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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
|people=
to {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, and {{
cite serial}}
in the sandbox. |credits=
in the live module is already restricted to {{cite episode}}
and {{cite serial}}
.|others=
which flags CS1 maintenance if |author=
or |editor=
is not also listed.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link){{
cite web}}
, however, if a web page is cited in its entirety, and photographs are separately credited in a heavily-illustrated essay while the editorship is omitted.I am working on a request from another user at
WP:AWBREQ to add author links to citation templates. The
first edit I did on the AWB run ended up with, I believe, 159 {{
cite web}}
templates for the given author. My
regex of course identifies each of those templates for adding in the author link, and I dutifully included the author link in all of them as per the request. But before I do this on the hundreds of pages where this is germane, I was wondering whether we are bound to the MOS guide to only link the first instance in an article, or whether that does not apply to references as well.
TLDR: Should I add author-link to every citation of a given author, or only the first reference on the page? Van Isaac, GHTV cont WpWS 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
|title=
, then find other instances of that title that are missing an author-link and add it there. With some sanity error checks. Could be fully automated. --
Green
C 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)I came across a case where a cite magazine article from
India Today was attributed to an agency (
Indo-Asian News Service) with no other byline. {{
cite magazine}} did not support use of the |agency=
parameter. Should it? —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 14:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
One of the references at The pen is mightier than the sword#Early pre-enlightenment sources is giving "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Date_validation at line 329: attempt to compare string with number." I can't see anything wrong with it from a quick glance. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot, thank you again for your support in the discussion on Module talk:Footnotes. Given what we just discussed there, could you re-visit and examine the revert you did on my edit on Template:Cite journal/doc on 24 March? I now realize I worded the description on my edit very badly/wrongly, and that I should have used {{SfnRef}} in the example. But otherwise what I did on the page, I feel, is basically in line with the result of that talk:Footnotes discussion, and hope you'll see that too, if you revert the revert (with or without saving). If you still stand by your revert, we could discuss further here. If not, we could move to its talk page and discuss how to improve the doc further with my edit as the base. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef
Hello again, Yiba. I've moved the discussion here from my Talk page, so other interested editors may participate if they wish; they are unlikely to find it on my Talk page. In addition, there is a lot of previous discussion at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef about this.
Sorry, I still stand by the revert, or at least, parts of it. My original revert (
diff) was motivated by your removal of the "Staff writers" expression from the |author=
param when there is no author.
However, your edit at Template:Cite journal/doc made numerous other changes, unrelated to the "Staff writers" issue. Logistically speaking, that's unfortunate, as several smaller edits with each one targeting a different issue would've made it easier to adjust/revert only that portion which needed it; with one, large, monolithic edit targeting essentially unrelated issues, it becomes harder to deal with. Perhaps I was lazy reverting the whole thing, but given the length and wide scope of the discussion that resulted afterward at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef that seems somewhat vindicated. In any case, I see that you believe portions of your original edit are valid, and should be added to the documentation of either Template:Cite journal/doc (or to Template:SfnRef/doc—it's not clear to me which). In order not to fall into the same problem of long discussion here targeting unrelated or loosely related issues, I propose that we use subsections for each separate topic area of your original edit that you wish to retain. I'll start, right after this message, and I hope you list your issues in one subsection each, so the subtopic discussions remain targeted and on-track. Does that seem reasonable to you? Mathglot ( talk) 18:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|ref=
's only use is in the creation of CITEREFs for use with {{
sfn}}/{{
harv}} templates. As neither of these ideas are correct, it was corrected reverted. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Your edit removed |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
from the doc at
Template:Cite journal/doc explaining what to do when there is no author. I restored that information in the revert, and as that wording suggestion is standard use throughout several of the citation parameters; it should remain here as well for consistency, so I am not prepared to self-revert in order to remove it. If you see an argument for doing so, how would you deal with equivalent wording at all the other templates?
Mathglot (
talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
to an html comment. There is precedent for this in params |type=
, |ref=
, |title-link=
, maybe others, and I think that could be a good solution here as well.
Mathglot (
talk) 19:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
as a better idea, the hidden comment doesn't seem a great idea. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|work=
or equiv.) which narrows it down to a few people at a given org. That's different, for me, then |author=Anon.
which means the person who wrote it chose not to claim credit, and is listed as "Anonymous" in the work, and could be any author anywhere (see
WorldCat usage). Finally, "none" to me means, "I looked hard, and couldn't find it"; i.e. nothing on the title page or cover, web page, or in the html <head> tag author field or any of the usual suspects. But honestly, I don't know if it's reasonable to be able to maintain that level of distinction in a citation template author field. It seems very unlikely someone using a plain-text citation rather than a template would do it, and I don't think the citation templates should be held to a higher standard, just because they are templates.|type=press release
({{
Citation#Title}}), and that is sufficient, imho.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)|author=<!--Not stated-->
as the unknown-author indicator. See
Help:Citation Style 1 § Authors where that is recommended.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
. This is something visible only to editors who look at the wikicode, and not to viewers reading the article. The symbols '<!--
' and '-->
' are comment begin/end delimiters that hide everything between them from viewers. They can be seen by editors editing the page, and it announces (to editors) that, with or without "no byline", we don't have the name of an author.
Mathglot (
talk) 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Recommends use of staff writer names in author= in such casethe documentation doesn't suggest this, it suggests adding a note that there is no author credited author. For the purposes of the mediwiki software the
|author=
parameter is still blank.|ref=
field is not just for {{
sfnref}}, it is also not part of the general template use (as it's only needed for certain situations).|publisher=
or |journal=
name, as this is just misuse of the field. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Thanks. But |author= is listed in the "Most commonly used parameters" for "To cite a journal article with no credited author". It's clear to me I am failing miserably in building a consensus. Here is my last approach for your enjoyment:
Suppose I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and find my areas of experience and knowledge can contribute to improve Wikipedia articles, so I decide to edit one of the poorly written articles called ABC Memory. I knew there was a good sidebar article about ABC Memory on BCD Journal, where I used to work, and use some info from the column on the Wikipedia page. The article was not signed, but I know such short pieces are normally written by a staff writer John Jones. As a Wiki editor, I don't even know what CS1 stands for, but decide to use a commonly used citation format:
{{Sfn |BCD Journal |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |title=ABC Memory |journal=CDF Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
I omitted |author= entry because I know (book) 'authors' are credited, paid, and responsible for what he/she writes, and Jones is not yet a Senior Editor who gets to sign (and paid/responsible for) what he/she writes and publishes. I'm not sure if he actually wrote the piece, but I know for a fact he is a staff writer there. The pair doesn't work.
