This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
Amended close - based on two different users approaching me regarding the wording of the RFC above, I am amending my close, and directing the users involved here to re-advertise the follow up question on scope.
I do continue to find, as per the wording of the RFC question, a consensus exists to italicize the names of websites in citations/references. However, based on a review of the discussion, the scope to which this consensus should be applied is unclear. While the discussion was advertised widely on many citation pages, and the wording of the question may seem to imply a site-wide change, the location of this discussion, and comments in this discussion, may seem to indicate this consensus should only apply to this template. For that reason, I'm holding a subsequent discussion for 30 days so the community can conclusively determine the breadth of the application of this discussion, as it could be cut both ways here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the names of websites in citations and references always be italicized? Please respond beginning with: Italic or Upright. There is an additional section below for discussion and alternatives.
The text above, and the notifications and headings below were proposed on this page with this edit. SchreiberBike| ⌨ 04:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following pages have been notified
|work=
pointing to any of
WGBH-TV/
WGBH Educational Foundation/
WGBH (FM), depending on the context of the citation) was used in the past, but I don't think that is exactly what you mean. -
Paul
T
+/
C 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)|title=Terms of Service
|work=Facebook
, a published source (a publication); you are not citing a corporation (that's the |publisher=
, but we would not add it in this case, as redundant; similarly we do just |work=The New York Times
, not |work=The New York Times
|publisher=The New York Times Company
).None of this is news; we've been over this many, many times before. The only reason this keeps coming up is a handful of individuals don't want to italicize the titles of online publications simply because they're online publications. I have no idea where they get the idea that e-pubs are magically different; they are not. In Jc3s5h's scenario, of a site that is reliable enough to cite but somehow has no discernible title (did you look in the <title>...</title>
in the page source? What do other sources call it?), the thing to do would be |work=[Descriptive text in square brackets]
; not square-bracketing it (whether it were italicized or not) would be falsifying citation data by making up a fake title; any kind of editorial change or annotation of this sort needs to be clear that it's Wikipedia saying something about the source, not actual information from the source itself. Another approach is to not use a citation template at all, and do a manual citation that otherwise makes it clear you are not using an actual title.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
, |website=
, |newspaper=
, etc...), they are italicized . If they are cited as
publishers (via |publisher=
), they are not. This is how it is, and this is how it should be.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
do not abuse unrelated citation parameters, such as |publisher=
, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations
from
MOS:ITALICWEBCITE? (This is an honest question, reading your comment I can see multiple answers to it.) -
Paul
T
+/
C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
can be either italic or not, "depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features", per the MOS. --
Green
C 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
field shows italic, the |publisher=
doesn't and you choose which is the best option. SMcCandlish says this RfC is about a small minority of users who dislike italic website names; I have no idea. However I have seen other users say this is about something else, namely that when citing content using {{cite web}}
one should always use |work=
and never use |publisher=
. They arguue everything with a URL on the Internet is a publication and therefore italic. But this argument neatly covers over a complex reality that exists, it is not always right to italicize. Users need flexibility to control who is being credited and how it renders on the page without being forced to always italicize everything and anything with a URL. --
Green
C 14:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
(C) 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.Now, you could make the choice to do Last, First (1 January 2001). "Title". CNN. or you can do Last, First (1 January 2001). "Title". CNN. CNN. or you can do Last, First (1 January 2001). "Title". CNN. TBS. The middle one duplicates information and is also how the vast majority of websites are provided. So that's why we say basically say never to use publisher. It is correct to say that everything on the internet is a publication (you use the "Publish" button to save things onwiki, right? It's a publication when you create a webpage and make it available to other people). Anyone arguing otherwise is clearly so far into edge case territory that they probably should not be using these templates for their citation(s)... -- Izno ( talk) 18:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
when citing anything on the Internet, and always italicizing, be it WGBH-TV or IMDB. --
Green
C 00:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
as such; but rather is noting that in the typical case it will be redundant with the work (|website=
). I am a firm proponent of providing publisher information (cf. the recent contentious RfC on that issue) and even I very much agree that writing, in effect, that CNN publishes CNNor that
The New York Times is published by The New York Times Companyis pretty pointless. And conversely, I notice some of the outspoken opponents of providing publisher information are in this RfC arguing in favour of the consistent use of italics for the work. I absolutely believe there are some cases where it would be correct to give
|publisher=
instead of |website=
(and obviously there are many where giving both would be appropriate); but in terms of the question in this RfC, I think Izno is correct to dismiss those as edge cases that do not have a siignificant bearing on whether or not to italicize |website=
/|work=
/etc.But your original message caught my attention for a different reason: it implies that there is a need for local (per-article) judgement on italicizing or not the |work=
/|website=
/|newspaper=
/etc. Are you saying there is a CITEVAR issue here? I am sympathetic to the view that stylistic consistency should not be attempted imposed through technical means (whether by bot or by template) if the style choice is at all controversial (in those cases, seek consistency through softer means, such as style guides). But I can't quite see that italization of the work in itself is in any way controversial, and this RfC doesn't affect the option to choose between |website=
, |publisher=
, or both in those cases when those are otherwise valid options (one can disagree on when exactly those are valid options; but for the sake of discussion let's stipulate that such instances do exist). I, personally, wouldn't have batted an eye if you cited something on cnn.com or nyt.com that was part of the corporate information (investor relations, say) rather than the news reporting as {{
cite web|publisher=CNN|url=…}}
. Others would disagree, of course, but that issue is not affected by whether or not |work=
is italicized. --
Xover (
talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)|work=
field shows italic, the |publisher=
doesn't and you choose which is the best option." No; read the templates' documentation,
Help:CS1, and
MOS:TITLES. The work title is required; the publisher name is optional, only added when not redundant, and rarely added at all for various publications types (e.g. newspapers and journals; most websites don't need it either since most of them have a company name almost the same as the website name). No one gets to omit |work=
as some kind of "give me non-italicized electronic publications or give me death"
WP:GAMING move. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)|<periodical>=
in a citation template) are required when citing any published work, which, by definition, includes all websites. We have direct
WP:MOST (a
WP:MOS
guideline) guidance on this topic at
MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, which is directly backed up by three
policies (
WP:V,
WP:NOR, and
WP:NOT). Quoting from there:When any website is cited as a source, it is necessarily being treated as a publication, [a] and in that context takes italics. Our citation templates do this automatically; do not abuse unrelated citation parameters, such as
|publisher=
, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations.
- ^ Relevant policies (emphasis in originals):
- WP:Verifiability: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.... Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published.... Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.... Editors may ... use material from ... respected mainstream publications. [Details elided.] Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria."
- WP:No original research: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material – such as facts, allegations, and ideas – for which no reliable, published sources exist."
- WP:What Wikipedia is not: New research must be "published in other [than the researchers' own] venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications".
|publisher=
will be sufficient. 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Imzadi1979 (
talk •
contribs) 22:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=[[BBC]]
or |work=[[BBC News]]
, depending on context? -
Paul
T
+/
C 03:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)When any website is cited as a source, it is necessarily being treated as a publication, and in that context takes italics.(See above for the full quote and direct references to policies backing it up.) This is very clear guidance on the subject. - Paul T +/ C 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
instead of |work=
when they cite some websites (which can also cause metadata to be mixed up). If I find something on the
CNN website, I should be able to just use "|website=[[CNN]]", and the same for citing the website for
ABC News,
BBC,
NPR,
PBS,
WGN-TV,
Associated Press,
Reuters,
Metacritic,
Rotten Tomatoes,
Box Office Mojo,
Salon,
Wired,
HuffPost,
The New York Times, etc. Writing citations should be dirt simple, and these sort of references are extremely common. If we don't do that, it seems difficult to figure out what rule we would follow instead. (e.g., if it seems like the name of an organization, don't italicize it, and if it is a content aggregator without original content, don't italicize it? – that seems unlikely to be advice that editors can consistently follow in practice.) —
BarrelProof (
talk) 05:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
instead of |work=
when citing those publications just to change formatting conflates them and pollutes the usefulness of those separate fields. (Semi-off-topic question, is there a page where the metadata created by the citation templates is explained? Having that information explicitly spelled out somewhere might be useful to this discussion as well.) -
Paul
T
+/
C 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
does not italicize by default, unlike |work=
which does). Also, treating prose and refs differently may introduce
WP:CREEP and is counter-intuitive. Italicizing all website names through default italicizing ref parameter may look like making things easier, but
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Brandmeister
talk 15:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC){{
citation}}
when any of the |work=
aliases have assigned values, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
,
Module:Citation/CS1 treats these as 'journal' objects. Pertinent to this discussion, |publisher=
is not made part of the COinS metadata for journal objects. When editors write cs1|2 citations with 'website names' in |publisher=
to avoid italics, those who consume the citations via the metadata do not get that important piece of information. This is a large part of the rationale for the pending change that requires periodical cs1 templates to have a value assigned to a |work alias=
(see
this discussion and the
implementation examples).|work=
and |publisher=
, not |italicname=
and |uprightname=
. I suppose I might not object if someone wants the templates to support some additional parameter type like |uprightsitename=
, but I think that's too complicated to expect it to be broadly understood and applied consistently. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
|URL=
. Two entities that belong to the same company can share the same name. In this case, there are two entities of different types: a publication (NBC News) and a publisher (
NBC News division of a parent company
NBCUniversal). We disambiguate them by italics. Using the proper parameter also allows it to be machine-readable. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 09:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)|website=Johnson & Johnson |publisher=Johnson & Johnson
. But in the same way we would not write |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company
, we would not list the Johnson & Johnson twice. Therefore, we arrive at simply |website=Johnson & Johnson
. I will give you another example to demonstrate my point. NASA has many website including
https://images.nasa.gov/. When citing this webiste as a source, I would not use |website=images.nasa.gov |publisher=NASA
because the website has a name NASA Image and Video Library. This is a website and not a physical library. Several NASA centers contribute to it and is entirely contained online. Again here, the name of the publisher is superfluous so we also arrive at simply |website=NASA Image and Video Library
. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)|website=
parameter eliminates the italics in the end result. For example, when one uses |website=''jnj.com''
in the citation code, it comes out upright, as in: jnj.com. So is the solution you seek 1) to eliminate the italics in the parameter or 2) to educate editors in its correct usage?
