobolus
(t) 18:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|langue=en
by default to cites ripped from en.wikipedia. In the end, I've already "lost" the wider version of this argument, in that |access-date=
got converted into an error condition on cites without |url=
, but I still think that was a poor decision, and that removing more of them is a poorer one. I don't have an additional argument to bring about it, and think that the one already presented is worth consideration. It is an actual fact that if a bunch more access-dates get removed, then editors like me will end up doing less citation-to-claim verification and repair, because we will no longer be alerted by the presence of a really old access-date in material that is nevertheless being changed. That is a net loss to the encyclopedia for no gain other than citation concision. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
is absolutely required for web and news cites and should be reported as an error if it is missing. It enables bots and readers to locate the correct version of the page in an archive. Web sites and news articles are frequently updated. Link rot is ever present. |archive-url=
and |url-status=dead
are not good enough because the internet archive sometimes drops pages from its archive, requiring another archive retrieval. I would consider edits like the example above to be vandalism and a clear violation of
WP:PRESERVE and treat them accordingly.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 18:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
, because I haven't accessed the source: only the archive. I can't update the |archive-date=
, obviously, because that's intrinsic to the archive I consulted. There's no |archive-access-date=
or {{
verified source}}, thank goodness. (I understand I can take the null action, which seems to be what is being advised just above.)If I remove the |access-date=
, I both reduce citation cruft and imply that the source that supports the claim is the archive. Whether the now inaccessible original source supported the text on the |access-date=
is unknowable (unless it equals the |archive-date=
, in which case it is even uselesser).Can I instead remove the original source altogether, and just cite the archive page? I've done this before, but then saw bots doing the reverse (extracting a source from a directly cited archive) and so I stopped. I asked a few threads up (the |url-status=dead
one) whether directly citing an archive page is against any guidance, and which, but never got an answer.
Folly Mox (
talk) 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
indiscriminately is not condoned by any guideline or policy; it serves no purpose, it's disruptive and borderline vandalism. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 02:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Many links have no archive's available, and never will– if you add a citation to a web page, please consider explicitly telling the wayback machine to archive the page. There's no need to link the archived page from the citation on Wikipedia (which for still-living links in my opinion is somewhat spammy), but when the link eventually (probably) dies, there will be an archive available. Edit: I just clicked your username and see that you work for the Internet Archive and I'm not telling you anything new. A citation to a website without any kind of publication date involved should clearly have an access date if possible. But if the page cannot be archived, is not reproduced anywhere else, and does not have any kind of offline copy, then as a general rule the citation should probably expire when the website does. – jacobolus (t) 01:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
live on purpose for various news sites where the stories are paywalled at the live site but the IA crawler somehow manages to scrape them without to the paywalling. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
for a web source), I already have the archive.
Folly Mox (
talk) 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|archive-url=
is present. We had a big discussion about doing just that a few months ago either here or at
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or
Wikipedia talk:Link rot or
User talk:Citation bot or
User talk:InternetArchiveBot, none of which I can ever keep straight. Obviously, nothing came of the discussion, but I just ran into an |access-date=
to a print source that some previous editor had placed in an html comment that reminded me of that potential avenue to harmonious collaboration.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
s that match neither the |archive-date=
nor today
. I thought it was an error.It sounds like what people really want for most cases is |reference-added-date=
. For the record, since participating in this thread, I've stopped removing |access-date=
for print sources and archived dead links, instead placing them in html comments like some other editor inspired me to do. It upcrufts the wikicode a bit, but hides the dates in the displayed article. I still think doing this in the template rather than manually is the preferred solution. I've also once or twice just cited an archive snapshot directly, but usually forget and do it the regular way.
Folly Mox (
talk) 02:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
, just because it somehow bugs them that in their personal reality tunnel it doesn't align with the cited source type or its other parameters, with what their favored off-line citation style does with the equivalent of access-date, or what someone says is the "real" reason the parameter exists. The actual real reasons, plural, that the parameter exists are the actual uses that we put it to. We, the editors working on the content, are the dog. The template coding "elegance" tail does not wag us (most expecially not in a template system that is built up in layers of cruft and kluges instead of having been designed comprehensively and elegantly from scratch). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 06:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)From Sam Bankman-Fried:
(the archive URL gets past paywall). This is a book excerpt, according to the bottom of the article: "Extracted from Going Infinite". I'm confused what is the best way to cite it. The source material is the book, although I don't know if it is copy-pasted verbatim, copyedited, or pieced together. Regardless, the book is the source material. Should we instead cite the book? That works, but it is not available online, so is harder to verify, and there is no page number, and I don't own the book to find out. If The Times is cited, shouldn't it at least say somewhere it is extracted from the book, and how to do that? -- Green C 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lewis |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Lewis |title=Sam Bankman-Fried: the rise and crash of a crypto billionaire |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-trial-collapse-crypto-bd90l2t2s |website=The Times |date=November 2, 2023 |access-date=November 11, 2023 |archive-date=November 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20231102155810/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-trial-collapse-crypto-bd90l2t2s |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }} (Extracted from ''[[Going Infinite]]'')</ref>
|coda=
for tacking on trailing strings to communicate what doesn't fit anywhere else. A few templates I have written included a coda argument, it's the very last thing rendered. It could result in misuse, but at least it would be machine-readable instead of floating outside the template where it is hard to maintain. --
Green
C 00:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't need much of an explanation.
IMDb is one of the most useful references for movies, documentaries, etc. so I suggest we add an |imdb=
parameter. --
bender235 (
talk) 18:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
|doi=
or |isbn=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)|oclc=
if it's a stable identifier you're wanting.
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
|url=
field when it should ideally by a |imdb=
parameter. --
bender235 (
talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Glatzer has two granddaughters, Johanna Wechsler and Rina Redrup.If this information is in the film described by the IMDb page, just cite the film: no need for the URL. Folly Mox ( talk) 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
documented usage:
{{cite podcast | url= <!-- required --> | title= | website= | publisher= | host= | date= | time= | access-date= }}
also works:
{{cite podcast |url= |first1= |last1= |last2= |first2= |author1-link= |author2-link= |title= |website= |publisher= |date= |access-date= }}
Vertical integration of podcast companies and market evolution leads to the neglect of parameters:
|episode name= |podcast series name= |podcast distribution network=
add new parameters? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
|episode=
, |series=
, |network=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Template:Cite episode/doc currently provides an example with which the current template implementation produces incorrect COinS data:
{{cite episode |title=Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit |series=Inside the Actors Studio |date=8 October 2007 |url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit |network=Bravo |season=13 |number=1307 |last=Lipton |first=James (host)}}
<cite id="CITEREFLipton2007" class="citation episode cs1">Lipton, James (host) (8 October 2007). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit">"Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit"</a>. <i>Inside the Actors Studio</i>. Season 13. Episode 1307. Bravo.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Inside+the+Actors+Studio&rft.series=Season+13.+Episode+1307&rft.date=2007-10-08&rft.aulast=Lipton&rft.aufirst=James+%28host%29&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bravotv.com%2FInside_the_Actors_Studio%2Fguest%2FBilly_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ATemplate%3ACite+episode" class="Z3988"></span>
The relevant portion is rft.aufirst=James (host)
. "(host)" isn't part of a first name, so this is incorrect.
Options to resolve this issue:
|host-last=
, |host-first=
, |guest-last=
|last1=
Daask ( talk) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
If such roles are to be codified, the role choices should be either instrumental or auxiliary in discovering the cited work. It makes no sense to include random roles just because Wikipedia editors are using them in citations 10 times or 10000 times, when they do not help in verification. Agreed-upon international cataloguing and metadata standards list a variety of usable roles (usable in the sense that catalogued works include the role nomenclature and its related person/entity in the item's description). These roles are used by all kinds of participating information repositories (trade organizations, publishers, libraries, accessible online databases etc) to list their works. Using these same roles works can be easily discovered.
|people=
parameter seems to get at this "need" already anyway, though I'm not certain it's supported by the entire CS1 template family, and it has the deficit of not generating useful metadata.
{{cite episode |title=Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit |series=Inside the Actors Studio |date=8 October 2007 |url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit |network=Bravo |season=13 |number=1307 |people=Lipton, James (host)}}
<cite class="citation episode cs1">Lipton, James (host) (8 October 2007). <a class="external text" href="https://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit">"Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit"</a>. <i>Inside the Actors Studio</i>. Season 13. Episode 1307. Bravo.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Inside+the+Actors+Studio&rft.series=Season+13.+Episode+1307&rft.date=2007-10-08&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bravotv.com%2FInside_the_Actors_Studio%2Fguest%2FBilly_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser%3ASMcCandlish%2Fsandbox+22" class="Z3988"></span>
|people=
(also |credits=
) is an equal alias of |authors=
so doesn't contribute to the citation's metadata for the same reason.|authorn=
, |lastn=
, |firstn=
is a good solution because Chinese (Japanese and Korean too?) names aren't necessarily bi-directionally transliterate-able between scripts so quite often you will see both the original zh-Hant or zh-Hans script parenthtically included with a latin transliteration.|people=
, |credits=
, |hostn=
(this one is an equal alias of |authorn=
) to {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite serial}}
.My heart sinks when I see "Script warning: One or more {{ cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help)." because so often the message is hidden.
In my experience, the most common cause of this error is that the journal name has not been supplied (or doesn't do so using journal=
). If there are many journal citations, it can take an unreasonable time to find the one in error and correct it. Surely the very first thing the syntax error checking algorithm should do when checking a {{
cite journal}} call is that there is actually a named journal?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
template. Creation of that template should be the last impediment to unhiding the missing periodical error message for {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite magazine}}
.{{
cite web}}
without |website=
and {{
cite news}}
without |newspaper=
.
Kanguole 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
no longer redirects to {{
cite journal}}
as it once did. What is the additional issuethat you are complaining about?
{{
cite magazine}}
? Why not?margin? My experience with these
{{
cite magazine}}
errors is that editors abuse the template in much the same way that they abuse {{
cite journal}}
.|work=
has been specified. Not sure how many of the member articles stem from that combination.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I conclude that the consensus is strongly in favour of unhiding Cite journal requires |journal= and Cite magazine requires |magazine= error messages. My reading of the
WP:AN discussion is that the flame-out was over a sudden imposition of a demand for {{
cite news}} to have a work=
(which could be argued but that's another discussion) and {{
cite web}} to have a website=
(which has always seemed redundant to me). There were also many instances of {{
cite document}} redirecting to cite journal and thus throwing up false positives: that problem has been fixed with the new template for documents.
@
Trappist the monk:, make it so! (I've always wanted a good excuse to say that
). --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 17:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; messages may be hidden (
help).{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; (
help).{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; (
control error message display).{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; (
general help) - see the help link next to each error for assistance specific to that error{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors. Click the help link next to each error for assistance for that type of error.Since May I have been picking away at
Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter. Today that category is more-or-less empty. |authors=
has been 'discouraged' in the documentation since
June 2016. I have marked |authors=
as deprecated in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox and will tweak the template documentation to show that the parameter is deprecated.
|authors=
has two aliases: |people=
and |credits=
; these parameters are not deprecated.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|author=
to list multiple authors, right? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|authors=
render with a maintenance message:
|authors=
will render with an error message:
|authors=
makes the author name-list parameters consistent with the other name-list parameters. For the other name lists:
|authors=Elizabeth, Middleton Maria, Baroness, Susan, Amy Maria
, invented by me, demonstrates ambiguities in parsing by humans and machines (it's Middleton Maria Elizabeth, Susan Baroness, and Amy Maria .. or, Baroness Middleton Maria Elizabeth and Amy Maria Susan). The solution to use ";" between names is nice in theory but in reality free form gives expected results: names that are not consistently parsable. --
Green
C 19:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|authors=
the only 'complaints' were related to these articles:
|authors=
were done using various AWB scripts. After a time I tweaked the scripts so that they would skip Editor Nikkimaria's articles. I did not do that for any other articles because no other editor complained either directly or indirectly.|author=
. You have named another: editors will switch to using free-text citations. I have given a third: editors will simply not provide the data. The first case would necessitate additional work to provide any improvement for data reusers; the other two would worsen the situation for reusers (which is why reuser-focused "improvements" that worsen the editor experience are problematic).
