This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here. |
This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello everyone! While translating the module into Russian, I encountered one issue - some participants do not want to use the CMS or APA style, but prefer styles that correspond to their own language. For Russian, this is GOST.
I attempted to fix the render [1], but it was very challenging because the entire rendering is scattered throughout the code and sometimes is completely illogical and opaque.
I believe that since individual languages and language projects have different standards for source representation (different component order, formatting, different sets of data), it would be very helpful to simplify editing this representation in a common module. Having the ability to remove italics and bold, as well as rearrange components, would be beneficial.
In ruwiki, there are specific templates that I want to transfer to this module, but it's necessary for them to be able to change the render when a certain parameter is entered. For example: citation_style = gost.
Source | {{cite journal |last1=Aries |first1=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
|
APA/CMS | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858—1866. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
GOST | Aries Myriam B. C., Newsham Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review [PDF]. // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36. — Is. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
DIN | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R.: " Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review", Energy Policy, 2008, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, pp. 1858–1866. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
Iniquity ( talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was intended. I went to the archived source and it seems to be part of a book. Pearl Milling Company#cite note-BIA-1— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{{cite book|last=Kern-Foxworth|first=Marilyn|title=Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Rastus: Blacks in advertising, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow|publisher=Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press|year=1994|url=http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books/greenwood|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424192836/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books%2Fgreenwood|archive-date=April 24, 2014|work=Public Relations Review|volume=16 (Fall):59}}
{{
cite book}}
but seems to be citing something (a review?) in
Public Relations Review{{cite book}}
.|work=
and |volume=
details can just be removed. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Module:Citation/CS1 does not accept access from modules that pass "frame.args" and insists on requiring "frame:getParent().args" ? Are you open to allowing others to add such an feature ? Snævar ( talk) 14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
{{#invoke}}
s
Module:Citation/CS1 with at least one parameter needed by the module to identify the calling template: {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite web}}
, {{
citation}}
, etc. For example, {{
cite book}}
has this:
{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=book
}}
|CitationClass=
is passed to the module in the frame object. To get the parameters from this {{cite book}}
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2024 |publisher=Publisher}}
"The only difference between these modules is the CitationClass and what title they return." There's a lot more differences than class and 'title', whatever you mean by that. The different modules accept different parameters, and format them differently. {{
cite arxiv}} for instance, does not support |journal/volume/issue/isbn=
etc...
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
If a citation uses a quoted name in sfnref (e.g., |ref={{sfnref|"Technical Report"|2021}}
, it works fine and looks fine in desktop view. But viewed on mobile, it generates a harv error: the citations see no target source and the source sees no incoming citations. For a real world example, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=East_West_Rail&oldid=1210714109 . Removing the quotes fixes the problem. (In case it matters, "mobile" means Android+Chrome, "desktop" means ChromeBook+Chrome.)
Presumably this needs reporting somewhere, but where? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 11:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
{{urlencode:CITEREF"Technical Report"2021}}
→ CITEREF%22Technical+Report%222021{{anchorencode:CITEREF"Technical Report"2021}}
→ CITEREF"Technical_Report"2021Please see the page 2024 in arthropod paleontology - the PMID limit should be increase, as it gives false positives on PMID values that are over 38400000, such as 38401545. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a repeat of a proposal that has been made twice before:
I quote Matthiaspaul:
This would help to further decouple semantics (which edition?) from presentation (f.e. "3rd ed."). It would not only make it easier to add common edition information, but also improve readability, maintainability and translatability, and it would allow to centrally change the rendering in the future, would this become necessary ("3rd ed.", "third ed.", "third edition" etc.), depending on the output device (f.e., display the abbreviated form "3rd ed." on the small display of a mobile device, but "third edition" on a desktop or printout), or target language (e.g. "third edition", "dritte Ausgabe", etc.).
Jc3s5h suggests that sometimes, particularly for software, there is a "3 edition" which is distinct from a "3rd edition". As a native English speaker I don't perceive a difference between "3rd edition" or "edition 3". They are essentially interchangeable. "3 edition" is just wrong. If the edition name is "3", then it should be displayed as "3rd ed.".
Trappist the monk raised concerns about "other languages where the cs1|2 module suite is used". While I want to respect the challenge of maintainability of the CS1 suite across Wikipedia sites in various languages, and am wholly unaware of the systems in place for this, I don't think this needs to hold us back here. Changing this could be as simple as adding the following to Template:Cite book when it invokes the module, without even modifying the module to be English-specific.