Then I find the info "To cite a journal article with no credited author" and try:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
but the pair fails to link.
{{Sfn |<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |2020 |page=4 }}
doesn't work.
{{Sfn | |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author= |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal|issue=Spring|date=2020}}
doesn't work. (@
ActivelyDisinterested Blank pair does not link.)
{{Sfn |by-line |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=no by-line |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. I kept trying because I really don't want to name Jones an author. I'm cornered to give in, but:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. (! This pair does not link. A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling |author= . One of the reasons why I think |author= should not be there.)
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=John |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
This pair finally works (mind you, without |ref= and the editor being fully aware Jones is a staff writer without any copyright responsibility), and I publish it thinking "Well, this is what Wikipedia documentation instructed me to do."
John gets sued later because I named him as the source despite my strong preference not to name him the author, and the sidebar column was found to have been written by an outside contributor Mrs.X who obtained the sensitive inside info illegally. Mrs.X has long fled abroad, and BCD Journal ends up paying for the damages and sues me for 90% of it because pageview spiked after my edit and the page attracted 9 times more number of pageviews than their subscription base. You could imagine how 'I' feel about Wikipedia documentation.
To all of you, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. @ Mathglot please don't worry, I will refrain from editing these documentation. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
it's the same as the field being blank.|author=
is a substitute for |last=
and |first=
, so:A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling
|last=
is recommended in short citations and not |author=
, it will still work if you use it properly. For example, this generates #CITEREFJohn_Jones2020 if you place the full author in the Sfn param (not recommended!) and links properly:Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
Some fact.{{Sfn|John Jones|2020|page=4}} === References === {{reflist}} === Bibliography === * {{Cite journal|author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal }} |
|
Apologies if I'm mistaken about something, but should there be Category:CS1 Yue Chinese-language sources (yue) and Category:CS1 Min Nan Chinese-language sources (nan) to match Category:CS1 Chinese-language sources (zh)? See also Category:Articles containing Yue Chinese-language text et al. Remsense 诉 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
|language=nan
are categorized at
N
and articles using |language=yue
are categorized at
Y
.Testing {{
cite report}}, {{
cite tech report}}, and {{
cite thesis}} I find that |number=
, |docket=
, and |id=
are used inconsistently in an undocumented manner. (See also previous related discussion:
Cite report issue parameter not displaying (May 2023).)
In report and thesis, |number=
appears to not be used at all, while |docket=
and |id=
are aliases for an ending bare text in report, and separable parameters in thesis (with the word "Docket" prepended, unlike in report). Meanwhile, |number=
and |id=
are aliases in tech report, also mutually incompatible. Particularly problematic is that |id=
is specified as A unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable
-- this is semantically distinct from all uses of |number=
in CS1, and from what appears to be their
documented metadata.
{{Cite_report |author=Alex |date=May 1999 |docket=DOC 27 |id=Celex 3334 |number=777 |publisher=BYU |title=Tango}}
{{ Cite_report}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Report). BYU. DOC 27.
{{ Cite_thesis}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Thesis). BYU. Docket DOC 27. Celex 3334.
Also, I suggest considering again the suggestion of @
Tcr25: from the linked previous discussion, that instead of outputting report number/docket at the end of the citation, it should follow the title and document type. Currently it outputs after page number, which only makes sense if it's an external catalogue identifier (like |id=
is usually used for) and not, as is often the case with technical reports, splashed across the front page as part of the title.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
, {{
cite tech report}}
, and {{
cite thesis}}
are 'inconsistent'. Each of those templates was created at different dates by different editors:
{{
cite report}}
created 16 June 2008 by Editor
Cg-realms{{
cite tech report}}
created 7 February 2006 by Editor
Tizio{{
cite thesis}}
created 6 November 2009 by Editor
Fifelfoo{{
citation/core}}
; again at different dates and different editors:
{{cite report}}
: 15 February 2015{{cite tech report}}
: 9 November 2013{{cite thesis}}
: 9 November 2013{{citation/core}}
but when I migrated these templates to Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to make the migration more-or-less transparent so differences among them inherited from their individual developmental paths were retained in the module version. No doubt, since those migrations, the individual templates have continued to differ and likely continued to diverge.This question stems from a recent realization that the Visual Editor offers the Citation Style 2 {{ citation}} template as the default citation method. I remember as a new editor not being clear on why {{ cite web}} and {{ citation}} had a different appearance. My first thought was the Visual Editor should autofill "mode=cs1" if it's trying to use {{ citation}} as a quick machine-generated reference. My second thought was, why do we have to specify in each template usage? {{ Use dmy dates}} gives a consistent format to every citation on the page. Can something similar be done with the punctuation format? ({{ use cs1}} & {{ use cs2}}) Rjjiii ( talk) 04:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cs1 config|cs1}}
or {{
cs1 config|cs2}}
|mode=cs2
to keep their formatting and post a {{
please see}} notice on their talk pages so that it would be opt-in.{{cs1 config|cs2}}
to every article with 3:1 ratio of CS2:CS1 templates, I think that could help to frame this as supporting
WP:CITEVAR rather contesting it; a bot adding {{
cs1 config}} to pages where {{
citation}} is the primary style could also function as a way to announce this editors who want CS2, maybe with a link to the RfC and clear instructions on how to auto-CS2 the content they create.clean answerrequires a 'clean' description that clearly states your objective. I am not at all clear on what it is that you are asking.
|author=
parameters with multiple names in them, semicolons are invaluable for denominating a specific author name pair. Commas would hence Suck to then divide authors from whatever comes after.The documentation for {{
Cite AV media notes}} gives examples that use the others=
parameter with the name of an artist or band without providing a value for |author=
or |editor=
. Further, the template documentation makes no mention of the requirement that others=
be only used with primrry editorship or authorship information. However, such usage places articles in the
Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) category. The documentation there says that the others=
can't stand alone.