Paine Ellsworth,
ed.
put'r there 17:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
|website=astrology.org.au
If there is a publisher, website is not used; it is avoided whenever possible. "work" is never used for a newspaper; "newspaper" is always used instead 9and gives you italics), and we don't bother with publisher for newspapers, journals, magazines etc "work" is also generally avoided. However, for a TV site like CNN, we use publisher.|publisher=CNN
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 06:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"website" is only ever used for a uri– this is simply not true; read the discussion above, especially the explanations by SMcCandlish.
|website=
is an alias of |work=
, and should be used in the same way, as it is in citation-generating templates like {{
GRIN}}
, {{
WCSP}}
, etc.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)|website=
in citations, they really mean |newspaper=
(for newspapers that publish online copies of their stories), |magazine=
(ditto), |publisher=
(for the name of the company that owns the website rather than the name that company has given to that specific piece of the company's web sites), or even |via=
(for sites like Legacy.com that copy obituaries or press releases from elsewhere). Newspaper and magazine names should be italicized; publisher names should not. Once we get past those imprecisions in citation, and use |website=
only for the names of web sites that are not really something else, I think it will be of significantly less importance how we format those names. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
*Wait: An editor in this discussion unilaterally changed the MOS page to his preferred version after this discussion began? That editor, who unilaterally did this on 22 May, needs to restore the status quo to what it was as of 18 May when this discussion began. We don't just change MOS pages without consensus, and the fact we're discussing this shows there's no consensus. We don't just change the MOS, then come back to a discussion and say, "Well, look what the MOS says, I'm right!" Jesus Christ. --
Tenebrae (
talk) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
MOS pageswas modified
[an] editor [SMcCandlish] in this discussion unilaterally changed the MOS page to his preferred version after this discussion began(emphasis in original) is not correct?
There have been no edits on this topic in the last ten days. Is there any objection if I refer this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
All, based on the last RFC where I determined a consensus ( #Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment), I am holding a subsequent discussion to definitively determine how widely this should be applied, whether to all citation templates or a more limited scope. Please provide your thoughts below. I will close this discussion after 30 days. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This is not a discussion to re-debate whether italicisation should occur, as that was already determined in the previous discussion, but to determine where this should apply only. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The following pages have been notified:
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 14:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (initial list) 11:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC) (+WP:CENT)
This RfC arises from this discussion at closer's talk page.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, to avoid false metadata {{ Cite web}} should only be used for periodicals, so it should not be used for other websites.This is a different discussion. Let's keep on topic. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
|website=
for all templates and |work=
for the {{cite web}} template. So, for example, Apple is a company that publishes websites Apple (apple.com), Apple Support (support.apple.com), Apple Developer (styled Developer ; developer.apple.com), etc. —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 19:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
in CS1 templates, and that parameter should not be required.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 00:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
in CS1/2 templates – I did not participate in the original discussion, but I do follow this talk page, which is used for discussion of these templates. When someone proposes here that a certain kind of citation should look like X, or that a certain combination should be forbidden, they are understood to be talking about the behaviour of these templates. I understand that other pages are used for discussing the MOS, and no change to the wording of MOS was proposed here.
Kanguole 08:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
. It belongs to |via=
. Such is the case for GitHub: The repo name goees into |work=
.
flowing dreams (
talk page) 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
for pages like "About", "Help", "Subscription plans", etc. —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 18:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
|work=
, |publisher=
and lots of other parameters are optional. There is no telling if the citation has them. The italicization is your only clue.
flowing dreams (
talk page) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
the page to which you are linking is not an app, so, per your own criterion, definitely italize itI never said app/not-an-app was my criterion. I simply offered two examples: an online news outlet (which are always italicized) and a non-game web app (which are never italicized). There are many other types of websites which may or may not be italicized. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that there are two types of websites that disagree on italicization. Therefore, we can't apply italicization automatically and must leave the decision to the template user.
|website=
, so it's a bad example. Fine, let's take another example:
Federal Reserve Economic Data (
fred|website=
(and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis goes into |publisher=
). And yet, it is always cited as FRED (no italics). There are many more examples like that. —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 00:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
getting more and more complicated. I've provided you with two examples of websites: one that is italicized and one that is not. You've discarded the second example on the basis that it should always go into
|publisher=
, so I've replaced it with another example of a website that is not italicized.Nah. I'd say italicize all works…Wikipedia follows the existing norms as much as possible. If we wanted to keep things simple, we wouldn't have non-breaking spaces, en dashes, em dashes, etc. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
This is getting more and more complicated without any benefit, which implies that "this" is: (1) getting more and more complicated; (2) does so without any benefit. I have addressed part (1), demonstrating to you that nothing is "getting more complicated"; in fact, the level of complexity is staying exactly the same as it was in my original comment: there are websites that are italicized and there are websites that are not italicized.
you're not here to follow the existing normI will decide for myself why I'm here, thank you.
you keep saing "FRED is not italicized". Not italicized by who?Obviously, I'm referring to existing practice. As I've told you several comments back: "And yet, it is always cited as FRED (no italics)." Are you being intentionally obtuse? If you think I'm wrong, please demonstrate a variety of newspapers/magazines where FRED is cited as FRED (italicized). Except you can't. Because I've checked it thoroughly before posting my comment. You can continue to muddy the waters, or you can face the reality that in existing newspapers/magazines some types of websites are italicized (newspapers, journals, magazines, blogs, webcomics, etc.) and other types of websites are not (TV channels, radio stations, databases, company websites, etc.). See MOS:ITALICTITLE. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 05:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
face the reality, I can stare in said reality's eyes and tell it: " Hey, existing reality! I reject you, because you cannot justify your existence!" I've already done so to gender discrimination. If necessary, I'll do it to unhelpful italicization of components. flowing dreams ( talk page) 07:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
field. That is where the publishing entity (in most cases the domain owner/registrant) should be inserted. The BBC publishes bbc.com. The latter would be the source. Sources (works) should stand out, one of the reasons being that they may include a lot of other stuff, most of it mysterious to the average Wikipedia reader. The emphasis applied on the source field through italics has nothing to do with whether the source is a website or anything else.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 14:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)|publisher=
parameter, which does not italicize. No one here is confused by that, surely not you either, so trying to make it seem like I'm suggesting italicizing organization names is disingenuous. —
AReaderOutThataway
t/
c 20:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
|work=
(or |website=
, |newspaper=
, etc.) in {{
cite web}} if |publisher=
is present, but create a new template, {{
cite periodical}}, that does require a periodical parameter. --
Ahecht (
TALK|work=
and |publisher=
in the discussion above. Since I prefer CS2 style, if I were free to choose the citation style in an article, I would set up
Tenebrae's example as:
{{
Citation}}
, you don't need to choose "book" or "web", which is irrelevant. The use of the different "cite" templates diverts attention from the semantics of the parameters, in my view.
|mode=cs1
in the {{
citation}} template, as illustrated above, in order to keep the article's citation style consistent. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)I wish I had seen this at WP:Consensus#Determining consensus earlier, since it makes this entire discussion moot: "WikiProject advice pages, how-to (emphasis added) and information pages, and template documentation pages (emphasis added) have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."