{{Ifnumber|{{{edition|}}}|{{Ordinal|{{{edition}}}}}|{{{edition|}}}}}
I find Matthiaspaul's description of the benefits to be compelling, and don't understand the downsides to this feature. Daask ( talk) 21:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | NFPA 70: National Electrical code (2011 ed.). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 2010. ISBN 978 1 11 154223 8. |
Was helping a user with Draft:Halkalı-Bahçeşehir Rail System and noticed that the bot didn't exactly subst the template properly. Is this an issue with the wrapper or with the original placement of the template? Primefac ( talk) 13:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Oneida has the ISO 639-3 code one. [1] Can this be added so Oneida sources no longer show up under Category:CS1_maint:unrecognized language?
References
Snowman304| talk 05:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
{{#language:one|en}}
|language=Oneida
.See for example OCLC 10146270069, which exceeds the current limit of 10100000000. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Same for PMC limits, which now exceed 10900000. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The following gives a "CS1 maint: untitled periodical" maintenance message, but clearly the periodical is named here.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks like someone last mentioned this a few months ago. The S2CID limit is still too low. For example, /info/en/?search=Pry_(novel) has a working article with an ID of 268071715. Can we maybe bump it up to 269000000 (or 270000000, if we're feeling cheeky)? Snowman304| talk 07:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
When you set url-status to "dead", it signals to use the archive-url by default. But what do you do when the archive-url is also dead, and you can't immediately find a working archive? Mokadoshi ( talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
|archive-url=
, |archive-date=
and |url-status=
), and adding {{
dead link}} with the |fix-attempted=yes
parameter after the cite. Defunct archive URLs are pretty worthless. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This template fails because the character 'ạ' (U+1EA1 ạ LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH DOT BELOW) is not recognized by the Vancouver tests (Vancouver allows only Latin characters):
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Đại LC (2000). Agent Orange in the Vietnam War: History and Consequences. Vietnam Red Cross Society. |
Sandbox | Đại LC (2000). Agent Orange in the Vietnam War: History and Consequences. Vietnam Red Cross Society. |
The fix supports characters from Latin Extended Additional (U+1E00–U+1EFF).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 23–24 March 2024. Here are the changes:
|volume=
and |issue=
;
discussion|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
;
discussion|mode=cs1
and |postscript=none
in {{
citation}}
;
discussiontcommon
assignments;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
|volume=
and |issue=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties.- correct. I don't see why OOB values should exist on Wikidata (unless that limit has yet to be updated after a recent bump). If there are no legitimate uses for OOB values, then I don't see why those limits shouldn't be in Wikidata, regardless of whether or not cs1|2 uses them. If there are legitimate reasons, either I or someone else will remove them. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('The Decameron')
→ Q16438
but the name in Italian: mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('Il Decamerone')
→ nil
). We must always be able to get to the identifier limits; we can do that easily with commons tabular data.The documentation for CS1 currently includes When a source does not have a publication date, use
. However, for citations of things like web pages that don't have a date, I find it much more common to just leave out the date parameter rather than specifying that it has been omitted.
|date=n.d.
I'm curious to hear from others, what do you think the best practice should be for this? Sdkb talk 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
|date=<!--no date-->
, which at least clarifies it for editors.
Sdkb
talk 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget that {{ sfnp}} and related need something in the date field, even if it is means having to use {{sfnp|Doe|n.d.|page=123}}. The notation n.d. is reasonably well recognised and I don't know of any other conventions that are. But I guess it can be left to whoever is pulling together multiple citations of the same source to backfill it. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This one. What is the purpose of this category? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The {{cite book}} template already implements a separate publication-date parameter from CS1. Some journals and their articles have different publication-date, date and orig-date values. The latter is more flexible, but insufficient when there are three different dates, i.e. an article "orig-date=written 1930", published in a journal edition dated "date=2004-2005" and published "publication-date=2006". Ivan ( talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite what you read.Pardon my confusing wording above, but the need does not stem from the requirements of references but of bibliographies, where the works in question are the subject of the article. Some citation styles prefer the date of printing/publication (i.e. 1931), while others prefer the year published for (i.e. 1929/1930). It is not for the bibliographer to decide which must be used, and including both can help resolve confusion from the reader over which date to use given the style required of them. Posthumously published works excepted, most citation styles do not take the date of writing or reception into account, which would free up the orig-date parameter for the publication date, but in bibliographies that parameter is still needed to provide useful information to the reader; for example that the discrepancy between the publication date and that of a familiar author's death is due to posthumous publication. Ivan ( talk) 03:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Citation templates are not intended to handle all possible edge cases.Although such journals are in the minority, it is still very commonly encountered. Very. Other editors have managed to get by with manual additions thanks to the publisher parameter coming last in Citation Style 1, but that doesn't work as well when there are many entries. Nor does it fit as nicely as when it is an in-template parameter. Compare with the output of {{cite book}}: Last, First (2004–2005) [written 1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006).