Which is correct? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
first=
and last=
used in the examples serve as an alias for the |author
parameter? That's not intuitive, as first=
and last=
are multiple parameters, and author=
is singular. And, even if so, the documentation makes no mention of the requirement. --
Mikeblas (
talk) 03:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)|author=
is an alias of |last=
; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § Authors. Even the TemplateData 'documentation' (such as it is) shows that these parameters are aliases of each other; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § TemplateData.|last=
, |author=
, and |others=
is at
Template:Citation Style documentation/author. Remember that the documentation template is used by all cs1|2 templates. If you use VE, consider improving the TemplateData.|others=
.others=
parameter.others=
parameter, or place its value in author=
? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
or other current equivalents. Take
10.000 Nights of Thunder as a prime example of the use of these templates. The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes, or at least not all of them, if even the physical notes specify who the author of the notes are (many, maybe even most, probably don't). The current examples at
Template:Cite AV media notes reflect this use of placing the artist in |others=
and I don't think the documentation there is necessarily wrong to say so.
Template:Cite AV media is better in some ways and worse in others as it suggests that we should add the role some significant person to the media played in the |others=
, but which again does not necessarily line up with the expectations for |author=
.
Izno (
talk) 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes. It's often extremely difficult to find out who wrote the liner notes for a given piece of media; rarely are they explicitly credited somewhere in the text. But without that information, currently the template "considers itself" incompletely filled out. IMHO that's an unreasonable expectation, making the tracking category nothing but noise. That being said, "working around it" by simply crediting the band as the authors turns the citation from incomplete to incorrect, which is not an improvement. If we want the tracking category to go away, we should make the tracking category go away, not corrupt our citations to satisfy its requirements. FeRDNYC ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person;. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=<!--Not stated-->
as a parameter, because it's exceedingly common for press releases to be published without a credited author.{{
Cite press release|author=<!--Not stated-->|others=something}}
will also trigger inclusion in
Category:CS1 maint: others.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 14:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ cs1 config|name-list-style=vanc}} and cite with non-Latin author generates an error.
Example (added |name-list-style=vanc
to cite to generate error):
{{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (
help)I know translating the author would avoid the error. (There are other work-arounds.) But I believe a specific cite should be able to override a global setting.
User-duck ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|name-list-style=vanc
, |last<n>=
and |first<n>=
must hold names written using the Latin character set.Is it possible to automatically show the volume and issue parameters when first opening it up in the visual editor? And then, perhaps, hide the PMID parameter that does automatically get added; that is more for journals. I do not know of many magazines archived by PubMed. Why? I Ask ( talk) 03:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm citing this paper, which is written by 6 authors on behalf of a wider collaboration. When I cite it in Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome as [1], it generates an etal, per documentation of the collaboration parameter. Is there a way to stop the etal? With vauthors, I get an error if I simply put the collaboration after the author list. Anybody know a way around this?
References
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
vcite2 journal}}
(now a redirect along with the since deleted
Module:ParseVauthors which implemented it) automatically imposed a six name limit. That template was written primarily for use by the WP:MED community.|collaborator=
entirely. If you must include EUROMENE, you can write the template:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Sotzny F, Blanco J, Capelli E, Castro-Marrero J, Steiner S, Murovska M, Scheibenbogen C, ((European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE))) |date=June 2018 |title=Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Evidence for an autoimmune disease |journal=Autoimmunity Reviews |volume=17 |issue=6 |pages=601–609 |doi=10.1016/j.autrev.2018.01.009 |pmid=29635081 |doi-access=free}}
|
collaboration=
says (in part):
etal
is appropriate. When authors write on behalf of a group, the group is not a participant in the writing so should not be listed as a contributor.What is the proper way to indicate that an issue is a supplement? GobsPint ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
If unnumbered, |issue=Suppl
. If numbered, |issue=Suppl. 3
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
rft.part
for use with journal objects so we could (should?) add an appropriate parameter: |supplement=
that would cause the template to render the 'Suppl.' (cs1) or 'suppl.' (cs2) static text as part of the |issue=
rendering. I suppose that the parameter rendering might look like this:
|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=3
→ V (4 Suppl. 3)|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=<title>
→ V (4 Suppl. <title>)|volume=V |supplement=yes
→ V (Suppl) – where yes
is a special keyword; more-or-less equivalent to |issue=Suppl
Hello, the list on the category page includes "email" but does not appear to cause an error. On Politics of Kaliningrad Oblast
protected, email. "Kaliningrad Separatism Again on the Rise".
Keith D ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Like this cite magazine from Maidenhead Locator System:
Tyson, Edmund, N5JTY (January 1989).