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|editor7-last=
etc., or who want to cite something in a way that doesn't vibe with whatever the metadata standard is (location without publisher, book that is part of a larger work, "chapter" of a website, or whatever).
Folly Mox (
talk) 03:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
an alternative easy / freeform mode for editors who don't want to type editor7-last" Don't the vcite templates already offer this? Rjjiii ( talk) 06:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|vauthors=
which does the same as authors, but in an established style. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested ∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 11:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|authors=
thing that is the immediate discussion here isn't my fight, but it seems true that in general, the CS1 templates – which are essentially equivalent to house style at this point – have been in the recent past moving towards clean metadata for reusers and away from usability for Wikipedia editors.I don't know if the solution is training everyone to produce citation data that can be cleanly reused by downstream people, forking the citation system so there's alternatives for editors who don't want to deal with all the nuances of best practice, subjecting major changes in the citation templates to broader community consensus, or what. But it's evident that we're coming to, at, or beyond the point where there's conflicting interests.I'm really deeply appreciative for all of Trappist's work on these templates, which I use all the time, every day, and frequently convert plaintext citations into. I'm not trying to invalidate any of that, and maybe I'd have a different perspective if I had any idea who "reuses" citation metadata from Wikipedia, how they reuse it, and for what.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
proposed change ... attempts to prioritize one set of stakeholders(emphasis added). Three of the stakeholder sets that benefit from this proposed change are our readers-set, the everyday-editor-set, and the gnome-editor-set. The intent is to make all name-list parameters consistent across all of the name lists. Deprecating
|authors=
helps our readers because free-form name-lists are just that; there are as many ways to write a free-form name-list as there are editors who write those lists. Yeah, we can say in the documentation that the names of individual authors in the list shall be separated by semicolons not commas but don't hold your breath for editors to do that (the vast majority of names in |authors=
that I have fixed over the past months were separated with commas (Name, Name, Name, Name, ... – is that a list of Last, First names or a list of Last names only? Sometimes it's not possible to tell without consulting the source). Deprecating |authors=
helps the everyday-editor-set by making name-list entry of any stripe (author, contributor, editor, interviewer, translator) use similarly named parameters; supporting one-off parameters just causes confusion. Deprecating |authors=
helps the gnome-editor-set by reducing the amount of work that must be done to fix citations written by conscientious editors who used |authors=
because it is listed in the documentation as a valid parameter.|authors=
in a template's COinS metadata. Readers who use reference management software to consume our citations do not get that critical author metadata. All readers, whether they are reading with their own eyes or by the eyes of a machine, are entitled to complete and accurately rendered citations.$rft.aulast
, $rft.aufirst
, and $rft.au
k/v pairs in the COinS metadata. All readers are entitled to the best citation rendering that we can provide; continuing to support |authors=
because most readers don't care about properly rendered citations deprives those readers who do care.|authorn=
and |lastn=
to do the same as they do with |authors=
– if we are to believe
this archive snapshot from 2023-08-05, editors abuse |author=
and |last=
more often than they use |authors=
. These days, most editors, even those who don't care, don't have to be intimately familiar with cs1|2 templates because we have VisualEditor and RefToolbar which will do the grunt work for them. These tools don't need and should not use |authors=
.|authors=
–
Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list will still be there for those who enjoy cleaning up after inexperienced or lazy editors.|authors=
.|author=
or |last=
(they already do) and someone, someday, will cleanup after them. We don't need |authors=
it should be deprecated and then support for it should be withdrawn.I can't see the utility in maintaining a variant parameter because one editor objected over five articles. Splitting out multiple authors to use first and last names is desirable on metadata grounds and furthermore is not hard. Seven years of a deprecation warning is more than enough time. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Another point here is that most new citations will have been generated automatically. I create a lot of cites and a negligible fraction are hand written. Also new editors are pointed to tools that allow for the auto-creation of cites. None of the tools will generate a cite that contains this parameter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 13:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|author-link=
, |script-title=
, etc. But you bring up a good point that many new cites do come from scripts, and it makes a lot more sense to direct energies towards improving Citoid and the things that call it, than it does to twiddle uncommon bespoke parameters that it doesn't deal with.
Folly Mox (
talk) 16:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)|display-authors=etal
. Regardless, corrections should be propagated: doing so will require machine-readable parameters to get it right.
Ifly6 (
talk) 18:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|display-authors=4
and then just not entering more than 4 names out of the 100 is not the way elide them. The way to do it properly is |display-authors=etal
after the fourth (or whatever) author you do want to specify. That's the reason that special etal
parameter value exists. (The way-old method of doing something like {{|para|author5|et al.}} and stopping with author entry thereafter is deprecated and has probably already been replaced system-wide (I haven't seen an instance of it in a long time), since it produces blatantly false metadata that claims an author's name literally is "et al."PS: We also need to update the |display-authors=
parameter doc to make it clear that this is only for suppressing reader-unhelpfully large lists of authors (dozens or more), not for forcibly conforming all citations in a page to an artificially short list like 3 names. I've run into a case of a guy doing this robotically at articles he has an interest in, and even after it is explained to him that suppressing data we have already entered on 4 or 6 or whatever authors and hiding it from the reader on purpose is utterly pointless and defeats the purpose of entering the author information, and he has no consensus to do it, he just editwars to do it again anyway. I've not made it a noticeboard matter yet, but we're probably going there.Agree with the deprecation of |authors=
. For reference, what we have now is:
authors: Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
Trappist the monk changed this to:
authors: deprecated
Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
but was reverted by Nikkimaria.
Arguably it should have been:
authors: deprecated
Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
since that provides one of the deprecation reasons, and the closing statement remains correct.
Regardless, the idea that people should be using any "free-form list of author names" at all when we have |first=
|last=
and |firstn=
|lastn=
is rather nonsensical. [Maybe with the exception of |vauthors=
, though I think that should be deprecated too, since Vancouver style conflicts with other guidance like
MOS:INITIALS, and produces confusing output in many cases, e.g. where jammed-together initials coincide with conventional biographical acronyms like MD. Even if we keep |vauthors=
, it should be replaced with first/last params in any article that is not consistently using Vancouver style; normalize to a consistent citation style per
WP:CITEVAR, and normalize to the more sensible one used by 99+% of our editors.] Yes, we will have some lazy or confused people abuse |author=
or |last=
for multiple authors (which already happens all the time anyway), but it would be better to have primarily one form of parameter abuse to look for and clean up after than multiple conflicting ones. For someone who simply cannot wrap their head around CS1 templating, or who has text-entry mobility issues and can't deal with it, or whatever, they can just do <ref>Freeform text here</ref>
, and someone will clean up after it later. It is much easier to see and clean up after that than to catch template-buried misuses of parameters. We have no reason whatsoever to have a CS1 parameter that effectively not just replicates freeform ref text but encourages people to do freeform input (and even |vauthors=
isn't freeform, but a prescribed, if very unhelpful, format). Either use the templates properly or don't use the templates. There is no point of any kind in a template parameter that basically resolves to "didn't use the template properly", which is exactly what |authors=
is, as presently documented and non-deprecated. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
|vauthors=
was something of a compromise
in 2015 to get people off of one of the alternatives mentioned above. The structure of the format is the predominant reason why it was accepted into this series of templates. To me this is the wrong tree to be barking up.
Izno (
talk) 08:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)I also agree with deprecating the parameter for the reasons already stated. As one of the gnomes who has also picked at the authors category, and one of the primary gnomes responsible for cleaning out the 5000 someodd uses of |editors=
before that too was removed, Trappist's examples of garbage citations don't even cover the spectrum of misuses of this parameter (and its now-removed cousins like |editors=
). His and SMC's commentary on this are fully in alignment with my views. I'm glad he got this parameter to the point where we can finally be entertaining this discussion.
As stated above, for the users who really do not want to or even cannot take the time to add citations in a structured or even consistent manner, |author=
remains with
its own category capturing misuses which gnomes work on at whatever pace suits. That parameter won't be going anywhere and certainly neither will the category catching those misuses, but "I can't be assed to input my dozen authors correctly right now" is not a sufficient or even good excuse to continue supporting what is a duplicate parameter.
Izno (
talk) 08:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Simply not adding all of the authors in the first place is an example of a problem, not a solution: Absolutely nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – is best served by listing all 5,154 authors of G Aad et al, Phys Rev Lett 114, 191803 (2015). Ifly6 ( talk) 00:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
. But another thing we absolutely don't need is, after we've gone to the trouble of specifying 7 authors here and a dozen there and 4 on that one, and 9 on this other one, as complete author lists, having some rando later editwar to force them all to |display-authors=3
just to be a bonehead who likes suppressing information. Whether 15 authors, or 20, or 40 is "too many" to list seems really up to editorial judgment at an article, but if we already have the information in the citation, it is hard to think of a rational reason to hide the data from the readers. If someone is absolutely certain that 30 authors is too many, they should get consensus to trim the actual included list of them to a shorter number and elide the rest with |display-authors=etal
. But keeping them all in the code then using trickery to suppress readers' ability to see them, like |display-authors=10
when there are 30 already coded, is just ridiculous. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)|authors=
. I have restored the reverted edits to the module suite and the documentation.*authors: deprecated
Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
Hello,
I don't know if this has been discussed before and rejected, and I'm not even 100% sure it's a good idea myself given that the case is rare. Right now, it appears that a period unconditionally appears after a title or chapter param. This probably simplifies the logic and also might make parsing the text easier. That said, it is a little odd if the title ends with punctuation such as "?", "!", or "...". Is it worth sticking some logic in there to omit the period in those cases as unnecessary?
Examples (title first, then chapter):
It's also possible that maybe this change makes less sense for chapter titles specifically, as there's an additional layer of quotation marks wrapping it. It also might look okay if there's a url= parameter, as the title will be linked but the period won't be, separating it some. But the "?." looks kinda doofy if a url isn't set, and I suspect it would be outright confusing for titles that end in an ellipsis (Reader: did the author intentionally pick four periods, or is it three periods + a Wikipedia-placed period?). Any thoughts? SnowFire ( talk) 19:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
safe_join()
. There is an existing hack that should correctly handle ellipses:
{{cite book |title=Title...}}
→ Title...Presently the templates are being "too smart for their own good" and throwing an error when they encounter something like |volume=VI: ''The Reformation''
, and I am desirous that this misbehavior stop. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC |title=Mammals of the Soviet Union |volume=2, Pt. 2: ''Carnivora (Hyenas and Cats)'' |isbn=9004088768 |last=Heptner |first=V. G. |date=1989}}
|title=Mammals of the Soviet Union, Vol. 2, Pt. 2: Carnivora (Hyenas and Cats)
. I don't know why it's working now and didn't work yesterday. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)Is there a reason the various CS1 templates are inconsistent in their ordering of TemplateData parameters? They generally agree on author names being first, but then the order after that varies wildly. If there is no reason for this inconsistency, we should establish a standardized order — perhaps based on {{ Cite web}}, since it's the most commonly used. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 05:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
warning}}
template was added by Editor
GreenC at
this edit. I agree that fussing with the parameter order in template data is likely a waste of time because anyone can edit the template data to add, remove, rearrange, whatever as they please. If you normalize parameter order for all twenty-eight cs1 templates and {{
citation}}
(and all of their wrapper templates?) I suspect that you will forever be chasing after random edits restoring your preferred order. Seems like a lot of work for no real benefit.I would certainly object to gnomes or bots going around making edits that change the parameter order in articles. That sort of thing makes it very difficult for humans looking at watchlists to figure out which edits made actual changes and which are cosmetic. I would prefer that the order be left in place unless you are making significant other changes to the citations. For what it's worth, the order I often use is authors first and then alphabetical by parameter name. I'm not going to defend that as a good order, but it's what the software I use produces and so I'm very unlikely to change that habit. That said, I don't care what order they are listed in TemplateData, as long as people editing articles don't think that the order is meaningful. So if you think your time is well spent making meaningless changes to TemplateData, go ahead. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Of late there has been a bit of churn at Template:Citation Style documentation/url, likely due to discussion at User talk:Citation bot § Removing url-status = live.