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Maybe a stupid question, but why is |archive-date required and then checked for matching |archive-url even when the latter already contains the date, like archive.org urls normally do? Wouldn't it make sense to forgo the separate date and just take the one from the url? Or, if it's expected by some processing somewhere else, at least automatically populate the date upon submission instead of rising an error? Since subst exists, this can't be because there's a policy against modifying the user-submitted wikitext. 82.131.19.61 ( talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried to cite a clip from PBS NewsHour on the Orca page.
I suppose PBS is the "Publisher" and the "work" is NewsHour, but that felt awkward and there is a more specific form for audio-visual sources.
Unfortunately, the Serial citation suggests it should not be used for news shows.
/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_serial says it is "for broadcast programs (television, radio, web) which use individual titles for a collection of episodes ... For serial publications, see {{
Cite news}}
and {{
Cite journal}}
."
Unfortunately, making it a news citation caused the system to reject the network property. I assume it would also reject station, which might be essential for local news.
My preference would be that the news and especially the web citation forms allow the additional Serial properties.
My second choice -- which might be good even if the news and web citation forms are expanded -- would be that the instructions for Serial remove the word "individual" (when skimming, I thought it meant each episode had its own name, as some Sitcoms do), and change "For serial publications" to "For _written_ serial publications." JimJJewett ( talk) 19:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! When transferring the module to ruwiki, I decided to see how COinS generally live. The official website is dead [2], there is practically no documentation to be found. OpenURL is dead too [3]. The applications that use it also died, except for Zotero. Shouldn't we think about switching to a new format before everything becomes completely outdated? Or am I worrying in vain and everything is fine? Iniquity ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't find much either. Maybe this one - https://schema.org/Book (RDF/Microdata)? Iniquity ( talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)I don't know of any other metadata standard that could be used as a drop-in replacement for COinS.
— User:Trappist the monk 21:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to cite a journal that has a volume parameter with "New Series" or "N.S."? For example, in Origin of the Huns:
{{cite journal |last=de la Vaissière |first=Étienne |title=Is There a "Nationality of the Hephtalites"? |journal=Bulletin of the Asia Institute |volume=N.S. 17 |year=2003 |pages=119–132 |jstor=24049310}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
See Help:Citation_Style_1#Edition_identifiers and note 3 in particular. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to remove the "volume has extra text" error in {{
Cite Pacer}}
? Each instance in
Template:Cite Pacer#Examples and
Template:Cite Pacer/testcases now has the error. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
|volume=
and |issue=
for all cs1|2 templates except {{
cite journal}}
. It appears that |case-prefix=
is not used in any {{
cite Pacer}}
templates so perhaps you might change the template source to remove support for |case-prefix=
and change |volume=
to |number=
?If I want to cite a standalone article preprint, made available by a university through an hdl link, how can I?
|type=preprint
is best?Is there some way to make {{ cite preprint}} less fussy about what kind of availability counts as a preprint? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite preprint}}
is just a wrapper template around the cs1 templates {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite medrxiv}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
. It is not intended to support arbitrary preprints of any other sort. It has been suggested that the preprint templates should be replaced with a 'generic' {{cite preprint}}
template. As I recall there wasn't much enthusiasm for that.|type=none
.I am citing an article which was published in two journals (one US and the other UK). This is useful information for readers who may have access to one but not the other. I cannot see how to show this. "postscript=" gives an error message and there does not seem to be any other way. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
(and all of the other cs1|2 templates) are designed to support one source at a time.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Author |date= |title= |journal=[the US journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}
*also published in: {{cite journal |author=Author |author-mask=2 |date= |title= |journal=[the UK journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}</ref>
I have removed support for the deprecated |authors=
parameter from the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (
help)
|
This leaves us with |people=
and |credits=
as the only 'free-form' name-list parameters.
Support for |people=
is documented in {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite mailing list}}
, {{
cite map}}
, {{
citation}}
. Search results:
|people=
:
|credits=
:
Support for |credits=
is documented in {{
cite episode}}
and {{
cite serial}}
. Search results:
|credits=
:
|people=
:
{{
cite episode}}
~90{{cite serial}}
~5It seems to me that {{cite mailing list}}
, {{cite map}}
, and {{citation}}
should not be using |people=
and |credits=
. No doubt there are templates that use |people=
and |credits=
aside from those mentioned here but similar searches to those above show relatively low usage counts; fewer than 100 articles for {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
combined. It seems to me that use of these two parameters should be limited to {{cite av media}}
, {{cite episode}}
, and {{cite serial}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This proposal was originally made 6 days ago but my wording and explanations were poor.