That means there is no community consensus that website names should be italicized, and the coder who made that field's italicization mandatory did so without consensus. That mandatory italicization needs to be rescinded. If the coder chooses not to do so, then this issue needs to be addressed at a policy / guideline forum or at the Admin Noticeboard. The guideline page Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make it mandatory, nor does the guideline page Wikipedia:Manual of Style. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
RE: "(in particular, do not leave "work" empty with "publisher" non-empty in order to avoid rendering a website's name in italics; a website is a publication and thus its name should be rendered in italics – e.g., as CNN in the example above)."
In the recent RfC and related discussions, there was no consensus that "website=" or "work=" be mandatory and required in all cases. The close certainly did not state that. Yet this passage suggests that one or other of those fields is mandatory. I think we need to establish this before having a passage that suggests they are required. The MOS, at Wikipedia:Citing sources, states directly that flexibility is required for common-sense exceptions, since there is no one-size-fits-all solution.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
|work=CNN.com
if what you are citing was created for CCN.com as a website (i.e. this is the work being cited)
|work=
.
I don't mean to reopen the RfC debate or any other. I'm simply talking about the language in the documentation page. Simply put, I think the passage says something that isn't true — because "website=" is not required. Should what appears to be an untrue passage stay or go? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we're getting far afield. This is a focused discussion on one specific, relatively small thing: Whether to keep a 40-word passage that falsely suggests a template field is required when in fact it is not. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
|title=
(a source) in {{
cite book}} signifies something different from |title=
(an in-source location) in {{
cite journal}}. The bad design logic subsequently led people to believe that |work=
is just another parameter. It is not. As the representation of the source, it is the foundation around which anything that cites sources is based. There is no such thing as a free-standing "standalone title". A "title" is an abstraction. Actually, it is an attribute of the work, and of |work=
, these two are not different entities. Because of the bad/inconsistent design the title attribute took a non-justified concrete aspect of its own. Which obviously may lead to the idea that you can have a citation that includes another source attribute (the publisher) without presenting clearly what the published work is.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 01:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)A web page's content is replaced monthly; if I cite a specific version, from a previous month, complete with an archive URL, what value should I use for |url-status
? It's not "dead", nor is it "usurped", but neither does it display the cited content. Do we need a new value, say, "replaced"?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
|url-status=live
IMO. --
Izno (
talk) 16:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"you are no longer citing the original source"Not so; I can cite a version I saw before it was changed; and perhaps one that I have in a local copy. I might also be fixing up links from citations made when the version cited was live. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
"Versions you saw in the past and versions you have in local copy are unreliable sources"That's bunkum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.
Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.
Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The pmc parameter is the PubMed Central identifier. PMCs are sequential numbers beginning at 1 and counting up. Module:Citation/CS1 checks the PMC identifier to make sure that the value is a number greater than zero and less than 6000000 and that the identifier contains only digits. Further validation is not performed.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Feb 7; 69(5): 140–146.
Published online 2020 Feb 7.
doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6905e1
PMCID: PMC7004396
PMID: 32027631
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 09:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This came up during a GAN: when using {{
cite web}}, should |website=
(or |work=
if using that instead) show
Billboard or
Billboard.com? Several magazines, newspapers, etc., have both a printed version and a website with different content. Although the former use {{
cite magazine}} and {{
cite news}}, when used in an article, |work=
(or the equivalent) appear the same for all three. If the template doesn't include an issue or page number, it isn't apparent to a reader if it's the print version or the website (except if |title=
is linked).
Also, should |publisher=
for a website be routinely required? According to the documentation for the templates, publisher is "Not normally used for periodicals" (although it includes an example). As a practical consideration, websites often change owners (or at least their names). It's not the same as adding a book publisher, which may be important when trying to identify a particular edition with different page numbers, spelling, etc.
— Ojorojo ( talk) 16:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
when citing Billboard.|publisher=
for a website is not required as that quote that you included in your post illustrates. You might read
Help:Citation Style 1 § Work and publisher.|<work alias>=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]
and |<work alias>=[[Billboard.com]]
are synonymous names for the same source (at en.wiki the latter is a redirect to the former). I'm pretty sure that no one in this discussion is saying that a magazine's print and online contentare or must be the same. The content is still an utterance of the source whether 'tis on-line or in print. We should link to teasers only when the teaser fully supports our article's content; when it does not, and, frankly, even when it does, such links are less than ideal because the source's full context is not clear or available to our readers.
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
biorxiv seems to be using a new format with pages such as https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.915660v1. Please change the verification to:
--[[--------------------------< B I O R X I V >-----------------------------------------------------------------
Format bioRxiv id and do simple error checking. BiorXiv ids are of two forms:
the older form has exactly 6 digits, while the newer form is yyyy.mm.dd.6num.
There is an optional version part that we do not accept for now.
The bioRxiv id is the number following the last slash in the bioRxiv-issued DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1101/078733 -> 078733
]]
local function biorxiv(id)
local handler = cfg.id_handlers'BIORXIV'];
local err_cat = ''; -- presume that bioRxiv id is valid
if nil == (id:match("^%d%d%d%d%d%d$") or id:match("^20%d%d.[01]%d.[0-3]%d.%d%d%d%d%d%d")) then -- test for 6num or 20yy.mm.dd.6num
err_cat = ' ' .. set_error( 'bad_biorxiv'); -- set an error message
end
return external_link_id({link = handler.link, label = handler.label, q = handler.q,
prefix=handler.prefix,id=id,separator=handler.separator,
encode=handler.encode, access=handler.access}) .. err_cat;
end
Artoria 2e5 🌉 02:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
bioRxiv DOIs assigned prior to December 11, 2019, have a simple six-digit suffix, whereas those assigned after this date will also include the date stamp for the day of submission approval. They give examples of
2019.12.11.123456
and 2019.12.11.123456v2
for the new format. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=915660}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
915660. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.22.915660}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.22.915660. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2011.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2011.01.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2011.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.13.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.35.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.35.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.00.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.00.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2021.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2021.01.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) should display an error (changed the year). --
Izno (
talk) 17:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2024.06.14.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2024.06.14.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) today{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2024.06.15.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2024.06.15.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) tomorrow{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2024.06.16.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2024.06.16.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) day after tomorrow{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2019.12.11.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2019.12.11.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) start date{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2019.12.10.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2019.12.10.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) day before start dateIn Template: cite news (and other citation templates as well), would it be possible to have an access parameter for websites that are blocked in many countries? Best example being many American use websites e.g. Chicago Tribune, are blocked in the EU (& UK) due to GDPR. And it'd be good for this to be shown in the citation so that EU/UK readers don't waste their time trying to go to these URLs, in the same way you see subscription based sites in citations. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find how to insert all the data into the Cite web template: for example, the template indicates only one language, that is, I understand, the language of the translation. But how do I mention the work in the original, which is important? GregZak ( talk) 09:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
|language=
supports multiple language-names or language-codes where the parameter's value has the form of a comma-separated list: |language=de, fr, pl
.Oh, thank you - I didn't see notification for your reply. Will try to grasp what exactly to do. GregZak ( talk) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a series-link? Many books without links of their own are covered in one on the series. You can of course link them inline, but given the other -link parameters, it seems that this is not the direction the template is moving in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The template produces an error for valid biorxiv values. bioRxiv DOIs use a new format that isn't supported by the biorxiv parameter.
Excerpt from https://www.biorxiv.org/submit-a-manuscript
Preprints deposited in bioRxiv can be cited using their digital object identifier (DOI). bioRxiv DOIs assigned prior to December 11, 2019, have a simple six-digit suffix, whereas those assigned after this date will also include the date stamp for the day of submission approval (see below). Revised versions of manuscripts retain the same DOI assigned to the first version.