To minimize the documentation churn, we should discuss here and then change the documentation.
You will note from the Citation bot discussion that there are those who believe that |url-status=<any legit value>
should be allowed anytime and others who disagree (I am firmly in this latter camp).
The recent churn at the documentation template caused me to take a hard look at the documentation for |url-status=
which, to me, has become a rather confusing mishmash so I propose to replace it with something like this:
|url=
or |archive-url=
to link |title=
; requires url and archive-url. Use {{
dead link}}
to mark dead |url=
when there is no |archive-url=
.
dead
– (default when |url-status=
omitted or empty) selects |archive-url=
live
– selects |url=
; used when |url=
is preemptively archiveddeviated
– selects |archive-url=
; used when |url=
is still 'live' but no-longer supports the text in a Wikipedia articleunfit
– selects |archive-url=
; used when |url=
links to porn, spam, advertising, or other unsuitable sites; links to |url=
are suppressed in the renderingusurped
– selects |archive-url=
; used when |url=
links to information unrelated to the original link; links to |url=
are suppressed in the renderingThe current version doesn't clearly state the purpose of the parameter so I started there and then rewrote, as a list, the various keyword definitions. I removed mention of maintenance messaging because that just adds to the mess (and if we discuss maint messages here, we'll end up discussing them everywhere... so more mess elsewhere.
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
|archive-url=
can we say requires?|url=
and|archive-url=
|archive-url=
already requires |url=
. I will say I don't really like the {{
dead link}} alternate (no idea how common this is), since it requires navigating to the end of the template call, and typing in a date, rather than just adding a parameter wherever. I understand this is probably easier on a keyboard.
Folly Mox (
talk) 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
|url=
in the requirements more tightly binds the three parameters together as a unit and by doing so (perhaps) editors might be less likely to add stand-alone |url-status=
to a citation (or not).|url-status=dead
to a cs1|2 template that doesn't have |archive-url=
with value does not now add the article to an
Articles with dead external links category and should not do so in the future; that is not the purpose of |url-status=dead
(and wasn't the purpose of its predecessor |dead-url=yes
). And you don't have to type the date... AnomieBOT will do that for you.Agree with everything Trappist the Monk said. It makes no sense for the CS1|2 template to mark dead links, and then other non-CS1|2 templates use {{
dead link}}
, plus square and bare URLs - it's a confusing mismatch of systems that will be prone to error eg. people using one system, or another system, or both systems. Then there is all the legacy issues. 100s of bots, reports, tools, etc.. are configured to do things as they are. It will lead to breakages, errors, that will take years to resolve and cause a lot of damage upstream eg. reFill will take decades to fix at current pace, and VE who knows. Then there is the user-base, literally millions of brains which have been hard-wired by 15+ years of doing things this way that need change, it's unnecessarily disruptive. Once you know how its done, it's not hard to follow or understand. --
Green
C 04:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The only problem here is that |url-status=
name causes confusion, which inturn leads to it being misused. The solution to that is not continued misuse. Clarification of how it should be used is definitely a step in the right direction. So inagre definitely agree with Trappist. Using {{
dead links}} is a separate template the same as any other maintenance tag, citation needed, clarify, dubious for instance. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested ∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 10:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Per Nikki's comment above, here's a version of what I posted at the bot's talk. I have two use cases, one for |url-status=dead
and one for |url-status=live
.
This URL will quite possibly go out of date in months; a quarterly update at that website causes pages like this to be regenerated and the URL may change (it's difficult to predict whether or not it will change, for reasons I can explain if anyone cares). When I create a link to that URL, it's live and not deviated, but I know it's possibly going to go out of date so I always add the archiveURL when I can. I have also been putting in |url-status=dead
, because otherwise someone reviewing the links is likely to mark it as live. (At a recent FAC source review a reviewer suggested marking one of these as live, not dead, for example.)
The use case for |url-status=live
without archive-URL is when archive.org is down or refusing to archive, which happens fairly often. I try to always archive links when adding the citation; I think that's best practice. If I can't do the archive, then for the links I know are going to be stable long-term I add |url-status=live
so that if someone else comes along and adds an archive URL it won't default to the archive link in the citation.
I understand that neither use case exactly fits the intended use of these parameters, but they are natural ways to use them. My main complaint about the bot having removed them is that they are not inaccurate (they don't lead to erroneous output HTML) and they don't incorrectly represent reality. A response at the other conversation was that they do lead to maintenance message output, but if these use cases are a natural way to interpret the parameters I don't think these parameter states should generate maintenance messages. What is the harm in allowing this usage? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
live
– selects |url=
and shows link to |archive-url=
; used when |url=
is pre-emptively archived with |archive-url=
dead
and deviated
– (default condition when |url-status=
omitted or empty) select |archive-url=
and show link to |url=
. dead
is used as an indication to editors when a link no longer exists, and deviated
when |url=
is still 'live' but no-longer supports the article text.unfit
and usurped
– select |archive-url=
and do not link to |url=
. unfit
is used for a |url=
that now links to porn, spam, advertising, or other unsuitable sites.usurped
is used when |url=
links to information unrelated to the original linkdead
and deviated
cannot both be the default condition. The definitions for unfit
and usurped
have been refined to distinguish one from the other since your writing.{{
cbignore}}
was added by
User:Frabrikator
Special:Diff/1001248446/1001281991. Possibly IABot at the time was occasionally converting archive.today links to Wayback due to a bug now fixed - it no longer does that. I removed it. --
Green
C 02:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)|url-status=drift
or |url-status=drifted
or |url-status=drifting
. Most likely "drifted". I doubt there are so many we can't easily modify via bot. As a bonus they both start with "d", and drifted is fewer letter and syllables. (IMO deviated sounds vaguely sinister, like deviant, which is the purpose of unfit and usurped.) It would help get everyone on the same page inside and outside Wikipedia with the same terminology of content drift. --
Green
C 17:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Requesting a new parameter value: |url-status=paywall would mean that the link works only if the user is paying to access it. Commenter8 ( talk) 16:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
is at
Template:Cite book § Subscription or registration required. There, the term '
paywall' is used as part of the definition of the keyword subscription
. Is that not sufficient? If not, how is it not sufficient?Hello! The Russian Wikipedia uses this module, as well as other modules that display source templates differently, for example:
Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review". Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858–1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved October 18, 2013.
Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review (en.) // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36, no. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved October 18, 2013.
Tell me, is it possible to use different styles for different templates? Are there render settings for each type? This module is very difficult to understand and I need help :) Iniquity ( talk) 19:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Our templatesyou mean ru.wiki's templates, not en.wiki's templates. There are a lot of wikis that take a copy of en.wiki's Module:Citation/CS1 suite of modules. Each wiki can, and many do, modify their copy to suit their particular needs. Because there are so many wikis that have copies of the en.wiki module suite, it is impracticable to have simple settings to change the rendering.
{{
cite journal}}
template from the first of your two example renderings:
{{cite journal |author=Aries, Myriam B. C. |author2=Newsham, Guy R. |name-list-style=amp |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021 |access-date=October 18, 2013}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)|name-list-style=
so the ru.wiki rendering does not have the ampersand between the author names and at ru.wiki emits a Неизвестный параметр error message. The ru.wiki rendering does not emit an error message for |access-date=
-requires-|url=
; uses curly quotes, an emdash separator between page numbers, and capitalizes the doi prefix. Certainly this experiment does not look anything like the Our templatesexample.
|author=
→ |автор=
– apparently |автор=
cannot be enumerated so values from |author=
and |author2=
must be concatenated into a single value|date=
→ |год=
|title=
→ |заглавие=
|edition=
→ |издание=
|volume=
→ |том=
|issue=
, |number=
→ |номер=
|pages=
→ |страницы=
{{Статья}}
from the translator module:
{{Статья |автор=Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. |год=2008 |заглавие=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |издание=Energy Policy |том=36 |номер=6 |страницы=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
We have done that here for a few languages that make extensive use of Module:Citation/CS1. See Module:CS1 translator.
Of course it is, if you're willing to put in the work and are willing to redo the work every time someone at ru.wiki decides to update the module suite. I guess I gotta wonder if it might be easier to write a translator module that maps non-Russian parameter names to their Russian counterparts and then calls the appropriate Russian template.
format_chapter_title()
, language_parameter()
, format_pages_sheets()
, etc – while other parts and the whole are assembled in citation0()
. This is why I suggested that you create a translator module if you must produce a rendering that is so distinctly different from a cs1|2 rendering.I already requested that earlier at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_72#Request_for_the_"nbk"_(NCBI_bookshelf)_attribute_for_"cite_book" but nobody replied, can you please consider this request again?
Please add the "nbk" attribute for the "cite book" template to specify the NCBI NBK number. You already have the "pmc" and "pmid" attributes, but the "nbk" is different. It refers to the NCBI bookshelf site that has different URL forman than PubMed Central. The URL to the bookshelf looks like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557634/ (where 557634 is the NCBI NBK number). My idea is when you specify the "nbk" to the "cite book", the direct URL to the book at the NBI site will be generated. Currently, NCBI bookshelf books cannot be accessed directly from Wikipedia or other Wikimedia cites that allow the "cite book" template. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 01:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|url=
? Are we expecting cases where the full text is available at some other URL but also available by NCBI? If so, do we need to care? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|url=
already "give[s] a technical oportunity to link to the content directly". We shouldn't add custom linking parameters for source databases unless we're certain they have a lot of material we want to use as sources and the parameter would be frequently used by editors for reliable ones. The fact that you can find material that is reachable by |pmc=
but which isn't good source material isn't an argument to add a new |nbk=
parameter. PS: I checked the three PMIDs you gave above; one is a duplicate, and the other two just go to more of this StatPearls junk. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|nbk=
saves no work at all. Yes, and so what? It is not harmful or an imposition in any way to type |url=
and paste a URL into it; this will actually be faster and easier that typing |nbk=
, selecting a particular string perfectly from a URL, and pasting that in. No, my reasoning is that you haven't presented a valid use case for this, and when pressed for examples that might qualify as sources we would use you've just coughed up more links to the same poor source material. Finally, the fact that your poor source can be found via other searches is completely irrelevant to both whether it is a source we should use and whether we should have an |nbk=
parameter. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|id=
field and the {{
NCBIBook}} template.{{citation |last1=Kinter |first1=KJ |last2=Amraei |first2=R |last3=Anekar |first3=AA |title=Biochemistry, Dihydrotestosterone. |date=January 2023 |pmid=32491566 |id={{NCBIBook|NBK557634}}}}
Sometime ago I happened to read in this page that the use of year parameter was discouraged; but now I am unable to find that topic anymore. Do I have to assume that the year parameter is reinstated in full? Thanks. Carlotm ( talk) 02:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Carlotm ( talk) 06:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Page: Module:Citation/CS1. When I was worked at adaption some parameters from English Wiki to Ukrainian Wiki, I found out that at the line 2648 in module Citation/CS1: "if (utilities.in_array (config.CitationClass, {'book', 'encyclopaedia'}) and (utilities.is_set (Periodical) or utilities.is_set (ScriptPeriodical) or utilities.is_set (ScriptPeriodical))) then" there is mispelled parameter. Because there are two ScriptPeriodical and they are in if statement, so there in no to double check the same parameter twice. Therefore, I think one of the parameter needs to be changed to TransPeriodical. Repakr ( talk) 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : |trans-newspaper= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : |trans-newspaper= ignored (
help)
|
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 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 |
Greetings and felicitations. In this citation I have both "chapter-url=" and "url=", but the latter is not working:
Horsburgh, James (1836). "Fernando de Noronha". India Directory, or, Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Brazil and the Interjacent Ports... London: W. H. Allen. p. 31.