"Conversion between geodetic and grid locator systems" (PDF). QST Magazine. Newington, CT:
American Radio Relay League. pp. 29–30, 43. Retrieved 2018-03-09.{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Removing ".pdf" from the link makes the lock small again. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
background-size: contain;
made no difference for me, but disabling padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
set the smaller size. (using monobook skin) —
Jts1882 |
talk 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
does not exist in
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css.In Minkowski inequality, the {{ sfn}} footnote to Bahouri, Chemin & Danchin 2011 and the reference generated by the template {{ Bahouri Chemin Danchin Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations 2011}} are together somehow generating a "Harv and Sfn no-target error" categorization (look at the text of the footnote id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBahouriCheminDanchin20114-3" in the source of the generated article) but without generating a script-highlighted error nor any actual problem in harv/sfn link targeting. Does anyone know why this error occurs and whether there is something to do (hopefully without having to subst the citation template) to make it go away? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
MediaWiki softwarehas nothing to do with this error message. The error message is emitted by Module:Footnotes because the module can only see the wrapper template call in the wikitext. The Module cannot look into the wrapper template to fetch names and date from the wrapped
{{
cite book}}
template. The check occurs during the expansion of each {{
sfn}}
/ {{harv}}
template.{{
sfn whitelist}}
or
Module:Footnotes/whitelist so editors complained. You can show these error messages with the css described at
Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors#Displaying error messages method 3.Some magazines don't advertise the issue number as clearly on the front magazine, and it can take a lot of extra effort to find the correct issue if they are cited but missing important information. We may have to buy the magazine itself just to confirm the issue number and sometimes there is no issue number at all and they label the issue by month/date, or they will have it by Holiday. It would be easier to add an additional parameter specifically for the name of the issue.
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). No. May 5, 2011. April 21, 2011.
Looks awkward with the No. in front of it.
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue. April 21, 2011.
^^A proper issue name.
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |issue-Num=999|magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue (No.999). April 21, 2011.
^^For both.
This will simplify things and make the citation easier to read. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
|publication-date=
would probably cover this use case without needing a new parameter:I tried to describe jstor-access
as registration
, because the article in question could only be read if you signed up for a JSTOR account. But I got an error, and the template doc for cite journal
says that JSTOR can only be marked as free. While it's true that once you sign up for the site you can read 100 articles without paying, I think it's misleading to mark it as free access, when it isn't actually public. Is there logic behind this that I'm missing?
Pingnova (
talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
|jstor=
, |doi=
, etc) are normally hidden behind some sort of paywall or registration barrier. Because that is the normal case, flagging those sources with |jstor-access=registration
, |jstor-access=limited
, or |jstor-access=subscription
is redundant and would add unnecessary clutter to the wikitext and to the rendered reference. When an occasional source at JSTOR is free-to-read, it is appropriate to mark that source with |jstor-access=free
.In CS1 style it appears a terminal period is included following exclamation and question marks, but is omitted following ellipses (3 dots) (for fields unenclosed in "quotation marks"):
I only found one previous post from 2023-11-22 on this. At issue is that no style guide that I know of, that uses terminal punctuation in citations, omits the punctuation following an ellipsis. MLA citation has the ellipsis follow the stop] while APA and Chicago precede a stop (but the latter two refs do not discuss citations). APA has a citation guideline using an ellipsis for 7+ authors without punctuation, but the ellipsis is within the author list and not terminal: "a_1, a_2, ... a_N.". The only style guide saying that an ellipsis should not add adjacent punctuation is Chicago's FAQ response on fiction style.
Regarding question or exclamation points and the citation style punctuation, they style guides get a bit more subtle. Generally (APA MLA and Chicago) citations usually have periods or commas be superseded by "stronger marks", but when the reading is more prose-like as in a bibliography entry, the comma is retained.
Given all this, I suggest removing the code that omits citation-style punctuation following 3-dot ellipses. SamuelRiv ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Many magazines now have two ISSNs, one for print and one for Internet. In typical printed cites they are published with a comma in between. It would be great if the issn= parameter in {{ Cite journal}} would allow that, too. Викидим ( talk) 18:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
|eissn=
which already exists and can be used with |issn=
? And, really, do you need either issn? There are those who believe that issn is mere pointless clutter.Edit preview doesn't show an error if access-date
is earlier than date
parameter. —
hako9 (
talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Is the agency parameter still working in the Cite book template? It is listed as an active template parameter on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData but the template is throwing up Unknown parameter errors, e.g. Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc Skullcinema ( talk) 14:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
[[Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc|here]]
→
here.|agency=
in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of
this discussion. |agency=
is defined for {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite press release}}
, and {{
cite web}}
. Also supported by {{
citation}}
when that template has |newspaper=
or |work=
.|agency=
in book citations in cleaning up CS1 errors. All the ones I have seen should instead have been |publisher=
. I have seen no evidence that |agency=
is actually a useful and meaningful parameter for these citations. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Can we please not remove parameters breaking hundreds or thousands of article citations? The agency parameter was used in tons of {{
cite report}}
citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan.
Master of Time (
talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
templates that have |agency=
and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'.|publisher=
us unnecessarily duplicated in |agency=
:
{{cite report|agency=National Centers for Environmental Information|title=Storm Events Database January 25, 2021|url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|access-date=May 5, 2021|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510142454/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|url-status=live}}
{{Cite report |url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |title=Pennsylvania Event Report: EF2 Tornado |publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information |agency=National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |year=2021 |accessdate=December 18, 2021 |archive-date=December 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218061648/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |url-status=live }}
The category
CS1 errors: unsupported parameter currently has more than 3000 pages listed, the majority for |agency=
. Some are fixable, but what about when the citation has something different for |publisher=
?.--
Auric
talk 13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|agency=
is not now, nor ever has been, an alias or synonym of |publisher=
. If the source is delivered by some provider other than the publisher, use |via=
to hold the name of the provider.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 | ||||||||
|
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)
|people=
to {{
cite av media}}
, {{
cite episode}}
, and {{
cite serial}}
in the sandbox. |credits=
in the live module is already restricted to {{cite episode}}
and {{cite serial}}
.|others=
which flags CS1 maintenance if |author=
or |editor=
is not also listed.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link){{
cite web}}
, however, if a web page is cited in its entirety, and photographs are separately credited in a heavily-illustrated essay while the editorship is omitted.I am working on a request from another user at
WP:AWBREQ to add author links to citation templates. The
first edit I did on the AWB run ended up with, I believe, 159 {{
cite web}}
templates for the given author. My
regex of course identifies each of those templates for adding in the author link, and I dutifully included the author link in all of them as per the request. But before I do this on the hundreds of pages where this is germane, I was wondering whether we are bound to the MOS guide to only link the first instance in an article, or whether that does not apply to references as well.