WikiProject Bibliographies is devoted to standalone bibliography articles. Its participants have been responsible for a respectable portion of the List of bibliographies on this project. While many of these bibliographies were written manually from creation, many use citation templates to speed up the process and achieve a lower error rate. Many of the bibliographies that now use manual citations originated with templates and were only converted out of a need to reduce the post-expand include size. Because the works themselves are the subject of the article and require more detail and precision than in regular citations, we often find ourselves pushing the limits of citation templates.
For most of the additional information, corresponding parameters have already been added to {{cite book}}, because the average bibliography article consists mostly of books. Most of what remains can be added after the template. But there is one parameter missing from {{cite journal}} despite already being available in CS1 and having been incorporated into {{cite book}}, that is somewhat frequently encountered and which would benefit from being enabled for {{cite journal}} as well: publication-date. For any book Title, dated 2005 but published 2006, originally typewritten 1930, the output of {{cite book}} would be: Last, First (2005) [1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006). Most books with "two dates" are better served by the orig-date parameter than by publication-date. In the example I just gave, a book may have 2006 on its front cover but 2005 on its inside cover, with 2005 corresponding to the date the printing began and 2006 to the date of publication after the printing ended. Or 2005 could be the date the printing of the first volume began and 2006 the date the individual volume was printed. And so on.
The main reason both have to be given in bibliography articles is because differences in date and publication-date displayed prominently enough on works for the same work to be cited in one date in catalogue/database but under another date in a different catalogue/database. Only the best catalogues/databases have both parameters, and the reader's library or digital library may not be such a catalogue. Because the primary purpose of a bibliography article is to help the reader find works on a given subject, providing both years in our bibliographies allows the reader to search all year values the catalogue could have, in addition to letting them know that they have indeed found the correct work where providing only one date would leave them second guessing (especially if there are title differences). Differences between prominently displayed "date" (Jahrgang, ročnik, rocznik etc.) and date of publication values are actually more common for periodicals ({{cite journal}}) than for books.
Despite the parameter arguably being more important for {{cite journal}} than for {{cite book}}, it has still not been enabled for the former. The interval-discrepancy between Jahrgang (date) and publication date (publication-date) often varies over time. Discrepancies of interval often arise between Jahrgang and volume number and even year number,[†] so you cannot simply enter the Jahrgang in the volume parameter. And because these are bibliography articles, in which the works are the subject of the article, orig-date is often unavailable, thanks to a work being written or typed at a different date, sometimes long before publication, resulting in the work often being cited or even catalogued by the date of writing. Here are some examples of periodicals requiring a separate publication-date parameter in order of increasing complexity:
† Year number would be the closest value to Jahrgang but discrepancies arise when a year is skipped and if it happens more than once, the interval changes. Fortunately, the year number is rarely encountered in catalogues and citations, so although it would be preferable to have a separate year-number parameter, the current guidelines for placing the "year-related value" in the volume parameter work well enough. At least the result is within the citation. The publication-date parameter is also within the citation for {{cite book}}, as it should be for {{cite journal}}.
My request is to enable the publication-date parameter for {{cite journal}}. Ivan ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|publication-date=
is already available in {{
cite journal}}.Can you add "phone" and "email" to the generic name list so you get a "CS1 errors: generic name" error. Thanks Keith D ( talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Langauge is needed on de.wikipedia.org if a German langauge citation is added. Langauge can therefor not be omitted. Theking2 ( talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
|sprache=de
für „deutsch“ ist nicht erforderlich …" [… for German is not required …]. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 11:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here. |
This help page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | ||||||||
|
Hello everyone! While translating the module into Russian, I encountered one issue - some participants do not want to use the CMS or APA style, but prefer styles that correspond to their own language. For Russian, this is GOST.
I attempted to fix the render [1], but it was very challenging because the entire rendering is scattered throughout the code and sometimes is completely illogical and opaque.
I believe that since individual languages and language projects have different standards for source representation (different component order, formatting, different sets of data), it would be very helpful to simplify editing this representation in a common module. Having the ability to remove italics and bold, as well as rearrange components, would be beneficial.