Horsburgh, James (1836).
"Fernando de Noronha". India Directory, or, Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Brazil and the Interjacent Ports... London: W. H. Allen. p. 31.
Have I done something wrong, or is there a problem with the code?
Edit: From Horse latitudes#Origin of the term — DocWatson42 ( talk) 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|title=
to |entry=
{{Cite encyclopedia |last=Horsburgh |first=James |year=1836 |entry=Fernando de Noronha |entry-url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_GuY2AQAAMAAJ/page/31/mode/1up |encyclopedia=India Directory, or, Directions for Sailing to and from the East Indies, China, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Brazil and the Interjacent Ports... |url=https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_GuY2AQAAMAAJ/mode/1up |location=London |publisher=W. H. Allen |page=31}}
{{Cite encyclopedia}}
, as one has to dig a bit to find that information. —
DocWatson42 (
talk) 10:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it) is a discussion which watchers of this page may be interested in. Izno ( talk) 02:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
After generating a citation for an article accessed via JSTOR in a journal which has its own WP article a Digital Object Identifier and an ISSN appeared in its preview. I'm wondering if either is necessary. Mcljlm ( talk) 02:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, an ISSN is an optional part of a citation to a particular article (adding it never hurts, but it is not strictly necessary when a direct URL or DOI is provided to the full text of the article).
An ISSN is particularly helpful in the following circumstances (especially when the ISSN is linked, using template or parameter detailed below):
- In a citation to a periodical that is relatively unknown, as the ISSN can help in verifying the existence and reliability of the journal and procuring a copy of one of its issues to verify the content.
The issn, on the other hand, is almost entirely useless cruft, as far as I can tell. No style guide to my knowledge suggests routinely adding ISSNs for citations, and one saves even more time by not needing to add or look-up
|issn=
parameters. I was just clarifying some of the exceptional examples of citations where its usefulness outweighs its status as status as possible clutter.
Umimmak (
talk) 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)According to JSTOR, the journal American Music uses dates in the format "Season, YYYY", so for example, "Summer, 1993" - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3052555 (and more generally, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter - https://www.jstor.org/journal/americanmusic ) How do we represent this using this template? -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 12:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=Summer 1993
{{sfn|Parsons|1993|p=###}}
to {{sfn|Smith|1993|p=###}}
.
GoingBatty (
talk) 14:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Also we would replace "Autumn" by "Fall"Why? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 01:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=Spring 2023
if treating it as a date, but |issue=Printemps 2023
if treating it as an issue name because the publication used issue names instead of numbers, depending on the circumstances, e.g. if we also have something like |date=13 April 2023
to use more specifically for the date). But |volume=
is a parameter not a search string like Printemps or Autumn might be in some cases, and databases of journal papers are already making that conversion themselves (JSTOR, etc., are not using Band in place of Vol. or Volume when the journal is in German
[1]. I've never seen any major journal indexing site do that). Regardless, going around robotically changing "Autumn" to "Fall" is a
MOS:STYLEVAR fail, since there's nothing wrong with either word, and is probably a
MOS:ENGVAR fail, since "Autumn" is much more common in British and several other forms of non-American English. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
In another
discussion elsewhere (long and meandering) the question was asked: why do we have
when cs1|2 formats publication, archive, and access dates according whatever local |df=
{{use xxx dates}}
is present in the article? It was pointed out that use of |df=
is often merely redundant to {{use xxx dates}}
or in conflict with that template.
My answer was to turn the question around and ask: Because no one has bothered to suggest that we no longer need it? So, the question on the table is: do we need to keep |df=
?
Here are a couple of cirrus searches for articles that use |df=
in cs1|2 templates:
{{
use dmy dates}}
template:
~42,000 articles (search times out){{
use mdy dates}}
template:
~34,200 articlesThese searches suggest that there are more than 76,000 articles with at least one use of |df=
. That is too many to just suddenly deprecate. Sure a bot could be written to remove |df=
but such a bot runs the risk of being declared
WP:COSMETICBOT so removal of these parameters will likely need to be done some other way.
And then there are the articles that have neither of the {{use xxx dates}}
templates:
What to do about those?
So: what to do about |df=
? Is there ever a legitimate case for using a |df=mdy
formatted publication date in an article that has {{
use dmy dates}}
?
Certainly we can mark the parameter as 'discouraged'. We can tweak
Module:Citation/CS1 to maintenance category message when|df=
is used in an article that has a {{use xxx template}}
. With the category, gnomes can pick away at removing |df=
until the count is sufficiently reduced to avoid torches and pitchforks. What to do with |df=
is used in articles that don't have a {{use xxx dates}}
template?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
rightwhatever wrong is done by the bot. The correct venue is User talk:Citation bot.
English Wikipedia has a nice {{ ill}} template which will put small wikilinked 2-letter language IDs in brackets after a red link – linking to Wikipedia articles in one or more other languages concerning the subject of the red link – to possibly inspire readers who come across the red link to try translating them into English, and to give readers a way to find out about the subject (possibly via Google translate or the like) we don't currently have a page about, in a way that is clear but doesn't waste space. For example, Giuseppe Cesàro . However, there's no way to get similar behavior in CS1 or CS2 citation templates. We're stuck with either (a) a red link, e.g.
Or (b) a single inter-language wikipedia link which puts a full language name in brackets:
Or (c) in these cases I'm tempted to just leave the citation templates out and use {{ ill}}, optionally with {{ wikicite}} if I need a parenthetical reference somewhere else:
The two citation template outputs seem significantly inferior to the {{ ill}} template output. The red link version gives the necessary red link, but doesn't provide link(s) to the possibly multiple other-language wiki pages about the subject. The inter-language wikilink version does not include a red link (in my opinion an unacceptable compromise), wastes space by spelling out the full language name, somewhat confuses readers by appearing in the normal position for a link to English Wikipedia but then pointing off-site to a page in another language, does not allow for multiple inter-language wikilinks, and finally is gratuitously inconsistent with the output of {{ ill}} which is in moderately wide use and therefore likely to be familiar in format to regular Wikipedia readers.
Is there any technically feasible way we could extend the citation templates to instead support output of the style of the {{ ill}} template? It would probably be best to make the specification of inter-language wikilinks a separate parameter instead of trying to reuse the author-link parameter for this. – jacobolus (t) 18:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
What ever happened to the supplement element for cite newspaper? Govvy ( talk) Govvy ( talk) 15:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
|supplement=
. Are you thinking of that or something else?|part=
and |supplement=
because the COinS metadata format supports &rft.part=
. Opinions?{{cite newspaper |work=The Sunday Times |title=A dummy, a surge and then an unstoppable bullet of a shit (off either foot) |p=13 |supplement=Sport |date=22 October 2023}}
|department=
.
{{cite news |newspaper=The Sunday Times |title=A dummy, a surge and then an unstoppable bullet of a shit (off either foot) |p=13 |department=Sport |date=22 October 2023}}
|department=
?
Kanguole 16:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
|supplement=
as an option.
Govvy (
talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
|department=
. The fact that one publication puts some department in their own pull-out supplement is kind of irrelevant, except that not everyone trying to build a citation is going to think "|department=
is what I'm looking for" when they don't find a |supplement=
. Seems like an easy and helpful tweak to make. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)|department="Sport" department
or |department="Sport" supplement
instead of just |department=Sport
. Same with |series="History's Greatest Battles" series
instead of |series=History's Greatest Battles
, since the bare string "Sport" or "History's Greatest Battles" in the citation has a rather opaque and ambiguous meaning except to people who have really, really studied out citation templates and the order in which they put things, which is probably no one who isn't already on this page right now. Heh. (I make an exception when the name of the thing already indicates what it is, e.g. by including the word "Series" or "Department" or "Supplement"). I would rather like to see our documentation advocate this approach. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)The instructions do not appear to say anywhere what "first name" and "last name" mean. Someone just edited Chōchin'obake to use the Roman form of a name, "Mizuki Shigeru" (水木しげる), writing "first=Mizuki" and "last=Shigeru". Looks ok, except that Mizuki is his family name, and Shigeru is his given name. Something is wrong here: personally I think using "first" and "last" to distinguish parts of a person's name is one of the stupidest ideas in WP, against some tough opposition, but it would be OK if at least the instructions explained what they meant. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|given=
and |surname=
less confusing in cases like this.
Kanguole 13:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|first=Mizuki
just because Mikuki comes first in Japanese order. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 13:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
|surname=
|forename=
, or |family=
|given=
. Though of course we wouldn't want
WP:MEATBOT or
WP:COSMETICBOT activity triggering every watchlist in existence by substituting equivalent parameter names that the reader doesn't see and which don't practically matter for editors. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)|familyn=
and |givenn=
are less confusing. I'd also like to see more explanatory text in the documentation for |first=
and |last=
. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 12:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Currently the {{
ISBN}} template supports multiple numbers, e.g., {{
ISBN|1449370829|978-1449370824}}
displays both ISBNs,
ISBN
1449370829,
978-1449370824, for "Java in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference", 6th edition. Should |ISBN=
allow entering both rather than just the ISBN-13? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
s2cid limit needs updated, seen here, here and here. Several pages in that category. Numbers checked, they are correct. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 01:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there some good reason that |work=
if used in {{
Cite book}}
doesn't just alias to that template's version of |title=
? It would resolve a lot of errors and make it easer to convert citations that are using the wrong template for the source type. Even if we wanted a bot to later substitute in |title=
, it would be helpful. There would also be a few cases where the same template is trying to call |title=
and |work=
at the same time, with different (e.g. something in |work=
that really belongs in |series=
) or the redundantly same values, but this will surely be a smaller class of errors to resolve than every {{
Cite book}}
containing |work=
. Just make that stop being an error-by-definition as it presently is. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 08:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
and |title=
. I've been correcting a few dozens of those recently where |title=
was meant to be |chapter=
and |work=
was meant to be |title=
. This then needed a further correction of |url=
to |chapter-url=
. Those repairs seem quite mechanical, but I suspect they would be difficult to work into a rule. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)|work=
in {{
cite book}}
are in place of |title=
, and having them be equated would make fixing many misapplications of other templates to books easier. And it's just weird and unintitive that |work=
as an alias is functional as a parameter to specify the name of the "
major work" (the italicized thing) in every citation template to which it could seem to apply, except for this one. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|title=
and |work=
, which are not split out specifically from
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,692).0% of the ones I've fixed have been simply work→title. They've been a mixture like title→chapter, work→title; work→series; work→via; title→volume, work→title; and probably others I've forgotten. There have also been a few I've been unable to fix, because they cite a chapter of a named work collected in an anthology, where the pagination and publication information differ between the anthology and the original printing, and I'm not sure what other set of parameters would properly capture the information.I view the disabling of the |work=
parameter in {{
cite book}} as underdiscussed and disruptive, since it hid all of the information editors had added instead of just emitting an error message about it, and until we've cleared all the cases of this, we're continuing to suppress valid citation information in ways that are not clearly understood, as evidenced by our differing experiences cleaning up after this parameter change.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
as well as emitting the error message. Downgrade |work=
from "unsupported" to "deprecated" until we can alter all of these templates so that when support for the parameter is disabled again in the future, we'll have the book citations all fixed up and ready for it, instead of just hiding this parameter, which is almost always a pretty important one.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
that I've fixed have been citations I added over the years, and if I had known about the discussion to remove support for this parameter, or understood that it wouldn't be displayed at all unlike parameters that are merely marked "deprecated", I would have argued the above at one or both of the prior conversations.So with that caveat, I don't think errorand
correct informationare an apposite pair in the second sentence just above. What this
errorfeels like to me is perfectly valid citation information that has been decided ex cathedra et post facto to be suppressed due to a technicality no one was adequately warned about or given opportunity to prepare for.(I could be entirely wrong about this: there may well have been a maintenance message for years, invisible to mobile editors, warning that
|work=
support for {{
cite book}} would be withdrawn in 2023, or there may have been an update to the documentation mentioning that, which I missed because I don't watchlist the template documentation pages, and don't closely reread documentation for updates once I feel I understand it.)The information being missing does provide a strong incentive to reparameterise the affected calls to {{
cite book}}, but the total category membership of
Category:CS1 errors: periodical ignored (25,692) provides a stronger disincentive to embark on any sort of thorough cleanup. My take is that it's unfixable in its current state, but I'd welcome a narrower
Category:CS1 errors: cite book ignores work to see if that's actually the case.