TLDR: Should I add author-link to every citation of a given author, or only the first reference on the page? Van Isaac, GHTV cont WpWS 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
|title=
, then find other instances of that title that are missing an author-link and add it there. With some sanity error checks. Could be fully automated. --
Green
C 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)I came across a case where a cite magazine article from
India Today was attributed to an agency (
Indo-Asian News Service) with no other byline. {{
cite magazine}} did not support use of the |agency=
parameter. Should it? —
Archer1234 (
t·
c) 14:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
One of the references at The pen is mightier than the sword#Early pre-enlightenment sources is giving "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Date_validation at line 329: attempt to compare string with number." I can't see anything wrong with it from a quick glance. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot, thank you again for your support in the discussion on Module talk:Footnotes. Given what we just discussed there, could you re-visit and examine the revert you did on my edit on Template:Cite journal/doc on 24 March? I now realize I worded the description on my edit very badly/wrongly, and that I should have used {{SfnRef}} in the example. But otherwise what I did on the page, I feel, is basically in line with the result of that talk:Footnotes discussion, and hope you'll see that too, if you revert the revert (with or without saving). If you still stand by your revert, we could discuss further here. If not, we could move to its talk page and discuss how to improve the doc further with my edit as the base. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef
Hello again, Yiba. I've moved the discussion here from my Talk page, so other interested editors may participate if they wish; they are unlikely to find it on my Talk page. In addition, there is a lot of previous discussion at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef about this.
Sorry, I still stand by the revert, or at least, parts of it. My original revert (
diff) was motivated by your removal of the "Staff writers" expression from the |author=
param when there is no author.
However, your edit at Template:Cite journal/doc made numerous other changes, unrelated to the "Staff writers" issue. Logistically speaking, that's unfortunate, as several smaller edits with each one targeting a different issue would've made it easier to adjust/revert only that portion which needed it; with one, large, monolithic edit targeting essentially unrelated issues, it becomes harder to deal with. Perhaps I was lazy reverting the whole thing, but given the length and wide scope of the discussion that resulted afterward at Module talk:Footnotes§ SfnRef that seems somewhat vindicated. In any case, I see that you believe portions of your original edit are valid, and should be added to the documentation of either Template:Cite journal/doc (or to Template:SfnRef/doc—it's not clear to me which). In order not to fall into the same problem of long discussion here targeting unrelated or loosely related issues, I propose that we use subsections for each separate topic area of your original edit that you wish to retain. I'll start, right after this message, and I hope you list your issues in one subsection each, so the subtopic discussions remain targeted and on-track. Does that seem reasonable to you? Mathglot ( talk) 18:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|ref=
's only use is in the creation of CITEREFs for use with {{
sfn}}/{{
harv}} templates. As neither of these ideas are correct, it was corrected reverted. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 18:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Your edit removed |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
from the doc at
Template:Cite journal/doc explaining what to do when there is no author. I restored that information in the revert, and as that wording suggestion is standard use throughout several of the citation parameters; it should remain here as well for consistency, so I am not prepared to self-revert in order to remove it. If you see an argument for doing so, how would you deal with equivalent wording at all the other templates?
Mathglot (
talk) 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
to an html comment. There is precedent for this in params |type=
, |ref=
, |title-link=
, maybe others, and I think that could be a good solution here as well.
Mathglot (
talk) 19:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|author=none
as a better idea, the hidden comment doesn't seem a great idea. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 19:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
|work=
or equiv.) which narrows it down to a few people at a given org. That's different, for me, then |author=Anon.
which means the person who wrote it chose not to claim credit, and is listed as "Anonymous" in the work, and could be any author anywhere (see
WorldCat usage). Finally, "none" to me means, "I looked hard, and couldn't find it"; i.e. nothing on the title page or cover, web page, or in the html <head> tag author field or any of the usual suspects. But honestly, I don't know if it's reasonable to be able to maintain that level of distinction in a citation template author field. It seems very unlikely someone using a plain-text citation rather than a template would do it, and I don't think the citation templates should be held to a higher standard, just because they are templates.|type=press release
({{
Citation#Title}}), and that is sufficient, imho.
Mathglot (
talk) 23:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)|author=<!--Not stated-->
as the unknown-author indicator. See
Help:Citation Style 1 § Authors where that is recommended.|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->
. This is something visible only to editors who look at the wikicode, and not to viewers reading the article. The symbols '<!--
' and '-->
' are comment begin/end delimiters that hide everything between them from viewers. They can be seen by editors editing the page, and it announces (to editors) that, with or without "no byline", we don't have the name of an author.
Mathglot (
talk) 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Recommends use of staff writer names in author= in such casethe documentation doesn't suggest this, it suggests adding a note that there is no author credited author. For the purposes of the mediwiki software the
|author=
parameter is still blank.|ref=
field is not just for {{
sfnref}}, it is also not part of the general template use (as it's only needed for certain situations).|publisher=
or |journal=
name, as this is just misuse of the field. -- LCU
ActivelyDisinterested «
@» °
∆t° 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Thanks. But |author= is listed in the "Most commonly used parameters" for "To cite a journal article with no credited author". It's clear to me I am failing miserably in building a consensus. Here is my last approach for your enjoyment:
Suppose I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and find my areas of experience and knowledge can contribute to improve Wikipedia articles, so I decide to edit one of the poorly written articles called ABC Memory. I knew there was a good sidebar article about ABC Memory on BCD Journal, where I used to work, and use some info from the column on the Wikipedia page. The article was not signed, but I know such short pieces are normally written by a staff writer John Jones. As a Wiki editor, I don't even know what CS1 stands for, but decide to use a commonly used citation format:
{{Sfn |BCD Journal |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |title=ABC Memory |journal=CDF Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
I omitted |author= entry because I know (book) 'authors' are credited, paid, and responsible for what he/she writes, and Jones is not yet a Senior Editor who gets to sign (and paid/responsible for) what he/she writes and publishes. I'm not sure if he actually wrote the piece, but I know for a fact he is a staff writer there. The pair doesn't work.