In ruwiki, there are specific templates that I want to transfer to this module, but it's necessary for them to be able to change the render when a certain parameter is entered. For example: citation_style = gost.
Source | {{cite journal |last1=Aries |first1=Myriam B. C. |last2=Newsham |first2=Guy R. |date=2008 |title=Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review |url=http://archive.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc49212/nrcc49212.pdf |journal=Energy Policy |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=1858–1866 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021}}
|
APA/CMS | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R. (2008). "Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review" (PDF). Energy Policy. 36 (6): 1858—1866. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
GOST | Aries Myriam B. C., Newsham Guy R. Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review [PDF]. // Energy Policy. — 2008. — Vol. 36. — Is. 6. — P. 1858–1866. — doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
DIN | Aries, Myriam B. C.; Newsham, Guy R.: " Effect of daylight saving time on lighting energy use: a literature review", Energy Policy, 2008, Vol. 36, Iss. 6, pp. 1858–1866. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.021. |
Iniquity ( talk) 20:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was intended. I went to the archived source and it seems to be part of a book. Pearl Milling Company#cite note-BIA-1— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
{{cite book|last=Kern-Foxworth|first=Marilyn|title=Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and Rastus: Blacks in advertising, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow|publisher=Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press|year=1994|url=http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books/greenwood|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424192836/http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR5184&chapterID=GR5184-561&path=books%2Fgreenwood|archive-date=April 24, 2014|work=Public Relations Review|volume=16 (Fall):59}}
{{
cite book}}
but seems to be citing something (a review?) in
Public Relations Review{{cite book}}
.|work=
and |volume=
details can just be removed. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 00:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason why Module:Citation/CS1 does not accept access from modules that pass "frame.args" and insists on requiring "frame:getParent().args" ? Are you open to allowing others to add such an feature ? Snævar ( talk) 14:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
{{#invoke}}
s
Module:Citation/CS1 with at least one parameter needed by the module to identify the calling template: {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite web}}
, {{
citation}}
, etc. For example, {{
cite book}}
has this:
{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=book
}}
|CitationClass=
is passed to the module in the frame object. To get the parameters from this {{cite book}}
:
{{cite book |title=Title |date=2024 |publisher=Publisher}}
"The only difference between these modules is the CitationClass and what title they return." There's a lot more differences than class and 'title', whatever you mean by that. The different modules accept different parameters, and format them differently. {{
cite arxiv}} for instance, does not support |journal/volume/issue/isbn=
etc...
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
If a citation uses a quoted name in sfnref (e.g., |ref={{sfnref|"Technical Report"|2021}}
, it works fine and looks fine in desktop view. But viewed on mobile, it generates a harv error: the citations see no target source and the source sees no incoming citations. For a real world example, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=East_West_Rail&oldid=1210714109 . Removing the quotes fixes the problem. (In case it matters, "mobile" means Android+Chrome, "desktop" means ChromeBook+Chrome.)
Presumably this needs reporting somewhere, but where? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 11:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
{{urlencode:CITEREF"Technical Report"2021}}
→ CITEREF%22Technical+Report%222021{{anchorencode:CITEREF"Technical Report"2021}}
→ CITEREF"Technical_Report"2021Please see the page 2024 in arthropod paleontology - the PMID limit should be increase, as it gives false positives on PMID values that are over 38400000, such as 38401545. Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 23:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a repeat of a proposal that has been made twice before:
I quote Matthiaspaul:
This would help to further decouple semantics (which edition?) from presentation (f.e. "3rd ed."). It would not only make it easier to add common edition information, but also improve readability, maintainability and translatability, and it would allow to centrally change the rendering in the future, would this become necessary ("3rd ed.", "third ed.", "third edition" etc.), depending on the output device (f.e., display the abbreviated form "3rd ed." on the small display of a mobile device, but "third edition" on a desktop or printout), or target language (e.g. "third edition", "dritte Ausgabe", etc.).
Jc3s5h suggests that sometimes, particularly for software, there is a "3 edition" which is distinct from a "3rd edition". As a native English speaker I don't perceive a difference between "3rd edition" or "edition 3". They are essentially interchangeable. "3 edition" is just wrong. If the edition name is "3", then it should be displayed as "3rd ed.".
Trappist the monk raised concerns about "other languages where the cs1|2 module suite is used". While I want to respect the challenge of maintainability of the CS1 suite across Wikipedia sites in various languages, and am wholly unaware of the systems in place for this, I don't think this needs to hold us back here. Changing this could be as simple as adding the following to Template:Cite book when it invokes the module, without even modifying the module to be English-specific.