Examples
{{cite biorxiv | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
"Broken example".
bioRxiv
2020.02.07.937862. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help)
{{cite journal | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
"Broken example".
bioRxiv
2020.02.07.937862. {{
cite journal}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 04:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite biorxiv/new | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite journal/new | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Inspired by a VP/T discussion, when I find a reference with archived-date + accessdate I tend to remove the latter with edit summary access-date superseded by archive-date, because having both can make the article significantly larger, e.g., +12,533 -1,811 -826, with harder to read references. – 84.46.52.252 ( talk) 12:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
. Many upon many |archive-url=
parameters are added by bot. I have seen cases where the archive does not support our article's text. This is likely because the bot cannot evaluate the archive's content to see if that content supports the text in our article. Websites are ephemeral and the 'nearest' archived copy may be markedly different from the website content on the date it was accessed. I am not necessarily opposed to removal of access dates when a proper evaluation of the archive shows that it supports our article text though it does seem better to leave it; it is not worth the effort required to save a mere few kbytes.{{use xxx dates}}
, it is perfectly acceptable to remove |df=
from all cs1|2 templates except where it is determined that a different date format for 'this' citation is necessary.There appears to be a problem with the rendering of a non-breaking space in the cite templates.
As an example
{{cite news|title=Test|pages=1, 9}}
Renders with " ," showing rather than a space.
"Test". pp. 1, 9.
Keith D ( talk) 21:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
as a separator character, not as an integral part of the html entity. The proscription against the use of html entities in cs1|2 parameter values is noted on every cs1|2 template documentation pages as, for example, at
Template:Cite news § COinS.
and a fix is relatively easy to apply.Wikitext | {{cite news
|
---|---|
Live | "Test". pp. 1, 9. |
Sandbox | "Test". pp. 1, 9. |
I suggest adding a license parameter for values like license=CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
. To accomplish that today requires using something like id=License:CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
but the |id=
isn't supported for some subsets like biorxiv.
Whywhenwhohow (
talk) 19:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The DOI prefix is the same. It would display medrxiv instead of biorxiv in the citations.
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 04:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
go away? If not, then {{
cite preprint}}
becomes just another limited-parameter template in which case it could be a wrapper-template that invokes the appropriate limited-parameter template according to which one of |arxiv=
, |biorxiv=
, |citeseerx=
or |ssrn=
is present in the calling template.|medrxiv=
({{
cite medrxiv}}
) is an idea whose time has not yet come.|arxiv=biorxiv
which each have their validation (when known).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite preprint}}
as a wrapper for {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, and {{
cite ssrn}}
:
{{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |arxiv=gr-qc/0610068}}
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |biorxiv=108712}}
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |citeseerx=10.1.1.368.2254}}
{{
cite CiteSeerX}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |ssrn=991169}}
{{cite arxiv}}
, {{cite biorxiv}}
, {{cite citeseerx}}
, and {{cite ssrn}}
templates; or create a {{
cite preprint}}
template as part of
Module:Citation/CS1 and delete the individual preprint templates?|philsci=
parameter, that would generate the text (e.g.) "PhilSci:
3886". This is a link to the
PhilSci-Archive, an archive of papers on the philosophy of science. There are around
25 citations to it in Wikipedia.
Tercer (
talk) 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)In the citation
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); no-break space character in |date=
at position 16 (
help)I am getting an error message "Check date values in: |date=". This is the correct date (JSTOR lists it as "December 2013/January 2014"). MOS:DATERANGE, in the bullet point with the bold headings "month–month" and "between months in different years", give exactly this format, with a spaced en-dash, citing for instance the example of "May 1940 – July 1940". How can I convince the citation template that this is a valid format? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really understand why it doesn't show an error in the sandbox, but I've made a modification that would make non-breaking spaces obvious there. See:
-- Izno ( talk) 00:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help). So the test for the invisible character now functions and people can be made aware that they should not add a non-breaking space here (perhaps in contravention to the MOS). Perhaps the module should consider enforcing the no-breaking-space addition before the dash as well? --
Izno (
talk) 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Per a discussion which occured on
WP:Discord, I was hoping we could do a similar cat_maint to archived_copy
for when the |title=
input is "Bloomberg - Are you a robot?" or "Bloomberg – Are you a robot?". It'd just to help keep track of that because there are a few hundred articles which have that problem. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 17:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I encountered a small glitch using {{
cite web}}{{
cite book}}:
Using one of the |author-link=
etc. parameters, the link will be automatically suppressed when the citation is used on the page linked to by |author-link=
. This is convenient when copying citations between articles, and also helps maintenance when articles get renamed.
I thought the same feature would be available for |title-link=
, but it isn't. If this is used on the target page, the link isn't suppressed and consequently is shown in boldface, which looks odd. I think we should add the same auto-suppression to |title-link=
as well.
There is a related feature which would be neat to have: If one of the |*-link=
parameters points to a redirect rather than an article, it should be followed and the link should be suppressed if the template happens to be invoked from the redirect's target page as well. This would not only help keeping the link suppression feature work when renaming pages, but also would allow to deliberately go through redirects in order to reduce future maintenance.
It would be great if this could be fixed and implemented. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 01:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
doesn't support|title-link=
:
|title-link=
and do not also have a conflicting |url=
, we should probably mute the self-link. I'll attend to that after the pending update.|*-link=
parameters everywhere. It seems to work for the family of |author*=
, |editor*=
, |translator*=
and |contributor*=
parameters (but I haven't tried all variants), that's why I thought it would be something generic already, but apparently it is not. Are there other parameters for which a |*-link=
parameter exists?|author-link=
, |contributor-link=
, |editor-link=
, |interviewer-link=
, |subject-link=
, and |translator-link=
; and two 'title' parameters: |episode-link=
and |series-link=
which are aliases of the last parameter |title-link=
. The name-list parameters already mute self-links and the title parameters will in a future update.|work=
and aliases as well?mw-selflink
apply font-weight:inherit
instead of the MediaWiki-provided font-weight:bold
. Because of this I have also disabled the code in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that unlinked name-list parameter values
{{cite book/new |title=Title |title-link=Help talk:Citation Style 1 |author=Bob |author-link=Help talk:Citation Style 1}}
{{cite book/new |title=[[Help talk:Citation Style 1|Title]] |author=[[Help talk:Citation Style 1|Bob]]}}
It's a problem in cite journal too. URL from PMC breaks with people using title-link to link to some page they decided was somehow related. Example diff. — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Could someone edit he PMC parameter? PMC IDs are now greater than 7000000, so warnings are popping up where it is not necessary. Bait30 Talk? 19:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The fix is easy, has been done in the sandboxen but is not pressing; there are no lua script errors and at this writing, only 14 of some 4.3-ish million articles that use the module suite are showing the error. Were there lua script errors or thousands of articles showing this particular error, then certainly this would have been fixed by now. Changing one of the modules to fix a minor error dumps all 4.3-ish million articles onto the MediaWiki job queue. So, we defer updates until there are more substantive changes to be made, and then update the module suite. Category:CS1 errors: PMC (0)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
an active call to action to every editor and reader out there; then the several subcategories of Category:CS1 errors holding several thousand articles would have been cleared log ago.
No other template or module on Wikipedia has a delayed fix schedule: CS1/2 alone is used sometimes hundreds of times per page and moreover is changed the most of any of the most-widely used templates. Almost every other widely used module or template is stable, simple, and more-or-less has been so for the past half-decade that Lua has been around.
The Anome has updated the identifier check. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a bit irritating that you can't manually italicize a newspaper under the publisher parameter. I don't know who thought that a good idea but it's a tad annoying. I am aware that newspaper= works but it's not a good idea showing errors when you try to italicize under the publisher parameter. Sort it out, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
|newspaper=
or |work=
parameter. The template does the italicization for you. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)|publisher=
, which is what my answer was attempting to respond to. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Picking up a point I made at the talk page of {{
Use dmy dates}}
, the consequence of the CS1/2 templates using this template to standardize dates in citations is that it violates
WP:CITERETAIN, because of the retrospective element. There are articles to which {{
Use dmy dates}}
was added years ago (one example I found is from 2005). When these have consistent (or almost consistent) YYYY-MM-DD access and archive dates, these get changed to DMY dates, contrary to well established guidelines. It's no defence to say that this behaviour can be over-ridden by the use of |cs1-dates=
, since no editor knew until the change was made that this parameter was necessary or even existed.
The CS1/2 templates should stop changing the displayed format of access and archive dates when {{
Use dmy dates}}
is present without |cs1-dates=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 11:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
Amended close - based on two different users approaching me regarding the wording of the RFC above, I am amending my close, and directing the users involved here to re-advertise the follow up question on scope.
I do continue to find, as per the wording of the RFC question, a consensus exists to italicize the names of websites in citations/references. However, based on a review of the discussion, the scope to which this consensus should be applied is unclear. While the discussion was advertised widely on many citation pages, and the wording of the question may seem to imply a site-wide change, the location of this discussion, and comments in this discussion, may seem to indicate this consensus should only apply to this template. For that reason, I'm holding a subsequent discussion for 30 days so the community can conclusively determine the breadth of the application of this discussion, as it could be cut both ways here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the names of websites in citations and references always be italicized? Please respond beginning with: Italic or Upright. There is an additional section below for discussion and alternatives.