Then I find the info "To cite a journal article with no credited author" and try:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
but the pair fails to link.
{{Sfn |<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |2020 |page=4 }}
doesn't work.
{{Sfn | |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author= |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal|issue=Spring|date=2020}}
doesn't work. (@
ActivelyDisinterested Blank pair does not link.)
{{Sfn |by-line |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=no by-line |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. I kept trying because I really don't want to name Jones an author. I'm cornered to give in, but:
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
doesn't work. (! This pair does not link. A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling |author= . One of the reasons why I think |author= should not be there.)
{{Sfn |Jones |2020 |page=4 }}
{{Cite journal |last=Jones |first=John |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal |issue=Spring |date=2020 }}
This pair finally works (mind you, without |ref= and the editor being fully aware Jones is a staff writer without any copyright responsibility), and I publish it thinking "Well, this is what Wikipedia documentation instructed me to do."
John gets sued later because I named him as the source despite my strong preference not to name him the author, and the sidebar column was found to have been written by an outside contributor Mrs.X who obtained the sensitive inside info illegally. Mrs.X has long fled abroad, and BCD Journal ends up paying for the damages and sues me for 90% of it because pageview spiked after my edit and the page attracted 9 times more number of pageviews than their subscription base. You could imagine how 'I' feel about Wikipedia documentation.
To all of you, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. @ Mathglot please don't worry, I will refrain from editing these documentation. Yiba ( talk | contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
it's the same as the field being blank.|author=
is a substitute for |last=
and |first=
, so:A bug in CITEREF anchor automatic generation handling
|last=
is recommended in short citations and not |author=
, it will still work if you use it properly. For example, this generates #CITEREFJohn_Jones2020 if you place the full author in the Sfn param (not recommended!) and links properly:Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
Some fact.{{Sfn|John Jones|2020|page=4}} === References === {{reflist}} === Bibliography === * {{Cite journal|author=John Jones |title=ABC Memory |journal=BCD Journal }} |
|
Apologies if I'm mistaken about something, but should there be Category:CS1 Yue Chinese-language sources (yue) and Category:CS1 Min Nan Chinese-language sources (nan) to match Category:CS1 Chinese-language sources (zh)? See also Category:Articles containing Yue Chinese-language text et al. Remsense 诉 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
|language=nan
are categorized at
N
and articles using |language=yue
are categorized at
Y
.Testing {{
cite report}}, {{
cite tech report}}, and {{
cite thesis}} I find that |number=
, |docket=
, and |id=
are used inconsistently in an undocumented manner. (See also previous related discussion:
Cite report issue parameter not displaying (May 2023).)
In report and thesis, |number=
appears to not be used at all, while |docket=
and |id=
are aliases for an ending bare text in report, and separable parameters in thesis (with the word "Docket" prepended, unlike in report). Meanwhile, |number=
and |id=
are aliases in tech report, also mutually incompatible. Particularly problematic is that |id=
is specified as A unique identifier, used where none of the specialized identifiers are applicable
-- this is semantically distinct from all uses of |number=
in CS1, and from what appears to be their
documented metadata.
{{Cite_report |author=Alex |date=May 1999 |docket=DOC 27 |id=Celex 3334 |number=777 |publisher=BYU |title=Tango}}
{{ Cite_report}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Report). BYU. DOC 27.
{{ Cite_thesis}}
Alex (May 1999). Tango (Thesis). BYU. Docket DOC 27. Celex 3334.
Also, I suggest considering again the suggestion of @
Tcr25: from the linked previous discussion, that instead of outputting report number/docket at the end of the citation, it should follow the title and document type. Currently it outputs after page number, which only makes sense if it's an external catalogue identifier (like |id=
is usually used for) and not, as is often the case with technical reports, splashed across the front page as part of the title.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
, {{
cite tech report}}
, and {{
cite thesis}}
are 'inconsistent'. Each of those templates was created at different dates by different editors:
{{
cite report}}
created 16 June 2008 by Editor
Cg-realms{{
cite tech report}}
created 7 February 2006 by Editor
Tizio{{
cite thesis}}
created 6 November 2009 by Editor
Fifelfoo{{
citation/core}}
; again at different dates and different editors:
{{cite report}}
: 15 February 2015{{cite tech report}}
: 9 November 2013{{cite thesis}}
: 9 November 2013{{citation/core}}
but when I migrated these templates to Module:Citation/CS1, the goal was to make the migration more-or-less transparent so differences among them inherited from their individual developmental paths were retained in the module version. No doubt, since those migrations, the individual templates have continued to differ and likely continued to diverge.This question stems from a recent realization that the Visual Editor offers the Citation Style 2 {{ citation}} template as the default citation method. I remember as a new editor not being clear on why {{ cite web}} and {{ citation}} had a different appearance. My first thought was the Visual Editor should autofill "mode=cs1" if it's trying to use {{ citation}} as a quick machine-generated reference. My second thought was, why do we have to specify in each template usage? {{ Use dmy dates}} gives a consistent format to every citation on the page. Can something similar be done with the punctuation format? ({{ use cs1}} & {{ use cs2}}) Rjjiii ( talk) 04:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cs1 config|cs1}}
or {{
cs1 config|cs2}}
|mode=cs2
to keep their formatting and post a {{
please see}} notice on their talk pages so that it would be opt-in.{{cs1 config|cs2}}
to every article with 3:1 ratio of CS2:CS1 templates, I think that could help to frame this as supporting
WP:CITEVAR rather contesting it; a bot adding {{
cs1 config}} to pages where {{
citation}} is the primary style could also function as a way to announce this editors who want CS2, maybe with a link to the RfC and clear instructions on how to auto-CS2 the content they create.clean answerrequires a 'clean' description that clearly states your objective. I am not at all clear on what it is that you are asking.
|author=
parameters with multiple names in them, semicolons are invaluable for denominating a specific author name pair. Commas would hence Suck to then divide authors from whatever comes after.The documentation for {{
Cite AV media notes}} gives examples that use the others=
parameter with the name of an artist or band without providing a value for |author=
or |editor=
. Further, the template documentation makes no mention of the requirement that others=
be only used with primrry editorship or authorship information. However, such usage places articles in the
Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) category. The documentation there says that the others=
can't stand alone.