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
uses |work=
.|work=
as a valid parameter; it should not. So far as I can tell,
Template:Cite book/doc (the canonical documentation) has never listed |work=
as a valid {{cite book}}
parameter.|work=
. Does it really serve the reader to continue not displaying that information while we clean out the category? It looks like it will take years.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|work=
parameter for {{
cite book}} also suppresses |publisher=
and |edition=
(at least at
Special:Permalink/1183496933, under #Sources). Is this behaviour intended?
Folly Mox (
talk) 18:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Whitburn, Joel (2010).
The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits (9th ed.). Clarkson Potter/Ten Speed.
ISBN
978-0-8230-8554-5. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Whitburn, Joel (2010).
The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits (9th ed.). Clarkson Potter/Ten Speed.
ISBN
978-0-8230-8554-5. {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
|work=
in {{
citation}}. Previously that has been exclusively meaning a periodical.
Izno (
talk) 21:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Question: Is it appropriate to add "(subscription required)" or the parameter "url-access=subscription" when the source is an archived-URL? Specifically, we have numerous archived HighBeam URLs on Wikipedia, but they do not require registration or subscription to access. In this example the "url-access" parameter was used, producing the red padlock icon next to the dead HighBeam url. (But how does this information help the reader?) I suggest we add guidance that says "Subscription templates should not be used in connection with dead or archived links and URLs, especially when the archive-URL is freely accessible." – S. Rich ( talk) 23:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|url-access=subscription
or {{
Subscription}} from citations with Highbeam URLs. In the example you kindly provided, but I don't understand the value of adding "(archived article)".
GoingBatty (
talk) 16:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Meaning well,
GoingBatty made this tweak to the docs
[2], adding the the following to the documentation of |url=
: "If the registration/limited/subscription access to the source goes dead and is no longer available, then remove this parameter (and add
". But I just tested that in a sandbox, and the result was a red error message reading "{{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)".
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
values if possible)
So what do we want to actually be done in such a case? The issues I see:
|url-access=[registration/limited/subscription]
will no longer be true.|url-status=dead
will need to be added.|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
will almost never be applicable, because the material was paywalled away from the archiver bots.I think if I ran across this situation right now (and checked for a usable archive-url and found none), I would remove |url-access=[whatever]
, add |url-status=dead
, and append a {{
dead link|{{subst:DATE}}|fix-attempted=yes}}
after the </ref>
. Pretty much, the citation needs to be replaced with an equivalent source, since the one cited is no longer
verifiable. But maybe someone else has another idea. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
|url=
parameter. I meant remove the |url-access=
parameter (or other matching access-indicator parameter). I've revised my edit to make this more clear.
GoingBatty (
talk) 15:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)This thread was started to discuss the guidance about tagging citations with "subscription" parameters and templates. E.g., when we have a source that does not require a subscription should the citation have "subscription" notations? This occurs when sources such as Questia and HighBeam go dead. (When they were alive readers were required to subscribe or register to access them.) As Questia and HighBeam are defunct, we only have archived copies of their material. I want to make clear that those archived urls do NOT need a subscription or registration to access. Removing "subscription" notations is helpful in that regard. In the HighBeam cases, is a "{{ dead link}}" helpful? I don't think so. 1. If there is no archive url then nothing can be done. (I've run the "fix dead link" tool on dozens of these links and there are no repairs.) 2. If there is an archive url for the HighBeam link, then a "{{ dead link}}" tag is not needed or helpful. (Such a tag only clutters the citation.) So, I think the guidance should stand as is. E.g., we tell editors that they should remove "subscription required" notations when the urls do not require a subscription. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I sometimes see something like
this, where |access-date=
is removed from various {{
cite web}}
, {{
cite news}}
, etc., that do have URLs. Is this desirable for some reason? Is is absolutely undesirable? Is it a "no one really cares"? matter? We seem to have this parameter because something like it is present in most citation styles in the "real world", and on WP gives some indication when was the last time someone actually looked at the source to see if it's still valid for what the article currently is claiming and seeming to rely on that source for. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 16:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
from deadlinked web sources where an archive exists and the claim is not tagged in any way (which can necessitate finding a different archive). I also remove it from print sources, since it's always unnecessary in those cases.I only take these actions as part of constructive citation repair, never as the only action in a diff, and never en masse.I would love it if |access-date=
would gracefully fail for print sources, and just not display anything for {{
cite book}} and {{
cite journal}}. All other use cases are too borderline or on balance beneficial, and removing support for the parameter is a def no go due to citation scripts always providing it.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
gracefully fail for print sourcesWhat does that mean?
gracefully fail for print sourcesby which I mean
just not display anything for {{ cite book}} and {{ cite journal}}.Folly Mox ( talk) 19:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
from citations that have URLs, since it does indicate to the editor when the material was last examined (at least by someone who remembered to update the parameter).If we come to the conclusion that for readers the parameter no longer serves a purpose when both |archive-url=
is present and |url-status=dead
(whether that parameter is literally present or not – don't want to re-open that worm-can), or when there is no URL at all, then the thing to do would be to have the template suppress display of the access date in the reader's output. But we need not lose the editor-facing functionality it provides. It's very significant sometimes, e.g. when a complex paragraph is entirely cited to one source, and that source has something like |access-date=30 June 2009
but the article has been substantively edited many, many times in the interim, this is a good sign that unsourced material has probably been injected into that paragraph and that it either needs to be removed, or a source found for it, and the already-present citation needs to be re-applied to the material that was actually taken from it, often as a split <ref name="Foo 2009">...</ref>
and some <ref name="Foo 2009" />
instances for particular sentences or claims within sentences, depending on how complex the material got over time. As a side point, for this same reason I would like the see |access-date=
also supported again as a parameter in every citation type, and stop being reported as an error in those without URLs. It should simply be display-suppressed when in such citations. Unlike some of the other parameterization discussed above that I think is of dubious use and ends up just being redundant cruft, this actually serves an encyclopedia-building purpose for all editors. PS: It seems particularly weird to me to have this parameter throw an error and get removed by people when a literal |url=
parameter is replaced by a shortcut parameter like |jstor=
that generates the same URL for the reader. I dont' see any point to that at all. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|date=
parameter is for. |access-date=
tells us when an editor of our site examined that source, and this is meaningful not only for detecting linkrot, as Hawkeye7 discusses below, for also for alerting us to aging citation verification that needs to be revisited. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
tells us when an editor of our site last examined that source, and this is meaningful not only for detecting linkrot but also for alerting us to aging citation verification that needs to be revisited, because the material claimed to be cited to that source may have changed significantly in the interim by intervening edits. Whether the content in the source could have changed has nothing to do with that (though is also a relevant concern and a completely severable rationale for |access-date=
usage, with various websites that aren't JSTOR). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
as a heuristic for potential source–text integrity degradation due to intervening edits is a clever use case I hadn't considered, and will also concede that, given the relative infrequency of publication dates for web sources, using |access-date=
as an approximation of |date=
is something I do myself. It's certainly not always an unnecessary parameter, and sometimes it's deeply useful.
Folly Mox (
talk) 01:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
as a way of telling when a particular claim was cited is parameter overloading unrelated to its original purpose. As we all know, it's to tell which version was consulted of a source whose content is changeable. Using it as |ref-added-date=
is possible, sure, but a shaky claim cited in 2009 to a 2009 source is not less likely to be factual than a shaky claim cited in 2023 to a 1955 source. When the cite was added shouldn't affect our instinct of whether or not to verify it and see if newer information is available: that's |date=
.
Folly Mox (
talk) 00:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|year=2023a
as a confusing disambiguation device, which comes also at the cost of "warring" date formatting (|year=1999
, |date=1999
), when there is probably a better way to do that disambiguation and elminate the parameter redundancy. But using |access-date=
to signal "I checked this source on this date", as its name implies, comes at no confusion or redundancy cost. I've argued elsewhere that |language=en
is not helpful because it's trying to aid a tiny class of users (at other wikis) in a way better done by improving their own import scripts; but |access-date=
would be useful for all editors here doing
WP:V /
WP:NOR maintenance in articles, and we don't seem to have an alternative that is practical (digging through years of page history is not practical except at the simplest and most slowly-changing articles). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 17:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
comes at no confusion or redundancy cost– this is self-evidently false. A vanishingly small proportion of Wiki editors have adopted your proposed idiosyncratic approach, and in practice the access-date parameter is nearly meaningless, or rather, making clear sense of it requires checking the page history anyway. – jacobolus (t) 17:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
git blame
command used by computer programmers. It would indeed be pretty useful to have a tool like that. But access-date on citations is an extremely poor and limited substitute. –
jacobolus
(t) 18:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|langue=en
by default to cites ripped from en.wikipedia. In the end, I've already "lost" the wider version of this argument, in that |access-date=
got converted into an error condition on cites without |url=
, but I still think that was a poor decision, and that removing more of them is a poorer one. I don't have an additional argument to bring about it, and think that the one already presented is worth consideration. It is an actual fact that if a bunch more access-dates get removed, then editors like me will end up doing less citation-to-claim verification and repair, because we will no longer be alerted by the presence of a really old access-date in material that is nevertheless being changed. That is a net loss to the encyclopedia for no gain other than citation concision. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 18:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
is absolutely required for web and news cites and should be reported as an error if it is missing. It enables bots and readers to locate the correct version of the page in an archive. Web sites and news articles are frequently updated. Link rot is ever present. |archive-url=
and |url-status=dead
are not good enough because the internet archive sometimes drops pages from its archive, requiring another archive retrieval. I would consider edits like the example above to be vandalism and a clear violation of
WP:PRESERVE and treat them accordingly.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 18:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
, because I haven't accessed the source: only the archive. I can't update the |archive-date=
, obviously, because that's intrinsic to the archive I consulted. There's no |archive-access-date=
or {{
verified source}}, thank goodness. (I understand I can take the null action, which seems to be what is being advised just above.)If I remove the |access-date=
, I both reduce citation cruft and imply that the source that supports the claim is the archive. Whether the now inaccessible original source supported the text on the |access-date=
is unknowable (unless it equals the |archive-date=
, in which case it is even uselesser).Can I instead remove the original source altogether, and just cite the archive page? I've done this before, but then saw bots doing the reverse (extracting a source from a directly cited archive) and so I stopped. I asked a few threads up (the |url-status=dead
one) whether directly citing an archive page is against any guidance, and which, but never got an answer.