{{Ifnumber|{{{edition|}}}|{{Ordinal|{{{edition}}}}}|{{{edition|}}}}}
I find Matthiaspaul's description of the benefits to be compelling, and don't understand the downsides to this feature. Daask ( talk) 21:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | NFPA 70: National Electrical code (2011 ed.). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 2010. ISBN 978 1 11 154223 8. |
Was helping a user with Draft:Halkalı-Bahçeşehir Rail System and noticed that the bot didn't exactly subst the template properly. Is this an issue with the wrapper or with the original placement of the template? Primefac ( talk) 13:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Oneida has the ISO 639-3 code one. [1] Can this be added so Oneida sources no longer show up under Category:CS1_maint:unrecognized language?
References
Snowman304| talk 05:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
{{#language:one|en}}
|language=Oneida
.See for example OCLC 10146270069, which exceeds the current limit of 10100000000. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Same for PMC limits, which now exceed 10900000. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The following gives a "CS1 maint: untitled periodical" maintenance message, but clearly the periodical is named here.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (
link)Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks like someone last mentioned this a few months ago. The S2CID limit is still too low. For example, /info/en/?search=Pry_(novel) has a working article with an ID of 268071715. Can we maybe bump it up to 269000000 (or 270000000, if we're feeling cheeky)? Snowman304| talk 07:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
When you set url-status to "dead", it signals to use the archive-url by default. But what do you do when the archive-url is also dead, and you can't immediately find a working archive? Mokadoshi ( talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
|archive-url=
, |archive-date=
and |url-status=
), and adding {{
dead link}} with the |fix-attempted=yes
parameter after the cite. Defunct archive URLs are pretty worthless. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
This template fails because the character 'ạ' (U+1EA1 ạ LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH DOT BELOW) is not recognized by the Vancouver tests (Vancouver allows only Latin characters):
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Đại LC (2000). Agent Orange in the Vietnam War: History and Consequences. Vietnam Red Cross Society. |
Sandbox | Đại LC (2000). Agent Orange in the Vietnam War: History and Consequences. Vietnam Red Cross Society. |
The fix supports characters from Latin Extended Additional (U+1E00–U+1EFF).
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I propose to update cs1|2 module suite over the weekend 23–24 March 2024. Here are the changes:
|volume=
and |issue=
;
discussion|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
;
discussion|mode=cs1
and |postscript=none
in {{
citation}}
;
discussiontcommon
assignments;
discussionModule:Citation/CS1/Configuration
|volume=
and |issue=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
|script-encyclopedia=
and |trans-encyclopedia=
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
What you have done, I think, is apply the cs1|2-only limits as constraints for any use of those identifier properties.- correct. I don't see why OOB values should exist on Wikidata (unless that limit has yet to be updated after a recent bump). If there are no legitimate uses for OOB values, then I don't see why those limits shouldn't be in Wikidata, regardless of whether or not cs1|2 uses them. If there are legitimate reasons, either I or someone else will remove them. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('The Decameron')
→ Q16438
but the name in Italian: mw.wikibase.getEntityIdForTitle ('Il Decamerone')
→ nil
). We must always be able to get to the identifier limits; we can do that easily with commons tabular data.The documentation for CS1 currently includes When a source does not have a publication date, use
. However, for citations of things like web pages that don't have a date, I find it much more common to just leave out the date parameter rather than specifying that it has been omitted.
|date=n.d.
I'm curious to hear from others, what do you think the best practice should be for this? Sdkb talk 21:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
|date=<!--no date-->
, which at least clarifies it for editors.
Sdkb
talk 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget that {{ sfnp}} and related need something in the date field, even if it is means having to use {{sfnp|Doe|n.d.|page=123}}. The notation n.d. is reasonably well recognised and I don't know of any other conventions that are. But I guess it can be left to whoever is pulling together multiple citations of the same source to backfill it. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This one. What is the purpose of this category? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The {{cite book}} template already implements a separate publication-date parameter from CS1. Some journals and their articles have different publication-date, date and orig-date values. The latter is more flexible, but insufficient when there are three different dates, i.e. an article "orig-date=written 1930", published in a journal edition dated "date=2004-2005" and published "publication-date=2006". Ivan ( talk) 18:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Cite what you read.Pardon my confusing wording above, but the need does not stem from the requirements of references but of bibliographies, where the works in question are the subject of the article. Some citation styles prefer the date of printing/publication (i.e. 1931), while others prefer the year published for (i.e. 1929/1930). It is not for the bibliographer to decide which must be used, and including both can help resolve confusion from the reader over which date to use given the style required of them. Posthumously published works excepted, most citation styles do not take the date of writing or reception into account, which would free up the orig-date parameter for the publication date, but in bibliographies that parameter is still needed to provide useful information to the reader; for example that the discrepancy between the publication date and that of a familiar author's death is due to posthumous publication. Ivan ( talk) 03:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Citation templates are not intended to handle all possible edge cases.Although such journals are in the minority, it is still very commonly encountered. Very. Other editors have managed to get by with manual additions thanks to the publisher parameter coming last in Citation Style 1, but that doesn't work as well when there are many entries. Nor does it fit as nicely as when it is an in-template parameter. Compare with the output of {{cite book}}: Last, First (2004–2005) [written 1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006).