Which is correct? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
first=
and last=
used in the examples serve as an alias for the |author
parameter? That's not intuitive, as first=
and last=
are multiple parameters, and author=
is singular. And, even if so, the documentation makes no mention of the requirement. --
Mikeblas (
talk) 03:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)|author=
is an alias of |last=
; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § Authors. Even the TemplateData 'documentation' (such as it is) shows that these parameters are aliases of each other; see
Template:Cite AV media notes § TemplateData.|last=
, |author=
, and |others=
is at
Template:Citation Style documentation/author. Remember that the documentation template is used by all cs1|2 templates. If you use VE, consider improving the TemplateData.|others=
.others=
parameter.others=
parameter, or place its value in author=
? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=
or other current equivalents. Take
10.000 Nights of Thunder as a prime example of the use of these templates. The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes, or at least not all of them, if even the physical notes specify who the author of the notes are (many, maybe even most, probably don't). The current examples at
Template:Cite AV media notes reflect this use of placing the artist in |others=
and I don't think the documentation there is necessarily wrong to say so.
Template:Cite AV media is better in some ways and worse in others as it suggests that we should add the role some significant person to the media played in the |others=
, but which again does not necessarily line up with the expectations for |author=
.
Izno (
talk) 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The band is not likely to be the author of the liner notes. It's often extremely difficult to find out who wrote the liner notes for a given piece of media; rarely are they explicitly credited somewhere in the text. But without that information, currently the template "considers itself" incompletely filled out. IMHO that's an unreasonable expectation, making the tracking category nothing but noise. That being said, "working around it" by simply crediting the band as the authors turns the citation from incomplete to incorrect, which is not an improvement. If we want the tracking category to go away, we should make the tracking category go away, not corrupt our citations to satisfy its requirements. FeRDNYC ( talk) 13:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
author: this parameter is used to hold the name of an organizational author (e.g. a committee) or the complete name (first and last) of a single person;. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
|author=<!--Not stated-->
as a parameter, because it's exceedingly common for press releases to be published without a credited author.{{
Cite press release|author=<!--Not stated-->|others=something}}
will also trigger inclusion in
Category:CS1 maint: others.)
FeRDNYC (
talk) 14:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
{{ cs1 config|name-list-style=vanc}} and cite with non-Latin author generates an error.
Example (added |name-list-style=vanc
to cite to generate error):
{{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (
help)I know translating the author would avoid the error. (There are other work-arounds.) But I believe a specific cite should be able to override a global setting.
User-duck ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
|name-list-style=vanc
, |last<n>=
and |first<n>=
must hold names written using the Latin character set.Is it possible to automatically show the volume and issue parameters when first opening it up in the visual editor? And then, perhaps, hide the PMID parameter that does automatically get added; that is more for journals. I do not know of many magazines archived by PubMed. Why? I Ask ( talk) 03:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm citing this paper, which is written by 6 authors on behalf of a wider collaboration. When I cite it in Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome as [1], it generates an etal, per documentation of the collaboration parameter. Is there a way to stop the etal? With vauthors, I get an error if I simply put the collaboration after the author list. Anybody know a way around this?
References
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
vcite2 journal}}
(now a redirect along with the since deleted
Module:ParseVauthors which implemented it) automatically imposed a six name limit. That template was written primarily for use by the WP:MED community.|collaborator=
entirely. If you must include EUROMENE, you can write the template:
{{cite journal |vauthors=Sotzny F, Blanco J, Capelli E, Castro-Marrero J, Steiner S, Murovska M, Scheibenbogen C, ((European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE))) |date=June 2018 |title=Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome – Evidence for an autoimmune disease |journal=Autoimmunity Reviews |volume=17 |issue=6 |pages=601–609 |doi=10.1016/j.autrev.2018.01.009 |pmid=29635081 |doi-access=free}}
|
collaboration=
says (in part):
etal
is appropriate. When authors write on behalf of a group, the group is not a participant in the writing so should not be listed as a contributor.What is the proper way to indicate that an issue is a supplement? GobsPint ( talk) 19:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
If unnumbered, |issue=Suppl
. If numbered, |issue=Suppl. 3
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
rft.part
for use with journal objects so we could (should?) add an appropriate parameter: |supplement=
that would cause the template to render the 'Suppl.' (cs1) or 'suppl.' (cs2) static text as part of the |issue=
rendering. I suppose that the parameter rendering might look like this:
|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=3
→ V (4 Suppl. 3)|volume=V |issue=4 |supplement=<title>
→ V (4 Suppl. <title>)|volume=V |supplement=yes
→ V (Suppl) – where yes
is a special keyword; more-or-less equivalent to |issue=Suppl
Hello, the list on the category page includes "email" but does not appear to cause an error. On Politics of Kaliningrad Oblast
protected, email. "Kaliningrad Separatism Again on the Rise".
Keith D ( talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Like this cite magazine from Maidenhead Locator System:
Tyson, Edmund, N5JTY (January 1989).