Folly Mox (
talk) 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
indiscriminately is not condoned by any guideline or policy; it serves no purpose, it's disruptive and borderline vandalism. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 02:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Many links have no archive's available, and never will– if you add a citation to a web page, please consider explicitly telling the wayback machine to archive the page. There's no need to link the archived page from the citation on Wikipedia (which for still-living links in my opinion is somewhat spammy), but when the link eventually (probably) dies, there will be an archive available. Edit: I just clicked your username and see that you work for the Internet Archive and I'm not telling you anything new. A citation to a website without any kind of publication date involved should clearly have an access date if possible. But if the page cannot be archived, is not reproduced anywhere else, and does not have any kind of offline copy, then as a general rule the citation should probably expire when the website does. – jacobolus (t) 01:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
live on purpose for various news sites where the stories are paywalled at the live site but the IA crawler somehow manages to scrape them without to the paywalling. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
for a web source), I already have the archive.
Folly Mox (
talk) 02:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
|archive-url=
is present. We had a big discussion about doing just that a few months ago either here or at
Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or
Wikipedia talk:Link rot or
User talk:Citation bot or
User talk:InternetArchiveBot, none of which I can ever keep straight. Obviously, nothing came of the discussion, but I just ran into an |access-date=
to a print source that some previous editor had placed in an html comment that reminded me of that potential avenue to harmonious collaboration.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)|access-date=
s that match neither the |archive-date=
nor today
. I thought it was an error.It sounds like what people really want for most cases is |reference-added-date=
. For the record, since participating in this thread, I've stopped removing |access-date=
for print sources and archived dead links, instead placing them in html comments like some other editor inspired me to do. It upcrufts the wikicode a bit, but hides the dates in the displayed article. I still think doing this in the template rather than manually is the preferred solution. I've also once or twice just cited an archive snapshot directly, but usually forget and do it the regular way.
Folly Mox (
talk) 02:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
|access-date=
, just because it somehow bugs them that in their personal reality tunnel it doesn't align with the cited source type or its other parameters, with what their favored off-line citation style does with the equivalent of access-date, or what someone says is the "real" reason the parameter exists. The actual real reasons, plural, that the parameter exists are the actual uses that we put it to. We, the editors working on the content, are the dog. The template coding "elegance" tail does not wag us (most expecially not in a template system that is built up in layers of cruft and kluges instead of having been designed comprehensively and elegantly from scratch). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 06:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)From Sam Bankman-Fried:
(the archive URL gets past paywall). This is a book excerpt, according to the bottom of the article: "Extracted from Going Infinite". I'm confused what is the best way to cite it. The source material is the book, although I don't know if it is copy-pasted verbatim, copyedited, or pieced together. Regardless, the book is the source material. Should we instead cite the book? That works, but it is not available online, so is harder to verify, and there is no page number, and I don't own the book to find out. If The Times is cited, shouldn't it at least say somewhere it is extracted from the book, and how to do that? -- Green C 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lewis |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Lewis |title=Sam Bankman-Fried: the rise and crash of a crypto billionaire |url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-trial-collapse-crypto-bd90l2t2s |website=The Times |date=November 2, 2023 |access-date=November 11, 2023 |archive-date=November 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20231102155810/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-trial-collapse-crypto-bd90l2t2s |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }} (Extracted from ''[[Going Infinite]]'')</ref>
|coda=
for tacking on trailing strings to communicate what doesn't fit anywhere else. A few templates I have written included a coda argument, it's the very last thing rendered. It could result in misuse, but at least it would be machine-readable instead of floating outside the template where it is hard to maintain. --
Green
C 00:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't need much of an explanation.
IMDb is one of the most useful references for movies, documentaries, etc. so I suggest we add an |imdb=
parameter. --
bender235 (
talk) 18:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
|doi=
or |isbn=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)|oclc=
if it's a stable identifier you're wanting.
Folly Mox (
talk) 22:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
|url=
field when it should ideally by a |imdb=
parameter. --
bender235 (
talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Glatzer has two granddaughters, Johanna Wechsler and Rina Redrup.If this information is in the film described by the IMDb page, just cite the film: no need for the URL. Folly Mox ( talk) 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
documented usage:
{{cite podcast | url= <!-- required --> | title= | website= | publisher= | host= | date= | time= | access-date= }}
also works:
{{cite podcast |url= |first1= |last1= |last2= |first2= |author1-link= |author2-link= |title= |website= |publisher= |date= |access-date= }}
Vertical integration of podcast companies and market evolution leads to the neglect of parameters:
|episode name= |podcast series name= |podcast distribution network=
add new parameters? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
|episode=
, |series=
, |network=
. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Template:Cite episode/doc currently provides an example with which the current template implementation produces incorrect COinS data:
{{cite episode |title=Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit |series=Inside the Actors Studio |date=8 October 2007 |url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit |network=Bravo |season=13 |number=1307 |last=Lipton |first=James (host)}}
<cite id="CITEREFLipton2007" class="citation episode cs1">Lipton, James (host) (8 October 2007). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit">"Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit"</a>. <i>Inside the Actors Studio</i>. Season 13. Episode 1307. Bravo.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Inside+the+Actors+Studio&rft.series=Season+13.+Episode+1307&rft.date=2007-10-08&rft.aulast=Lipton&rft.aufirst=James+%28host%29&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bravotv.com%2FInside_the_Actors_Studio%2Fguest%2FBilly_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ATemplate%3ACite+episode" class="Z3988"></span>
The relevant portion is rft.aufirst=James (host)
. "(host)" isn't part of a first name, so this is incorrect.
Options to resolve this issue:
|host-last=
, |host-first=
, |guest-last=
|last1=
Daask ( talk) 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
If such roles are to be codified, the role choices should be either instrumental or auxiliary in discovering the cited work. It makes no sense to include random roles just because Wikipedia editors are using them in citations 10 times or 10000 times, when they do not help in verification. Agreed-upon international cataloguing and metadata standards list a variety of usable roles (usable in the sense that catalogued works include the role nomenclature and its related person/entity in the item's description). These roles are used by all kinds of participating information repositories (trade organizations, publishers, libraries, accessible online databases etc) to list their works. Using these same roles works can be easily discovered.
|people=
parameter seems to get at this "need" already anyway, though I'm not certain it's supported by the entire CS1 template family, and it has the deficit of not generating useful metadata.
{{cite episode |title=Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit |series=Inside the Actors Studio |date=8 October 2007 |url=http://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit |network=Bravo |season=13 |number=1307 |people=Lipton, James (host)}}
<cite class="citation episode cs1">Lipton, James (host) (8 October 2007). <a class="external text" href="https://www.bravotv.com/Inside_the_Actors_Studio/guest/Billy_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit">"Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit"</a>. <i>Inside the Actors Studio</i>. Season 13. Episode 1307. Bravo.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Inside+the+Actors+Studio&rft.series=Season+13.+Episode+1307&rft.date=2007-10-08&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bravotv.com%2FInside_the_Actors_Studio%2Fguest%2FBilly_Crystal_-_2nd_Visit&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser%3ASMcCandlish%2Fsandbox+22" class="Z3988"></span>
|people=
(also |credits=
) is an equal alias of |authors=
so doesn't contribute to the citation's metadata for the same reason.|authorn=
, |lastn=
, |firstn=
is a good solution because Chinese (Japanese and Korean too?) names aren't necessarily bi-directionally transliterate-able between scripts so quite often you will see both the original zh-Hant or zh-Hans script parenthtically included with a latin transliteration.|people=
, |credits=
, |hostn=
(this one is an equal alias of |authorn=
) to {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, {{
cite serial}}
.My heart sinks when I see "Script warning: One or more {{ cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help)." because so often the message is hidden.
In my experience, the most common cause of this error is that the journal name has not been supplied (or doesn't do so using journal=
). If there are many journal citations, it can take an unreasonable time to find the one in error and correct it. Surely the very first thing the syntax error checking algorithm should do when checking a {{
cite journal}} call is that there is actually a named journal?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
template. Creation of that template should be the last impediment to unhiding the missing periodical error message for {{
cite journal}}
and {{
cite magazine}}
.{{
cite web}}
without |website=
and {{
cite news}}
without |newspaper=
.
Kanguole 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite document}}
no longer redirects to {{
cite journal}}
as it once did. What is the additional issuethat you are complaining about?
{{
cite magazine}}
? Why not?margin? My experience with these
{{
cite magazine}}
errors is that editors abuse the template in much the same way that they abuse {{
cite journal}}
.|work=
has been specified. Not sure how many of the member articles stem from that combination.
Folly Mox (
talk) 17:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I conclude that the consensus is strongly in favour of unhiding Cite journal requires |journal= and Cite magazine requires |magazine= error messages. My reading of the
WP:AN discussion is that the flame-out was over a sudden imposition of a demand for {{
cite news}} to have a work=
(which could be argued but that's another discussion) and {{
cite web}} to have a website=
(which has always seemed redundant to me). There were also many instances of {{
cite document}} redirecting to cite journal and thus throwing up false positives: that problem has been fixed with the new template for documents.
@
Trappist the monk:, make it so! (I've always wanted a good excuse to say that
). --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk) 17:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; messages may be hidden (
help).{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; (
help).{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; (
control error message display).{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors; (
general help) - see the help link next to each error for assistance specific to that error{{Cite ...}}
templates have errors. Click the help link next to each error for assistance for that type of error.Since May I have been picking away at
Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter. Today that category is more-or-less empty. |authors=
has been 'discouraged' in the documentation since
June 2016. I have marked |authors=
as deprecated in
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox and will tweak the template documentation to show that the parameter is deprecated.
|authors=
has two aliases: |people=
and |credits=
; these parameters are not deprecated.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|author=
to list multiple authors, right? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|authors=
render with a maintenance message:
|authors=
will render with an error message:
|authors=
makes the author name-list parameters consistent with the other name-list parameters. For the other name lists:
|authors=Elizabeth, Middleton Maria, Baroness, Susan, Amy Maria
, invented by me, demonstrates ambiguities in parsing by humans and machines (it's Middleton Maria Elizabeth, Susan Baroness, and Amy Maria .. or, Baroness Middleton Maria Elizabeth and Amy Maria Susan). The solution to use ";" between names is nice in theory but in reality free form gives expected results: names that are not consistently parsable. --
Green
C 19:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
|authors=
the only 'complaints' were related to these articles:
|authors=
were done using various AWB scripts. After a time I tweaked the scripts so that they would skip Editor Nikkimaria's articles. I did not do that for any other articles because no other editor complained either directly or indirectly.|author=
. You have named another: editors will switch to using free-text citations. I have given a third: editors will simply not provide the data. The first case would necessitate additional work to provide any improvement for data reusers; the other two would worsen the situation for reusers (which is why reuser-focused "improvements" that worsen the editor experience are problematic).
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|editor7-last=
etc., or who want to cite something in a way that doesn't vibe with whatever the metadata standard is (location without publisher, book that is part of a larger work, "chapter" of a website, or whatever).