The text above, and the notifications and headings below were proposed on this page with this edit. SchreiberBike| ⌨ 04:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The following pages have been notified
|work=
pointing to any of
WGBH-TV/
WGBH Educational Foundation/
WGBH (FM), depending on the context of the citation) was used in the past, but I don't think that is exactly what you mean. -
Paul
T
+/
C 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)|title=Terms of Service
|work=Facebook
, a published source (a publication); you are not citing a corporation (that's the |publisher=
, but we would not add it in this case, as redundant; similarly we do just |work=The New York Times
, not |work=The New York Times
|publisher=The New York Times Company
).None of this is news; we've been over this many, many times before. The only reason this keeps coming up is a handful of individuals don't want to italicize the titles of online publications simply because they're online publications. I have no idea where they get the idea that e-pubs are magically different; they are not. In Jc3s5h's scenario, of a site that is reliable enough to cite but somehow has no discernible title (did you look in the <title>...</title>
in the page source? What do other sources call it?), the thing to do would be |work=[Descriptive text in square brackets]
; not square-bracketing it (whether it were italicized or not) would be falsifying citation data by making up a fake title; any kind of editorial change or annotation of this sort needs to be clear that it's Wikipedia saying something about the source, not actual information from the source itself. Another approach is to not use a citation template at all, and do a manual citation that otherwise makes it clear you are not using an actual title.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 12:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
, |website=
, |newspaper=
, etc...), they are italicized . If they are cited as
publishers (via |publisher=
), they are not. This is how it is, and this is how it should be.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
do not abuse unrelated citation parameters, such as |publisher=
, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations
from
MOS:ITALICWEBCITE? (This is an honest question, reading your comment I can see multiple answers to it.) -
Paul
T
+/
C 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
can be either italic or not, "depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features", per the MOS. --
Green
C 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=
field shows italic, the |publisher=
doesn't and you choose which is the best option. SMcCandlish says this RfC is about a small minority of users who dislike italic website names; I have no idea. However I have seen other users say this is about something else, namely that when citing content using {{cite web}}
one should always use |work=
and never use |publisher=
. They arguue everything with a URL on the Internet is a publication and therefore italic. But this argument neatly covers over a complex reality that exists, it is not always right to italicize. Users need flexibility to control who is being credited and how it renders on the page without being forced to always italicize everything and anything with a URL. --
Green
C 14:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
(C) 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.Now, you could make the choice to do Last, First (1 January 2001). "Title". CNN. or you can do Last, First (1 January 2001). "Title". CNN. CNN. or you can do Last, First (1 January 2001). "Title". CNN. TBS. The middle one duplicates information and is also how the vast majority of websites are provided. So that's why we say basically say never to use publisher. It is correct to say that everything on the internet is a publication (you use the "Publish" button to save things onwiki, right? It's a publication when you create a webpage and make it available to other people). Anyone arguing otherwise is clearly so far into edge case territory that they probably should not be using these templates for their citation(s)... -- Izno ( talk) 18:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
when citing anything on the Internet, and always italicizing, be it WGBH-TV or IMDB. --
Green
C 00:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
as such; but rather is noting that in the typical case it will be redundant with the work (|website=
). I am a firm proponent of providing publisher information (cf. the recent contentious RfC on that issue) and even I very much agree that writing, in effect, that CNN publishes CNNor that
The New York Times is published by The New York Times Companyis pretty pointless. And conversely, I notice some of the outspoken opponents of providing publisher information are in this RfC arguing in favour of the consistent use of italics for the work. I absolutely believe there are some cases where it would be correct to give
|publisher=
instead of |website=
(and obviously there are many where giving both would be appropriate); but in terms of the question in this RfC, I think Izno is correct to dismiss those as edge cases that do not have a siignificant bearing on whether or not to italicize |website=
/|work=
/etc.But your original message caught my attention for a different reason: it implies that there is a need for local (per-article) judgement on italicizing or not the |work=
/|website=
/|newspaper=
/etc. Are you saying there is a CITEVAR issue here? I am sympathetic to the view that stylistic consistency should not be attempted imposed through technical means (whether by bot or by template) if the style choice is at all controversial (in those cases, seek consistency through softer means, such as style guides). But I can't quite see that italization of the work in itself is in any way controversial, and this RfC doesn't affect the option to choose between |website=
, |publisher=
, or both in those cases when those are otherwise valid options (one can disagree on when exactly those are valid options; but for the sake of discussion let's stipulate that such instances do exist). I, personally, wouldn't have batted an eye if you cited something on cnn.com or nyt.com that was part of the corporate information (investor relations, say) rather than the news reporting as {{
cite web|publisher=CNN|url=…}}
. Others would disagree, of course, but that issue is not affected by whether or not |work=
is italicized. --
Xover (
talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)|work=
field shows italic, the |publisher=
doesn't and you choose which is the best option." No; read the templates' documentation,
Help:CS1, and
MOS:TITLES. The work title is required; the publisher name is optional, only added when not redundant, and rarely added at all for various publications types (e.g. newspapers and journals; most websites don't need it either since most of them have a company name almost the same as the website name). No one gets to omit |work=
as some kind of "give me non-italicized electronic publications or give me death"
WP:GAMING move. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)|<periodical>=
in a citation template) are required when citing any published work, which, by definition, includes all websites. We have direct
WP:MOST (a
WP:MOS
guideline) guidance on this topic at
MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, which is directly backed up by three
policies (
WP:V,
WP:NOR, and
WP:NOT). Quoting from there:When any website is cited as a source, it is necessarily being treated as a publication, [a] and in that context takes italics. Our citation templates do this automatically; do not abuse unrelated citation parameters, such as
|publisher=
, to evade italicization of online work titles in source citations.
- ^ Relevant policies (emphasis in originals):
- WP:Verifiability: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources.... Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published.... Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.... Editors may ... use material from ... respected mainstream publications. [Details elided.] Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria."
- WP:No original research: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material – such as facts, allegations, and ideas – for which no reliable, published sources exist."
- WP:What Wikipedia is not: New research must be "published in other [than the researchers' own] venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications".
|publisher=
will be sufficient. 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Imzadi1979 (
talk •
contribs) 22:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|work=[[BBC]]
or |work=[[BBC News]]
, depending on context? -
Paul
T
+/
C 03:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)When any website is cited as a source, it is necessarily being treated as a publication, and in that context takes italics.(See above for the full quote and direct references to policies backing it up.) This is very clear guidance on the subject. - Paul T +/ C 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
instead of |work=
when they cite some websites (which can also cause metadata to be mixed up). If I find something on the
CNN website, I should be able to just use "|website=[[CNN]]", and the same for citing the website for
ABC News,
BBC,
NPR,
PBS,
WGN-TV,
Associated Press,
Reuters,
Metacritic,
Rotten Tomatoes,
Box Office Mojo,
Salon,
Wired,
HuffPost,
The New York Times, etc. Writing citations should be dirt simple, and these sort of references are extremely common. If we don't do that, it seems difficult to figure out what rule we would follow instead. (e.g., if it seems like the name of an organization, don't italicize it, and if it is a content aggregator without original content, don't italicize it? – that seems unlikely to be advice that editors can consistently follow in practice.) —
BarrelProof (
talk) 05:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
instead of |work=
when citing those publications just to change formatting conflates them and pollutes the usefulness of those separate fields. (Semi-off-topic question, is there a page where the metadata created by the citation templates is explained? Having that information explicitly spelled out somewhere might be useful to this discussion as well.) -
Paul
T
+/
C 10:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
does not italicize by default, unlike |work=
which does). Also, treating prose and refs differently may introduce
WP:CREEP and is counter-intuitive. Italicizing all website names through default italicizing ref parameter may look like making things easier, but
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Brandmeister
talk 15:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC){{
citation}}
when any of the |work=
aliases have assigned values, {{
cite journal}}
, {{
cite magazine}}
, {{
cite news}}
, and {{
cite web}}
,
Module:Citation/CS1 treats these as 'journal' objects. Pertinent to this discussion, |publisher=
is not made part of the COinS metadata for journal objects. When editors write cs1|2 citations with 'website names' in |publisher=
to avoid italics, those who consume the citations via the metadata do not get that important piece of information. This is a large part of the rationale for the pending change that requires periodical cs1 templates to have a value assigned to a |work alias=
(see
this discussion and the
implementation examples).|work=
and |publisher=
, not |italicname=
and |uprightname=
. I suppose I might not object if someone wants the templates to support some additional parameter type like |uprightsitename=
, but I think that's too complicated to expect it to be broadly understood and applied consistently. —
BarrelProof (
talk) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
|URL=
. Two entities that belong to the same company can share the same name. In this case, there are two entities of different types: a publication (NBC News) and a publisher (
NBC News division of a parent company
NBCUniversal). We disambiguate them by italics. Using the proper parameter also allows it to be machine-readable. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 09:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)|website=Johnson & Johnson |publisher=Johnson & Johnson
. But in the same way we would not write |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company
, we would not list the Johnson & Johnson twice. Therefore, we arrive at simply |website=Johnson & Johnson
. I will give you another example to demonstrate my point. NASA has many website including
https://images.nasa.gov/. When citing this webiste as a source, I would not use |website=images.nasa.gov |publisher=NASA
because the website has a name NASA Image and Video Library. This is a website and not a physical library. Several NASA centers contribute to it and is entirely contained online. Again here, the name of the publisher is superfluous so we also arrive at simply |website=NASA Image and Video Library
. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)|website=
parameter eliminates the italics in the end result. For example, when one uses |website=''jnj.com''
in the citation code, it comes out upright, as in: jnj.com. So is the solution you seek 1) to eliminate the italics in the parameter or 2) to educate editors in its correct usage?