"Conversion between geodetic and grid locator systems" (PDF). QST Magazine. Newington, CT:
American Radio Relay League. pp. 29–30, 43. Retrieved 2018-03-09.{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Removing ".pdf" from the link makes the lock small again. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
background-size: contain;
made no difference for me, but disabling padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
set the smaller size. (using monobook skin) —
Jts1882 |
talk 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
padding: 8px 18px 8px 0px;
does not exist in
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css.In Minkowski inequality, the {{ sfn}} footnote to Bahouri, Chemin & Danchin 2011 and the reference generated by the template {{ Bahouri Chemin Danchin Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations 2011}} are together somehow generating a "Harv and Sfn no-target error" categorization (look at the text of the footnote id="cite_note-FOOTNOTEBahouriCheminDanchin20114-3" in the source of the generated article) but without generating a script-highlighted error nor any actual problem in harv/sfn link targeting. Does anyone know why this error occurs and whether there is something to do (hopefully without having to subst the citation template) to make it go away? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
MediaWiki softwarehas nothing to do with this error message. The error message is emitted by Module:Footnotes because the module can only see the wrapper template call in the wikitext. The Module cannot look into the wrapper template to fetch names and date from the wrapped
{{
cite book}}
template. The check occurs during the expansion of each {{
sfn}}
/ {{harv}}
template.{{
sfn whitelist}}
or
Module:Footnotes/whitelist so editors complained. You can show these error messages with the css described at
Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors#Displaying error messages method 3.Some magazines don't advertise the issue number as clearly on the front magazine, and it can take a lot of extra effort to find the correct issue if they are cited but missing important information. We may have to buy the magazine itself just to confirm the issue number and sometimes there is no issue number at all and they label the issue by month/date, or they will have it by Holiday. It would be easier to add an additional parameter specifically for the name of the issue.
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). No. May 5, 2011. April 21, 2011.
Looks awkward with the No. in front of it.
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue. April 21, 2011.
^^A proper issue name.
<ref name="Famitsu">{{cite magazine |title= パタポン3 |issue-name=May 5, 2011 |issue-Num=999|magazine=[[Famitsu]] |language=Japanese |date=April 21, 2011}}</ref>
"パタポン3". Famitsu (in Japanese). May 5, 2011 issue (No.999). April 21, 2011.
^^For both.
This will simplify things and make the citation easier to read. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 17:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
|publication-date=
would probably cover this use case without needing a new parameter:I tried to describe jstor-access
as registration
, because the article in question could only be read if you signed up for a JSTOR account. But I got an error, and the template doc for cite journal
says that JSTOR can only be marked as free. While it's true that once you sign up for the site you can read 100 articles without paying, I think it's misleading to mark it as free access, when it isn't actually public. Is there logic behind this that I'm missing?
Pingnova (
talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
|jstor=
, |doi=
, etc) are normally hidden behind some sort of paywall or registration barrier. Because that is the normal case, flagging those sources with |jstor-access=registration
, |jstor-access=limited
, or |jstor-access=subscription
is redundant and would add unnecessary clutter to the wikitext and to the rendered reference. When an occasional source at JSTOR is free-to-read, it is appropriate to mark that source with |jstor-access=free
.In CS1 style it appears a terminal period is included following exclamation and question marks, but is omitted following ellipses (3 dots) (for fields unenclosed in "quotation marks"):
I only found one previous post from 2023-11-22 on this. At issue is that no style guide that I know of, that uses terminal punctuation in citations, omits the punctuation following an ellipsis. MLA citation has the ellipsis follow the stop] while APA and Chicago precede a stop (but the latter two refs do not discuss citations). APA has a citation guideline using an ellipsis for 7+ authors without punctuation, but the ellipsis is within the author list and not terminal: "a_1, a_2, ... a_N.". The only style guide saying that an ellipsis should not add adjacent punctuation is Chicago's FAQ response on fiction style.
Regarding question or exclamation points and the citation style punctuation, they style guides get a bit more subtle. Generally (APA MLA and Chicago) citations usually have periods or commas be superseded by "stronger marks", but when the reading is more prose-like as in a bibliography entry, the comma is retained.
Given all this, I suggest removing the code that omits citation-style punctuation following 3-dot ellipses. SamuelRiv ( talk) 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Many magazines now have two ISSNs, one for print and one for Internet. In typical printed cites they are published with a comma in between. It would be great if the issn= parameter in {{ Cite journal}} would allow that, too. Викидим ( talk) 18:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
|eissn=
which already exists and can be used with |issn=
? And, really, do you need either issn? There are those who believe that issn is mere pointless clutter.Edit preview doesn't show an error if access-date
is earlier than date
parameter. —
hako9 (
talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Is the agency parameter still working in the Cite book template? It is listed as an active template parameter on Template:Cite_book/TemplateData but the template is throwing up Unknown parameter errors, e.g. Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc Skullcinema ( talk) 14:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
[[Template:Cite_OED_1933/doc|here]]
→
here.|agency=
in templates that shouldn't support that parameter was removed as a result of
this discussion. |agency=
is defined for {{
cite news}}
, {{
cite press release}}
, and {{
cite web}}
. Also supported by {{
citation}}
when that template has |newspaper=
or |work=
.|agency=
in book citations in cleaning up CS1 errors. All the ones I have seen should instead have been |publisher=
. I have seen no evidence that |agency=
is actually a useful and meaningful parameter for these citations. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Can we please not remove parameters breaking hundreds or thousands of article citations? The agency parameter was used in tons of {{
cite report}}
citations for weather-related articles citing NOAA government offices / agencies. Even if your argument is that these are "incorrect" or whatever, really seems bad to just break literally thousands of citations with no backup plan.
Master of Time (
talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite report}}
templates that have |agency=
and where the article, somewhere, contains the word 'weather'.|publisher=
us unnecessarily duplicated in |agency=
:
{{cite report|agency=National Centers for Environmental Information|title=Storm Events Database January 25, 2021|url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|access-date=May 5, 2021|archive-date=May 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510142454/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=938002|url-status=live}}
{{Cite report |url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |title=Pennsylvania Event Report: EF2 Tornado |publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information |agency=National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |year=2021 |accessdate=December 18, 2021 |archive-date=December 18, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218061648/https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=972354 |url-status=live }}
The category
CS1 errors: unsupported parameter currently has more than 3000 pages listed, the majority for |agency=
. Some are fixable, but what about when the citation has something different for |publisher=
?.--
Auric
talk 13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|agency=
is not now, nor ever has been, an alias or synonym of |publisher=
. If the source is delivered by some provider other than the publisher, use |via=
to hold the name of the provider.