Folly Mox (
talk) 03:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
an alternative easy / freeform mode for editors who don't want to type editor7-last" Don't the vcite templates already offer this? Rjjiii ( talk) 06:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|vauthors=
which does the same as authors, but in an established style. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested ∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 11:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|authors=
thing that is the immediate discussion here isn't my fight, but it seems true that in general, the CS1 templates – which are essentially equivalent to house style at this point – have been in the recent past moving towards clean metadata for reusers and away from usability for Wikipedia editors.I don't know if the solution is training everyone to produce citation data that can be cleanly reused by downstream people, forking the citation system so there's alternatives for editors who don't want to deal with all the nuances of best practice, subjecting major changes in the citation templates to broader community consensus, or what. But it's evident that we're coming to, at, or beyond the point where there's conflicting interests.I'm really deeply appreciative for all of Trappist's work on these templates, which I use all the time, every day, and frequently convert plaintext citations into. I'm not trying to invalidate any of that, and maybe I'd have a different perspective if I had any idea who "reuses" citation metadata from Wikipedia, how they reuse it, and for what.
Folly Mox (
talk) 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
proposed change ... attempts to prioritize one set of stakeholders(emphasis added). Three of the stakeholder sets that benefit from this proposed change are our readers-set, the everyday-editor-set, and the gnome-editor-set. The intent is to make all name-list parameters consistent across all of the name lists. Deprecating
|authors=
helps our readers because free-form name-lists are just that; there are as many ways to write a free-form name-list as there are editors who write those lists. Yeah, we can say in the documentation that the names of individual authors in the list shall be separated by semicolons not commas but don't hold your breath for editors to do that (the vast majority of names in |authors=
that I have fixed over the past months were separated with commas (Name, Name, Name, Name, ... – is that a list of Last, First names or a list of Last names only? Sometimes it's not possible to tell without consulting the source). Deprecating |authors=
helps the everyday-editor-set by making name-list entry of any stripe (author, contributor, editor, interviewer, translator) use similarly named parameters; supporting one-off parameters just causes confusion. Deprecating |authors=
helps the gnome-editor-set by reducing the amount of work that must be done to fix citations written by conscientious editors who used |authors=
because it is listed in the documentation as a valid parameter.|authors=
in a template's COinS metadata. Readers who use reference management software to consume our citations do not get that critical author metadata. All readers, whether they are reading with their own eyes or by the eyes of a machine, are entitled to complete and accurately rendered citations.$rft.aulast
, $rft.aufirst
, and $rft.au
k/v pairs in the COinS metadata. All readers are entitled to the best citation rendering that we can provide; continuing to support |authors=
because most readers don't care about properly rendered citations deprives those readers who do care.|authorn=
and |lastn=
to do the same as they do with |authors=
– if we are to believe
this archive snapshot from 2023-08-05, editors abuse |author=
and |last=
more often than they use |authors=
. These days, most editors, even those who don't care, don't have to be intimately familiar with cs1|2 templates because we have VisualEditor and RefToolbar which will do the grunt work for them. These tools don't need and should not use |authors=
.|authors=
–
Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list will still be there for those who enjoy cleaning up after inexperienced or lazy editors.|authors=
.|author=
or |last=
(they already do) and someone, someday, will cleanup after them. We don't need |authors=
it should be deprecated and then support for it should be withdrawn.I can't see the utility in maintaining a variant parameter because one editor objected over five articles. Splitting out multiple authors to use first and last names is desirable on metadata grounds and furthermore is not hard. Seven years of a deprecation warning is more than enough time. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Another point here is that most new citations will have been generated automatically. I create a lot of cites and a negligible fraction are hand written. Also new editors are pointed to tools that allow for the auto-creation of cites. None of the tools will generate a cite that contains this parameter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 13:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|author-link=
, |script-title=
, etc. But you bring up a good point that many new cites do come from scripts, and it makes a lot more sense to direct energies towards improving Citoid and the things that call it, than it does to twiddle uncommon bespoke parameters that it doesn't deal with.
Folly Mox (
talk) 16:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)|display-authors=etal
. Regardless, corrections should be propagated: doing so will require machine-readable parameters to get it right.
Ifly6 (
talk) 18:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
|display-authors=4
and then just not entering more than 4 names out of the 100 is not the way elide them. The way to do it properly is |display-authors=etal
after the fourth (or whatever) author you do want to specify. That's the reason that special etal
parameter value exists. (The way-old method of doing something like {{|para|author5|et al.}} and stopping with author entry thereafter is deprecated and has probably already been replaced system-wide (I haven't seen an instance of it in a long time), since it produces blatantly false metadata that claims an author's name literally is "et al."PS: We also need to update the |display-authors=
parameter doc to make it clear that this is only for suppressing reader-unhelpfully large lists of authors (dozens or more), not for forcibly conforming all citations in a page to an artificially short list like 3 names. I've run into a case of a guy doing this robotically at articles he has an interest in, and even after it is explained to him that suppressing data we have already entered on 4 or 6 or whatever authors and hiding it from the reader on purpose is utterly pointless and defeats the purpose of entering the author information, and he has no consensus to do it, he just editwars to do it again anyway. I've not made it a noticeboard matter yet, but we're probably going there.Agree with the deprecation of |authors=
. For reference, what we have now is:
authors: Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
Trappist the monk changed this to:
authors: deprecated
Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
but was reverted by Nikkimaria.
Arguably it should have been:
authors: deprecated
Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
since that provides one of the deprecation reasons, and the closing statement remains correct.
Regardless, the idea that people should be using any "free-form list of author names" at all when we have |first=
|last=
and |firstn=
|lastn=
is rather nonsensical. [Maybe with the exception of |vauthors=
, though I think that should be deprecated too, since Vancouver style conflicts with other guidance like
MOS:INITIALS, and produces confusing output in many cases, e.g. where jammed-together initials coincide with conventional biographical acronyms like MD. Even if we keep |vauthors=
, it should be replaced with first/last params in any article that is not consistently using Vancouver style; normalize to a consistent citation style per
WP:CITEVAR, and normalize to the more sensible one used by 99+% of our editors.] Yes, we will have some lazy or confused people abuse |author=
or |last=
for multiple authors (which already happens all the time anyway), but it would be better to have primarily one form of parameter abuse to look for and clean up after than multiple conflicting ones. For someone who simply cannot wrap their head around CS1 templating, or who has text-entry mobility issues and can't deal with it, or whatever, they can just do <ref>Freeform text here</ref>
, and someone will clean up after it later. It is much easier to see and clean up after that than to catch template-buried misuses of parameters. We have no reason whatsoever to have a CS1 parameter that effectively not just replicates freeform ref text but encourages people to do freeform input (and even |vauthors=
isn't freeform, but a prescribed, if very unhelpful, format). Either use the templates properly or don't use the templates. There is no point of any kind in a template parameter that basically resolves to "didn't use the template properly", which is exactly what |authors=
is, as presently documented and non-deprecated. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
|vauthors=
was something of a compromise
in 2015 to get people off of one of the alternatives mentioned above. The structure of the format is the predominant reason why it was accepted into this series of templates. To me this is the wrong tree to be barking up.
Izno (
talk) 08:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)I also agree with deprecating the parameter for the reasons already stated. As one of the gnomes who has also picked at the authors category, and one of the primary gnomes responsible for cleaning out the 5000 someodd uses of |editors=
before that too was removed, Trappist's examples of garbage citations don't even cover the spectrum of misuses of this parameter (and its now-removed cousins like |editors=
). His and SMC's commentary on this are fully in alignment with my views. I'm glad he got this parameter to the point where we can finally be entertaining this discussion.
As stated above, for the users who really do not want to or even cannot take the time to add citations in a structured or even consistent manner, |author=
remains with
its own category capturing misuses which gnomes work on at whatever pace suits. That parameter won't be going anywhere and certainly neither will the category catching those misuses, but "I can't be assed to input my dozen authors correctly right now" is not a sufficient or even good excuse to continue supporting what is a duplicate parameter.
Izno (
talk) 08:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Simply not adding all of the authors in the first place is an example of a problem, not a solution: Absolutely nobody – and I mean absolutely nobody – is best served by listing all 5,154 authors of G Aad et al, Phys Rev Lett 114, 191803 (2015). Ifly6 ( talk) 00:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
|display-authors=etal
. But another thing we absolutely don't need is, after we've gone to the trouble of specifying 7 authors here and a dozen there and 4 on that one, and 9 on this other one, as complete author lists, having some rando later editwar to force them all to |display-authors=3
just to be a bonehead who likes suppressing information. Whether 15 authors, or 20, or 40 is "too many" to list seems really up to editorial judgment at an article, but if we already have the information in the citation, it is hard to think of a rational reason to hide the data from the readers. If someone is absolutely certain that 30 authors is too many, they should get consensus to trim the actual included list of them to a shorter number and elide the rest with |display-authors=etal
. But keeping them all in the code then using trickery to suppress readers' ability to see them, like |display-authors=10
when there are 30 already coded, is just ridiculous. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)|authors=
. I have restored the reverted edits to the module suite and the documentation.*authors: deprecated
Free-form list of author names; use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata; not an alias of last.
Hello,
I don't know if this has been discussed before and rejected, and I'm not even 100% sure it's a good idea myself given that the case is rare. Right now, it appears that a period unconditionally appears after a title or chapter param. This probably simplifies the logic and also might make parsing the text easier. That said, it is a little odd if the title ends with punctuation such as "?", "!", or "...". Is it worth sticking some logic in there to omit the period in those cases as unnecessary?
Examples (title first, then chapter):
It's also possible that maybe this change makes less sense for chapter titles specifically, as there's an additional layer of quotation marks wrapping it. It also might look okay if there's a url= parameter, as the title will be linked but the period won't be, separating it some. But the "?." looks kinda doofy if a url isn't set, and I suspect it would be outright confusing for titles that end in an ellipsis (Reader: did the author intentionally pick four periods, or is it three periods + a Wikipedia-placed period?). Any thoughts? SnowFire ( talk) 19:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
safe_join()
. There is an existing hack that should correctly handle ellipses:
{{cite book |title=Title...}}
→ Title...Presently the templates are being "too smart for their own good" and throwing an error when they encounter something like |volume=VI: ''The Reformation''
, and I am desirous that this misbehavior stop. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC |title=Mammals of the Soviet Union |volume=2, Pt. 2: ''Carnivora (Hyenas and Cats)'' |isbn=9004088768 |last=Heptner |first=V. G. |date=1989}}
|title=Mammals of the Soviet Union, Vol. 2, Pt. 2: Carnivora (Hyenas and Cats)
. I don't know why it's working now and didn't work yesterday. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 21:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)Is there a reason the various CS1 templates are inconsistent in their ordering of TemplateData parameters? They generally agree on author names being first, but then the order after that varies wildly. If there is no reason for this inconsistency, we should establish a standardized order — perhaps based on {{ Cite web}}, since it's the most commonly used. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 05:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
warning}}
template was added by Editor
GreenC at
this edit. I agree that fussing with the parameter order in template data is likely a waste of time because anyone can edit the template data to add, remove, rearrange, whatever as they please. If you normalize parameter order for all twenty-eight cs1 templates and {{
citation}}
(and all of their wrapper templates?) I suspect that you will forever be chasing after random edits restoring your preferred order. Seems like a lot of work for no real benefit.I would certainly object to gnomes or bots going around making edits that change the parameter order in articles. That sort of thing makes it very difficult for humans looking at watchlists to figure out which edits made actual changes and which are cosmetic. I would prefer that the order be left in place unless you are making significant other changes to the citations. For what it's worth, the order I often use is authors first and then alphabetical by parameter name. I'm not going to defend that as a good order, but it's what the software I use produces and so I'm very unlikely to change that habit. That said, I don't care what order they are listed in TemplateData, as long as people editing articles don't think that the order is meaningful. So if you think your time is well spent making meaningless changes to TemplateData, go ahead. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Of late there has been a bit of churn at Template:Citation Style documentation/url, likely due to discussion at User talk:Citation bot § Removing url-status = live.