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)Maybe a stupid question, but why is |archive-date required and then checked for matching |archive-url even when the latter already contains the date, like archive.org urls normally do? Wouldn't it make sense to forgo the separate date and just take the one from the url? Or, if it's expected by some processing somewhere else, at least automatically populate the date upon submission instead of rising an error? Since subst exists, this can't be because there's a policy against modifying the user-submitted wikitext. 82.131.19.61 ( talk) 14:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I tried to cite a clip from PBS NewsHour on the Orca page.
I suppose PBS is the "Publisher" and the "work" is NewsHour, but that felt awkward and there is a more specific form for audio-visual sources.
Unfortunately, the Serial citation suggests it should not be used for news shows.
/info/en/?search=Template:Cite_serial says it is "for broadcast programs (television, radio, web) which use individual titles for a collection of episodes ... For serial publications, see {{
Cite news}}
and {{
Cite journal}}
."
Unfortunately, making it a news citation caused the system to reject the network property. I assume it would also reject station, which might be essential for local news.
My preference would be that the news and especially the web citation forms allow the additional Serial properties.
My second choice -- which might be good even if the news and web citation forms are expanded -- would be that the instructions for Serial remove the word "individual" (when skimming, I thought it meant each episode had its own name, as some Sitcoms do), and change "For serial publications" to "For _written_ serial publications." JimJJewett ( talk) 19:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi! When transferring the module to ruwiki, I decided to see how COinS generally live. The official website is dead [2], there is practically no documentation to be found. OpenURL is dead too [3]. The applications that use it also died, except for Zotero. Shouldn't we think about switching to a new format before everything becomes completely outdated? Or am I worrying in vain and everything is fine? Iniquity ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't find much either. Maybe this one - https://schema.org/Book (RDF/Microdata)? Iniquity ( talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)I don't know of any other metadata standard that could be used as a drop-in replacement for COinS.
— User:Trappist the monk 21:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to cite a journal that has a volume parameter with "New Series" or "N.S."? For example, in Origin of the Huns:
{{cite journal |last=de la Vaissière |first=Étienne |title=Is There a "Nationality of the Hephtalites"? |journal=Bulletin of the Asia Institute |volume=N.S. 17 |year=2003 |pages=119–132 |jstor=24049310}}
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
See Help:Citation_Style_1#Edition_identifiers and note 3 in particular. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
What is the proper way to remove the "volume has extra text" error in {{
Cite Pacer}}
? Each instance in
Template:Cite Pacer#Examples and
Template:Cite Pacer/testcases now has the error. Thanks!
GoingBatty (
talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
|volume=
and |issue=
for all cs1|2 templates except {{
cite journal}}
. It appears that |case-prefix=
is not used in any {{
cite Pacer}}
templates so perhaps you might change the template source to remove support for |case-prefix=
and change |volume=
to |number=
?If I want to cite a standalone article preprint, made available by a university through an hdl link, how can I?
|type=preprint
is best?Is there some way to make {{ cite preprint}} less fussy about what kind of availability counts as a preprint? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite preprint}}
is just a wrapper template around the cs1 templates {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite medrxiv}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
. It is not intended to support arbitrary preprints of any other sort. It has been suggested that the preprint templates should be replaced with a 'generic' {{cite preprint}}
template. As I recall there wasn't much enthusiasm for that.|type=none
.I am citing an article which was published in two journals (one US and the other UK). This is useful information for readers who may have access to one but not the other. I cannot see how to show this. "postscript=" gives an error message and there does not seem to be any other way. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
(and all of the other cs1|2 templates) are designed to support one source at a time.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Author |date= |title= |journal=[the US journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}
*also published in: {{cite journal |author=Author |author-mask=2 |date= |title= |journal=[the UK journal] |volume= |issue= |doi=}}</ref>
I have removed support for the deprecated |authors=
parameter from the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Title. {{
cite book}} : Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (
help)
|
Sandbox | Title. {{
cite book}} : Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (
help)
|
This leaves us with |people=
and |credits=
as the only 'free-form' name-list parameters.