Paine Ellsworth,
ed.
put'r there 17:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
|website=astrology.org.au
If there is a publisher, website is not used; it is avoided whenever possible. "work" is never used for a newspaper; "newspaper" is always used instead 9and gives you italics), and we don't bother with publisher for newspapers, journals, magazines etc "work" is also generally avoided. However, for a TV site like CNN, we use publisher.|publisher=CNN
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 06:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
"website" is only ever used for a uri– this is simply not true; read the discussion above, especially the explanations by SMcCandlish.
|website=
is an alias of |work=
, and should be used in the same way, as it is in citation-generating templates like {{
GRIN}}
, {{
WCSP}}
, etc.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)|website=
in citations, they really mean |newspaper=
(for newspapers that publish online copies of their stories), |magazine=
(ditto), |publisher=
(for the name of the company that owns the website rather than the name that company has given to that specific piece of the company's web sites), or even |via=
(for sites like Legacy.com that copy obituaries or press releases from elsewhere). Newspaper and magazine names should be italicized; publisher names should not. Once we get past those imprecisions in citation, and use |website=
only for the names of web sites that are not really something else, I think it will be of significantly less importance how we format those names. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
*Wait: An editor in this discussion unilaterally changed the MOS page to his preferred version after this discussion began? That editor, who unilaterally did this on 22 May, needs to restore the status quo to what it was as of 18 May when this discussion began. We don't just change MOS pages without consensus, and the fact we're discussing this shows there's no consensus. We don't just change the MOS, then come back to a discussion and say, "Well, look what the MOS says, I'm right!" Jesus Christ. --
Tenebrae (
talk) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
MOS pageswas modified
[an] editor [SMcCandlish] in this discussion unilaterally changed the MOS page to his preferred version after this discussion began(emphasis in original) is not correct?
There have been no edits on this topic in the last ten days. Is there any objection if I refer this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
All, based on the last RFC where I determined a consensus ( #Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment), I am holding a subsequent discussion to definitively determine how widely this should be applied, whether to all citation templates or a more limited scope. Please provide your thoughts below. I will close this discussion after 30 days. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This is not a discussion to re-debate whether italicisation should occur, as that was already determined in the previous discussion, but to determine where this should apply only. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The following pages have been notified:
—
Trappist the monk (
talk) 14:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC) (initial list) 11:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC) (+WP:CENT)
This RfC arises from this discussion at closer's talk page.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, to avoid false metadata {{ Cite web}} should only be used for periodicals, so it should not be used for other websites.This is a different discussion. Let's keep on topic. 72.43.99.138 ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
|website=
for all templates and |work=
for the {{cite web}} template. So, for example, Apple is a company that publishes websites Apple (apple.com), Apple Support (support.apple.com), Apple Developer (styled Developer ; developer.apple.com), etc. —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 19:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
in CS1 templates, and that parameter should not be required.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 00:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
in CS1/2 templates – I did not participate in the original discussion, but I do follow this talk page, which is used for discussion of these templates. When someone proposes here that a certain kind of citation should look like X, or that a certain combination should be forbidden, they are understood to be talking about the behaviour of these templates. I understand that other pages are used for discussing the MOS, and no change to the wording of MOS was proposed here.
Kanguole 08:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
. It belongs to |via=
. Such is the case for GitHub: The repo name goees into |work=
.
flowing dreams (
talk page) 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)|website=
for pages like "About", "Help", "Subscription plans", etc. —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 18:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
|work=
, |publisher=
and lots of other parameters are optional. There is no telling if the citation has them. The italicization is your only clue.
flowing dreams (
talk page) 07:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
the page to which you are linking is not an app, so, per your own criterion, definitely italize itI never said app/not-an-app was my criterion. I simply offered two examples: an online news outlet (which are always italicized) and a non-game web app (which are never italicized). There are many other types of websites which may or may not be italicized. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that there are two types of websites that disagree on italicization. Therefore, we can't apply italicization automatically and must leave the decision to the template user.
|website=
, so it's a bad example. Fine, let's take another example:
Federal Reserve Economic Data (
fred|website=
(and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis goes into |publisher=
). And yet, it is always cited as FRED (no italics). There are many more examples like that. —
UnladenSwallow (
talk) 00:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
getting more and more complicated. I've provided you with two examples of websites: one that is italicized and one that is not. You've discarded the second example on the basis that it should always go into
|publisher=
, so I've replaced it with another example of a website that is not italicized.Nah. I'd say italicize all works…Wikipedia follows the existing norms as much as possible. If we wanted to keep things simple, we wouldn't have non-breaking spaces, en dashes, em dashes, etc. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
This is getting more and more complicated without any benefit, which implies that "this" is: (1) getting more and more complicated; (2) does so without any benefit. I have addressed part (1), demonstrating to you that nothing is "getting more complicated"; in fact, the level of complexity is staying exactly the same as it was in my original comment: there are websites that are italicized and there are websites that are not italicized.
you're not here to follow the existing normI will decide for myself why I'm here, thank you.
you keep saing "FRED is not italicized". Not italicized by who?Obviously, I'm referring to existing practice. As I've told you several comments back: "And yet, it is always cited as FRED (no italics)." Are you being intentionally obtuse? If you think I'm wrong, please demonstrate a variety of newspapers/magazines where FRED is cited as FRED (italicized). Except you can't. Because I've checked it thoroughly before posting my comment. You can continue to muddy the waters, or you can face the reality that in existing newspapers/magazines some types of websites are italicized (newspapers, journals, magazines, blogs, webcomics, etc.) and other types of websites are not (TV channels, radio stations, databases, company websites, etc.). See MOS:ITALICTITLE. — UnladenSwallow ( talk) 05:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
face the reality, I can stare in said reality's eyes and tell it: " Hey, existing reality! I reject you, because you cannot justify your existence!" I've already done so to gender discrimination. If necessary, I'll do it to unhelpful italicization of components. flowing dreams ( talk page) 07:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
|publisher=
field. That is where the publishing entity (in most cases the domain owner/registrant) should be inserted. The BBC publishes bbc.com. The latter would be the source. Sources (works) should stand out, one of the reasons being that they may include a lot of other stuff, most of it mysterious to the average Wikipedia reader. The emphasis applied on the source field through italics has nothing to do with whether the source is a website or anything else.
72.43.99.138 (
talk) 14:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)|publisher=
parameter, which does not italicize. No one here is confused by that, surely not you either, so trying to make it seem like I'm suggesting italicizing organization names is disingenuous. —
AReaderOutThataway
t/
c 20:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
|work=
(or |website=
, |newspaper=
, etc.) in {{
cite web}} if |publisher=
is present, but create a new template, {{
cite periodical}}, that does require a periodical parameter. --
Ahecht (
TALK|work=
and |publisher=
in the discussion above. Since I prefer CS2 style, if I were free to choose the citation style in an article, I would set up
Tenebrae's example as:
{{
Citation}}
, you don't need to choose "book" or "web", which is irrelevant. The use of the different "cite" templates diverts attention from the semantics of the parameters, in my view.
|mode=cs1
in the {{
citation}} template, as illustrated above, in order to keep the article's citation style consistent. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)I wish I had seen this at WP:Consensus#Determining consensus earlier, since it makes this entire discussion moot: "WikiProject advice pages, how-to (emphasis added) and information pages, and template documentation pages (emphasis added) have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."