To minimize the documentation churn, we should discuss here and then change the documentation.
You will note from the Citation bot discussion that there are those who believe that |url-status=<any legit value>
should be allowed anytime and others who disagree (I am firmly in this latter camp).
The recent churn at the documentation template caused me to take a hard look at the documentation for |url-status=
which, to me, has become a rather confusing mishmash so I propose to replace it with something like this:
|url=
or |archive-url=
to link |title=
; requires url and archive-url. Use {{
dead link}}
to mark dead |url=
when there is no |archive-url=
.
dead
– (default when |url-status=
omitted or empty) selects |archive-url=
live
– selects |url=
; used when |url=
is preemptively archiveddeviated
– selects |archive-url=
; used when |url=
is still 'live' but no-longer supports the text in a Wikipedia articleunfit
– selects |archive-url=
; used when |url=
links to porn, spam, advertising, or other unsuitable sites; links to |url=
are suppressed in the renderingusurped
– selects |archive-url=
; used when |url=
links to information unrelated to the original link; links to |url=
are suppressed in the renderingThe current version doesn't clearly state the purpose of the parameter so I started there and then rewrote, as a list, the various keyword definitions. I removed mention of maintenance messaging because that just adds to the mess (and if we discuss maint messages here, we'll end up discussing them everywhere... so more mess elsewhere.
Opinions?
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
|archive-url=
can we say requires?|url=
and|archive-url=
|archive-url=
already requires |url=
. I will say I don't really like the {{
dead link}} alternate (no idea how common this is), since it requires navigating to the end of the template call, and typing in a date, rather than just adding a parameter wherever. I understand this is probably easier on a keyboard.
Folly Mox (
talk) 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
|url=
in the requirements more tightly binds the three parameters together as a unit and by doing so (perhaps) editors might be less likely to add stand-alone |url-status=
to a citation (or not).|url-status=dead
to a cs1|2 template that doesn't have |archive-url=
with value does not now add the article to an
Articles with dead external links category and should not do so in the future; that is not the purpose of |url-status=dead
(and wasn't the purpose of its predecessor |dead-url=yes
). And you don't have to type the date... AnomieBOT will do that for you.Agree with everything Trappist the Monk said. It makes no sense for the CS1|2 template to mark dead links, and then other non-CS1|2 templates use {{
dead link}}
, plus square and bare URLs - it's a confusing mismatch of systems that will be prone to error eg. people using one system, or another system, or both systems. Then there is all the legacy issues. 100s of bots, reports, tools, etc.. are configured to do things as they are. It will lead to breakages, errors, that will take years to resolve and cause a lot of damage upstream eg. reFill will take decades to fix at current pace, and VE who knows. Then there is the user-base, literally millions of brains which have been hard-wired by 15+ years of doing things this way that need change, it's unnecessarily disruptive. Once you know how its done, it's not hard to follow or understand. --
Green
C 04:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The only problem here is that |url-status=
name causes confusion, which inturn leads to it being misused. The solution to that is not continued misuse. Clarification of how it should be used is definitely a step in the right direction. So inagre definitely agree with Trappist. Using {{
dead links}} is a separate template the same as any other maintenance tag, citation needed, clarify, dubious for instance. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested ∆
transmissions∆ °
co-ords° 10:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Per Nikki's comment above, here's a version of what I posted at the bot's talk. I have two use cases, one for |url-status=dead
and one for |url-status=live
.
This URL will quite possibly go out of date in months; a quarterly update at that website causes pages like this to be regenerated and the URL may change (it's difficult to predict whether or not it will change, for reasons I can explain if anyone cares). When I create a link to that URL, it's live and not deviated, but I know it's possibly going to go out of date so I always add the archiveURL when I can. I have also been putting in |url-status=dead
, because otherwise someone reviewing the links is likely to mark it as live. (At a recent FAC source review a reviewer suggested marking one of these as live, not dead, for example.)
The use case for |url-status=live
without archive-URL is when archive.org is down or refusing to archive, which happens fairly often. I try to always archive links when adding the citation; I think that's best practice. If I can't do the archive, then for the links I know are going to be stable long-term I add |url-status=live
so that if someone else comes along and adds an archive URL it won't default to the archive link in the citation.
I understand that neither use case exactly fits the intended use of these parameters, but they are natural ways to use them. My main complaint about the bot having removed them is that they are not inaccurate (they don't lead to erroneous output HTML) and they don't incorrectly represent reality. A response at the other conversation was that they do lead to maintenance message output, but if these use cases are a natural way to interpret the parameters I don't think these parameter states should generate maintenance messages. What is the harm in allowing this usage? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
live
– selects |url=
and shows link to |archive-url=
; used when |url=
is pre-emptively archived with |archive-url=
dead
and deviated
– (default condition when |url-status=
omitted or empty) select |archive-url=
and show link to |url=
. dead
is used as an indication to editors when a link no longer exists, and deviated
when |url=
is still 'live' but no-longer supports the article text.unfit
and usurped
– select |archive-url=
and do not link to |url=
. unfit
is used for a |url=
that now links to porn, spam, advertising, or other unsuitable sites.usurped
is used when |url=
links to information unrelated to the original linkdead
and deviated
cannot both be the default condition. The definitions for unfit
and usurped
have been refined to distinguish one from the other since your writing.{{
cbignore}}
was added by
User:Frabrikator
Special:Diff/1001248446/1001281991. Possibly IABot at the time was occasionally converting archive.today links to Wayback due to a bug now fixed - it no longer does that. I removed it. --
Green
C 02:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)|url-status=drift
or |url-status=drifted
or |url-status=drifting
. Most likely "drifted". I doubt there are so many we can't easily modify via bot. As a bonus they both start with "d", and drifted is fewer letter and syllables. (IMO deviated sounds vaguely sinister, like deviant, which is the purpose of unfit and usurped.) It would help get everyone on the same page inside and outside Wikipedia with the same terminology of content drift. --
Green
C 17:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Requesting a new parameter value: |url-status=paywall would mean that the link works only if the user is paying to access it. Commenter8 ( talk) 16:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
|url-status=
is at
Template:Cite book § Subscription or registration required. There, the term '
paywall' is used as part of the definition of the keyword subscription
. Is that not sufficient? If not, how is it not sufficient?Hello! The Russian Wikipedia uses this module, as well as other modules that display source templates differently, for example:
Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review". Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858–1866. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved October 18, 2013.
Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review (en.) // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36, no. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. Retrieved October 18, 2013.
Tell me, is it possible to use different styles for different templates? Are there render settings for each type? This module is very difficult to understand and I need help :) Iniquity ( talk) 19:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Our templatesyou mean ru.wiki's templates, not en.wiki's templates. There are a lot of wikis that take a copy of en.wiki's Module:Citation/CS1 suite of modules. Each wiki can, and many do, modify their copy to suit their particular needs. Because there are so many wikis that have copies of the en.wiki module suite, it is impracticable to have simple settings to change the rendering.
{{
cite journal}}
template from the first of your two example renderings:
{{cite journal |author=Aries, Myriam B. C. |author2=Newsham, Guy R. |name-list-style=amp |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021 |access-date=October 18, 2013}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)|name-list-style=
so the ru.wiki rendering does not have the ampersand between the author names and at ru.wiki emits a Неизвестный параметр error message. The ru.wiki rendering does not emit an error message for |access-date=
-requires-|url=
; uses curly quotes, an emdash separator between page numbers, and capitalizes the doi prefix. Certainly this experiment does not look anything like the Our templatesexample.
|author=
→ |автор=
– apparently |автор=
cannot be enumerated so values from |author=
and |author2=
must be concatenated into a single value|date=
→ |год=
|title=
→ |заглавие=
|edition=
→ |издание=
|volume=
→ |том=
|issue=
, |number=
→ |номер=
|pages=
→ |страницы=
{{Статья}}
from the translator module:
{{Статья |автор=Aries, Myriam B. C. & Newsham, Guy R. |год=2008 |заглавие=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |издание=Energy Policy |том=36 |номер=6 |страницы=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
We have done that here for a few languages that make extensive use of Module:Citation/CS1. See Module:CS1 translator.
Of course it is, if you're willing to put in the work and are willing to redo the work every time someone at ru.wiki decides to update the module suite. I guess I gotta wonder if it might be easier to write a translator module that maps non-Russian parameter names to their Russian counterparts and then calls the appropriate Russian template.
format_chapter_title()
, language_parameter()
, format_pages_sheets()
, etc – while other parts and the whole are assembled in citation0()
. This is why I suggested that you create a translator module if you must produce a rendering that is so distinctly different from a cs1|2 rendering.I already requested that earlier at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_72#Request_for_the_"nbk"_(NCBI_bookshelf)_attribute_for_"cite_book" but nobody replied, can you please consider this request again?
Please add the "nbk" attribute for the "cite book" template to specify the NCBI NBK number. You already have the "pmc" and "pmid" attributes, but the "nbk" is different. It refers to the NCBI bookshelf site that has different URL forman than PubMed Central. The URL to the bookshelf looks like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557634/ (where 557634 is the NCBI NBK number). My idea is when you specify the "nbk" to the "cite book", the direct URL to the book at the NBI site will be generated. Currently, NCBI bookshelf books cannot be accessed directly from Wikipedia or other Wikimedia cites that allow the "cite book" template. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 01:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|url=
? Are we expecting cases where the full text is available at some other URL but also available by NCBI? If so, do we need to care? —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|url=
already "give[s] a technical oportunity to link to the content directly". We shouldn't add custom linking parameters for source databases unless we're certain they have a lot of material we want to use as sources and the parameter would be frequently used by editors for reliable ones. The fact that you can find material that is reachable by |pmc=
but which isn't good source material isn't an argument to add a new |nbk=
parameter. PS: I checked the three PMIDs you gave above; one is a duplicate, and the other two just go to more of this StatPearls junk. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|nbk=
saves no work at all. Yes, and so what? It is not harmful or an imposition in any way to type |url=
and paste a URL into it; this will actually be faster and easier that typing |nbk=
, selecting a particular string perfectly from a URL, and pasting that in. No, my reasoning is that you haven't presented a valid use case for this, and when pressed for examples that might qualify as sources we would use you've just coughed up more links to the same poor source material. Finally, the fact that your poor source can be found via other searches is completely irrelevant to both whether it is a source we should use and whether we should have an |nbk=
parameter. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 03:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
|id=
field and the {{
NCBIBook}} template.{{citation |last1=Kinter |first1=KJ |last2=Amraei |first2=R |last3=Anekar |first3=AA |title=Biochemistry, Dihydrotestosterone. |date=January 2023 |pmid=32491566 |id={{NCBIBook|NBK557634}}}}
Sometime ago I happened to read in this page that the use of year parameter was discouraged; but now I am unable to find that topic anymore. Do I have to assume that the year parameter is reinstated in full? Thanks. Carlotm ( talk) 02:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Carlotm ( talk) 06:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Page: Module:Citation/CS1. When I was worked at adaption some parameters from English Wiki to Ukrainian Wiki, I found out that at the line 2648 in module Citation/CS1: "if (utilities.in_array (config.CitationClass, {'book', 'encyclopaedia'}) and (utilities.is_set (Periodical) or utilities.is_set (ScriptPeriodical) or utilities.is_set (ScriptPeriodical))) then" there is mispelled parameter. Because there are two ScriptPeriodical and they are in if statement, so there in no to double check the same parameter twice. Therefore, I think one of the parameter needs to be changed to TransPeriodical. Repakr ( talk) 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : |trans-newspaper= ignored (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : |trans-newspaper= ignored (
help)
|