Support for |people=
is documented in {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite mailing list}}
, {{
cite map}}
, {{
citation}}
. Search results:
|people=
:
|credits=
:
Support for |credits=
is documented in {{
cite episode}}
and {{
cite serial}}
. Search results:
|credits=
:
|people=
:
{{
cite episode}}
~90{{cite serial}}
~5It seems to me that {{cite mailing list}}
, {{cite map}}
, and {{citation}}
should not be using |people=
and |credits=
. No doubt there are templates that use |people=
and |credits=
aside from those mentioned here but similar searches to those above show relatively low usage counts; fewer than 100 articles for {{
cite book}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
combined. It seems to me that use of these two parameters should be limited to {{cite av media}}
, {{cite episode}}
, and {{cite serial}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 16:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This proposal was originally made 6 days ago but my wording and explanations were poor.
WikiProject Bibliographies is devoted to standalone bibliography articles. Its participants have been responsible for a respectable portion of the List of bibliographies on this project. While many of these bibliographies were written manually from creation, many use citation templates to speed up the process and achieve a lower error rate. Many of the bibliographies that now use manual citations originated with templates and were only converted out of a need to reduce the post-expand include size. Because the works themselves are the subject of the article and require more detail and precision than in regular citations, we often find ourselves pushing the limits of citation templates.
For most of the additional information, corresponding parameters have already been added to {{cite book}}, because the average bibliography article consists mostly of books. Most of what remains can be added after the template. But there is one parameter missing from {{cite journal}} despite already being available in CS1 and having been incorporated into {{cite book}}, that is somewhat frequently encountered and which would benefit from being enabled for {{cite journal}} as well: publication-date. For any book Title, dated 2005 but published 2006, originally typewritten 1930, the output of {{cite book}} would be: Last, First (2005) [1930]. Title. Publisher (published 2006). Most books with "two dates" are better served by the orig-date parameter than by publication-date. In the example I just gave, a book may have 2006 on its front cover but 2005 on its inside cover, with 2005 corresponding to the date the printing began and 2006 to the date of publication after the printing ended. Or 2005 could be the date the printing of the first volume began and 2006 the date the individual volume was printed. And so on.
The main reason both have to be given in bibliography articles is because differences in date and publication-date displayed prominently enough on works for the same work to be cited in one date in catalogue/database but under another date in a different catalogue/database. Only the best catalogues/databases have both parameters, and the reader's library or digital library may not be such a catalogue. Because the primary purpose of a bibliography article is to help the reader find works on a given subject, providing both years in our bibliographies allows the reader to search all year values the catalogue could have, in addition to letting them know that they have indeed found the correct work where providing only one date would leave them second guessing (especially if there are title differences). Differences between prominently displayed "date" (Jahrgang, ročnik, rocznik etc.) and date of publication values are actually more common for periodicals ({{cite journal}}) than for books.
Despite the parameter arguably being more important for {{cite journal}} than for {{cite book}}, it has still not been enabled for the former. The interval-discrepancy between Jahrgang (date) and publication date (publication-date) often varies over time. Discrepancies of interval often arise between Jahrgang and volume number and even year number,[†] so you cannot simply enter the Jahrgang in the volume parameter. And because these are bibliography articles, in which the works are the subject of the article, orig-date is often unavailable, thanks to a work being written or typed at a different date, sometimes long before publication, resulting in the work often being cited or even catalogued by the date of writing. Here are some examples of periodicals requiring a separate publication-date parameter in order of increasing complexity:
† Year number would be the closest value to Jahrgang but discrepancies arise when a year is skipped and if it happens more than once, the interval changes. Fortunately, the year number is rarely encountered in catalogues and citations, so although it would be preferable to have a separate year-number parameter, the current guidelines for placing the "year-related value" in the volume parameter work well enough. At least the result is within the citation. The publication-date parameter is also within the citation for {{cite book}}, as it should be for {{cite journal}}.
My request is to enable the publication-date parameter for {{cite journal}}. Ivan ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
|publication-date=
is already available in {{
cite journal}}.Can you add "phone" and "email" to the generic name list so you get a "CS1 errors: generic name" error. Thanks Keith D ( talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Langauge is needed on de.wikipedia.org if a German langauge citation is added. Langauge can therefor not be omitted. Theking2 ( talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
|sprache=de
für „deutsch“ ist nicht erforderlich …" [… for German is not required …]. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 11:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)