That means there is no community consensus that website names should be italicized, and the coder who made that field's italicization mandatory did so without consensus. That mandatory italicization needs to be rescinded. If the coder chooses not to do so, then this issue needs to be addressed at a policy / guideline forum or at the Admin Noticeboard. The guideline page Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make it mandatory, nor does the guideline page Wikipedia:Manual of Style. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
RE: "(in particular, do not leave "work" empty with "publisher" non-empty in order to avoid rendering a website's name in italics; a website is a publication and thus its name should be rendered in italics – e.g., as CNN in the example above)."
In the recent RfC and related discussions, there was no consensus that "website=" or "work=" be mandatory and required in all cases. The close certainly did not state that. Yet this passage suggests that one or other of those fields is mandatory. I think we need to establish this before having a passage that suggests they are required. The MOS, at Wikipedia:Citing sources, states directly that flexibility is required for common-sense exceptions, since there is no one-size-fits-all solution.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
|work=CNN.com
if what you are citing was created for CCN.com as a website (i.e. this is the work being cited)
|work=
.
I don't mean to reopen the RfC debate or any other. I'm simply talking about the language in the documentation page. Simply put, I think the passage says something that isn't true — because "website=" is not required. Should what appears to be an untrue passage stay or go? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we're getting far afield. This is a focused discussion on one specific, relatively small thing: Whether to keep a 40-word passage that falsely suggests a template field is required when in fact it is not. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
|title=
(a source) in {{
cite book}} signifies something different from |title=
(an in-source location) in {{
cite journal}}. The bad design logic subsequently led people to believe that |work=
is just another parameter. It is not. As the representation of the source, it is the foundation around which anything that cites sources is based. There is no such thing as a free-standing "standalone title". A "title" is an abstraction. Actually, it is an attribute of the work, and of |work=
, these two are not different entities. Because of the bad/inconsistent design the title attribute took a non-justified concrete aspect of its own. Which obviously may lead to the idea that you can have a citation that includes another source attribute (the publisher) without presenting clearly what the published work is.
98.0.246.242 (
talk) 01:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)A web page's content is replaced monthly; if I cite a specific version, from a previous month, complete with an archive URL, what value should I use for |url-status
? It's not "dead", nor is it "usurped", but neither does it display the cited content. Do we need a new value, say, "replaced"?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 16:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
|url-status=live
IMO. --
Izno (
talk) 16:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"you are no longer citing the original source"Not so; I can cite a version I saw before it was changed; and perhaps one that I have in a local copy. I might also be fixing up links from citations made when the version cited was live. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
"Versions you saw in the past and versions you have in local copy are unreliable sources"That's bunkum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.
Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.
Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi t | c 20:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The pmc parameter is the PubMed Central identifier. PMCs are sequential numbers beginning at 1 and counting up. Module:Citation/CS1 checks the PMC identifier to make sure that the value is a number greater than zero and less than 6000000 and that the identifier contains only digits. Further validation is not performed.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Feb 7; 69(5): 140–146.
Published online 2020 Feb 7.
doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6905e1
PMCID: PMC7004396
PMID: 32027631
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 09:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This came up during a GAN: when using {{
cite web}}, should |website=
(or |work=
if using that instead) show
Billboard or
Billboard.com? Several magazines, newspapers, etc., have both a printed version and a website with different content. Although the former use {{
cite magazine}} and {{
cite news}}, when used in an article, |work=
(or the equivalent) appear the same for all three. If the template doesn't include an issue or page number, it isn't apparent to a reader if it's the print version or the website (except if |title=
is linked).
Also, should |publisher=
for a website be routinely required? According to the documentation for the templates, publisher is "Not normally used for periodicals" (although it includes an example). As a practical consideration, websites often change owners (or at least their names). It's not the same as adding a book publisher, which may be important when trying to identify a particular edition with different page numbers, spelling, etc.
— Ojorojo ( talk) 16:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
when citing Billboard.|publisher=
for a website is not required as that quote that you included in your post illustrates. You might read
Help:Citation Style 1 § Work and publisher.|<work alias>=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]
and |<work alias>=[[Billboard.com]]
are synonymous names for the same source (at en.wiki the latter is a redirect to the former). I'm pretty sure that no one in this discussion is saying that a magazine's print and online contentare or must be the same. The content is still an utterance of the source whether 'tis on-line or in print. We should link to teasers only when the teaser fully supports our article's content; when it does not, and, frankly, even when it does, such links are less than ideal because the source's full context is not clear or available to our readers.
This
edit request to
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
biorxiv seems to be using a new format with pages such as https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.915660v1. Please change the verification to:
--[[--------------------------< B I O R X I V >-----------------------------------------------------------------
Format bioRxiv id and do simple error checking. BiorXiv ids are of two forms:
the older form has exactly 6 digits, while the newer form is yyyy.mm.dd.6num.
There is an optional version part that we do not accept for now.
The bioRxiv id is the number following the last slash in the bioRxiv-issued DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1101/078733 -> 078733
]]
local function biorxiv(id)
local handler = cfg.id_handlers'BIORXIV'];
local err_cat = ''; -- presume that bioRxiv id is valid
if nil == (id:match("^%d%d%d%d%d%d$") or id:match("^20%d%d.[01]%d.[0-3]%d.%d%d%d%d%d%d")) then -- test for 6num or 20yy.mm.dd.6num
err_cat = ' ' .. set_error( 'bad_biorxiv'); -- set an error message
end
return external_link_id({link = handler.link, label = handler.label, q = handler.q,
prefix=handler.prefix,id=id,separator=handler.separator,
encode=handler.encode, access=handler.access}) .. err_cat;
end
Artoria 2e5 🌉 02:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
bioRxiv DOIs assigned prior to December 11, 2019, have a simple six-digit suffix, whereas those assigned after this date will also include the date stamp for the day of submission approval. They give examples of
2019.12.11.123456
and 2019.12.11.123456v2
for the new format. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 04:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=915660}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
915660. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.22.915660}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.22.915660. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2011.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2011.01.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2011.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.13.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.35.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.35.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2020.01.00.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2020.01.00.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2021.01.22.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2021.01.22.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) should display an error (changed the year). --
Izno (
talk) 17:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2024.06.14.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2024.06.14.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) today{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2024.06.15.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2024.06.15.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) tomorrow{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2024.06.16.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2024.06.16.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) day after tomorrow{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2019.12.11.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2019.12.11.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) start date{{cite biorxiv/new |title=Title |biorxiv=2019.12.10.915660v1}}
→ "Title".
bioRxiv
2019.12.10.915660v1. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help) day before start dateIn Template: cite news (and other citation templates as well), would it be possible to have an access parameter for websites that are blocked in many countries? Best example being many American use websites e.g. Chicago Tribune, are blocked in the EU (& UK) due to GDPR. And it'd be good for this to be shown in the citation so that EU/UK readers don't waste their time trying to go to these URLs, in the same way you see subscription based sites in citations. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find how to insert all the data into the Cite web template: for example, the template indicates only one language, that is, I understand, the language of the translation. But how do I mention the work in the original, which is important? GregZak ( talk) 09:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
|language=
supports multiple language-names or language-codes where the parameter's value has the form of a comma-separated list: |language=de, fr, pl
.Oh, thank you - I didn't see notification for your reply. Will try to grasp what exactly to do. GregZak ( talk) 19:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a series-link? Many books without links of their own are covered in one on the series. You can of course link them inline, but given the other -link parameters, it seems that this is not the direction the template is moving in. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The template produces an error for valid biorxiv values. bioRxiv DOIs use a new format that isn't supported by the biorxiv parameter.
Excerpt from https://www.biorxiv.org/submit-a-manuscript
Preprints deposited in bioRxiv can be cited using their digital object identifier (DOI). bioRxiv DOIs assigned prior to December 11, 2019, have a simple six-digit suffix, whereas those assigned after this date will also include the date stamp for the day of submission approval (see below). Revised versions of manuscripts retain the same DOI assigned to the first version.
Examples
{{cite biorxiv | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
"Broken example".
bioRxiv
2020.02.07.937862. {{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help)
{{cite journal | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
"Broken example".
bioRxiv
2020.02.07.937862. {{
cite journal}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 04:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
{{cite biorxiv/new | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite journal/new | biorxiv=2020.02.07.937862 | title=Broken example}}
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |biorxiv=
value (
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Inspired by a VP/T discussion, when I find a reference with archived-date + accessdate I tend to remove the latter with edit summary access-date superseded by archive-date, because having both can make the article significantly larger, e.g., +12,533 -1,811 -826, with harder to read references. – 84.46.52.252 ( talk) 12:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
|access-date=
. Many upon many |archive-url=
parameters are added by bot. I have seen cases where the archive does not support our article's text. This is likely because the bot cannot evaluate the archive's content to see if that content supports the text in our article. Websites are ephemeral and the 'nearest' archived copy may be markedly different from the website content on the date it was accessed. I am not necessarily opposed to removal of access dates when a proper evaluation of the archive shows that it supports our article text though it does seem better to leave it; it is not worth the effort required to save a mere few kbytes.{{use xxx dates}}
, it is perfectly acceptable to remove |df=
from all cs1|2 templates except where it is determined that a different date format for 'this' citation is necessary.There appears to be a problem with the rendering of a non-breaking space in the cite templates.
As an example
{{cite news|title=Test|pages=1, 9}}
Renders with " ," showing rather than a space.
"Test". pp. 1, 9.
Keith D ( talk) 21:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
as a separator character, not as an integral part of the html entity. The proscription against the use of html entities in cs1|2 parameter values is noted on every cs1|2 template documentation pages as, for example, at
Template:Cite news § COinS.
and a fix is relatively easy to apply.Wikitext | {{cite news
|
---|---|
Live | "Test". pp. 1, 9. |
Sandbox | "Test". pp. 1, 9. |
I suggest adding a license parameter for values like license=CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
. To accomplish that today requires using something like id=License:CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
but the |id=
isn't supported for some subsets like biorxiv.
Whywhenwhohow (
talk) 19:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The DOI prefix is the same. It would display medrxiv instead of biorxiv in the citations.
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 04:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, {{
cite ssrn}}
go away? If not, then {{
cite preprint}}
becomes just another limited-parameter template in which case it could be a wrapper-template that invokes the appropriate limited-parameter template according to which one of |arxiv=
, |biorxiv=
, |citeseerx=
or |ssrn=
is present in the calling template.|medrxiv=
({{
cite medrxiv}}
) is an idea whose time has not yet come.|arxiv=biorxiv
which each have their validation (when known).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite preprint}}
as a wrapper for {{
cite arxiv}}
, {{
cite biorxiv}}
, {{
cite citeseerx}}
, and {{
cite ssrn}}
:
{{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |arxiv=gr-qc/0610068}}
{{
cite arXiv}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |biorxiv=108712}}
{{
cite bioRxiv}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check |biorxiv=
value (
help){{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |citeseerx=10.1.1.368.2254}}
{{
cite CiteSeerX}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{cite preprint |author=Author |title=Title |ssrn=991169}}
{{cite arxiv}}
, {{cite biorxiv}}
, {{cite citeseerx}}
, and {{cite ssrn}}
templates; or create a {{
cite preprint}}
template as part of
Module:Citation/CS1 and delete the individual preprint templates?|philsci=
parameter, that would generate the text (e.g.) "PhilSci:
3886". This is a link to the
PhilSci-Archive, an archive of papers on the philosophy of science. There are around
25 citations to it in Wikipedia.
Tercer (
talk) 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)In the citation
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); no-break space character in |date=
at position 16 (
help)I am getting an error message "Check date values in: |date=". This is the correct date (JSTOR lists it as "December 2013/January 2014"). MOS:DATERANGE, in the bullet point with the bold headings "month–month" and "between months in different years", give exactly this format, with a spaced en-dash, citing for instance the example of "May 1940 – July 1940". How can I convince the citation template that this is a valid format? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really understand why it doesn't show an error in the sandbox, but I've made a modification that would make non-breaking spaces obvious there. See:
-- Izno ( talk) 00:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help). So the test for the invisible character now functions and people can be made aware that they should not add a non-breaking space here (perhaps in contravention to the MOS). Perhaps the module should consider enforcing the no-breaking-space addition before the dash as well? --
Izno (
talk) 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Per a discussion which occured on
WP:Discord, I was hoping we could do a similar cat_maint to archived_copy
for when the |title=
input is "Bloomberg - Are you a robot?" or "Bloomberg – Are you a robot?". It'd just to help keep track of that because there are a few hundred articles which have that problem. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖ 17:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I encountered a small glitch using {{
cite web}}{{
cite book}}:
Using one of the |author-link=
etc. parameters, the link will be automatically suppressed when the citation is used on the page linked to by |author-link=
. This is convenient when copying citations between articles, and also helps maintenance when articles get renamed.
I thought the same feature would be available for |title-link=
, but it isn't. If this is used on the target page, the link isn't suppressed and consequently is shown in boldface, which looks odd. I think we should add the same auto-suppression to |title-link=
as well.
There is a related feature which would be neat to have: If one of the |*-link=
parameters points to a redirect rather than an article, it should be followed and the link should be suppressed if the template happens to be invoked from the redirect's target page as well. This would not only help keeping the link suppression feature work when renaming pages, but also would allow to deliberately go through redirects in order to reduce future maintenance.
It would be great if this could be fixed and implemented. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 01:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
doesn't support|title-link=
:
|title-link=
and do not also have a conflicting |url=
, we should probably mute the self-link. I'll attend to that after the pending update.|*-link=
parameters everywhere. It seems to work for the family of |author*=
, |editor*=
, |translator*=
and |contributor*=
parameters (but I haven't tried all variants), that's why I thought it would be something generic already, but apparently it is not. Are there other parameters for which a |*-link=
parameter exists?|author-link=
, |contributor-link=
, |editor-link=
, |interviewer-link=
, |subject-link=
, and |translator-link=
; and two 'title' parameters: |episode-link=
and |series-link=
which are aliases of the last parameter |title-link=
. The name-list parameters already mute self-links and the title parameters will in a future update.|work=
and aliases as well?mw-selflink
apply font-weight:inherit
instead of the MediaWiki-provided font-weight:bold
. Because of this I have also disabled the code in
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that unlinked name-list parameter values
{{cite book/new |title=Title |title-link=Help talk:Citation Style 1 |author=Bob |author-link=Help talk:Citation Style 1}}
{{cite book/new |title=[[Help talk:Citation Style 1|Title]] |author=[[Help talk:Citation Style 1|Bob]]}}
It's a problem in cite journal too. URL from PMC breaks with people using title-link to link to some page they decided was somehow related. Example diff. — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Could someone edit he PMC parameter? PMC IDs are now greater than 7000000, so warnings are popping up where it is not necessary. Bait30 Talk? 19:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The fix is easy, has been done in the sandboxen but is not pressing; there are no lua script errors and at this writing, only 14 of some 4.3-ish million articles that use the module suite are showing the error. Were there lua script errors or thousands of articles showing this particular error, then certainly this would have been fixed by now. Changing one of the modules to fix a minor error dumps all 4.3-ish million articles onto the MediaWiki job queue. So, we defer updates until there are more substantive changes to be made, and then update the module suite. Category:CS1 errors: PMC (0)
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 20:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
an active call to action to every editor and reader out there; then the several subcategories of Category:CS1 errors holding several thousand articles would have been cleared log ago.
No other template or module on Wikipedia has a delayed fix schedule: CS1/2 alone is used sometimes hundreds of times per page and moreover is changed the most of any of the most-widely used templates. Almost every other widely used module or template is stable, simple, and more-or-less has been so for the past half-decade that Lua has been around.
The Anome has updated the identifier check. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a bit irritating that you can't manually italicize a newspaper under the publisher parameter. I don't know who thought that a good idea but it's a tad annoying. I am aware that newspaper= works but it's not a good idea showing errors when you try to italicize under the publisher parameter. Sort it out, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
|newspaper=
or |work=
parameter. The template does the italicization for you. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)|publisher=
, which is what my answer was attempting to respond to. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Picking up a point I made at the talk page of {{
Use dmy dates}}
, the consequence of the CS1/2 templates using this template to standardize dates in citations is that it violates
WP:CITERETAIN, because of the retrospective element. There are articles to which {{
Use dmy dates}}
was added years ago (one example I found is from 2005). When these have consistent (or almost consistent) YYYY-MM-DD access and archive dates, these get changed to DMY dates, contrary to well established guidelines. It's no defence to say that this behaviour can be over-ridden by the use of |cs1-dates=
, since no editor knew until the change was made that this parameter was necessary or even existed.
The CS1/2 templates should stop changing the displayed format of access and archive dates when {{
Use dmy dates}}
is present without |cs1-dates=
.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 11:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)