Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
The instructions state that a journal's own date format should be followed - in this case, "Midsummer 1911". However that generates a red error. What should be done? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
|issue=
field. Journals with such seasonal dates usually provide an actual publication schedule near the editorial masthead or elsewhere in front matter. Look for text like "Published the first week of July", or similar, and cite the date appropriately. 69.94.58.75 (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
|date=
either. 'June 1911' is no good because that would have been the regular quartely issue, a different magazine. Here's an archive source for it, using 'Midsummer 1911' https://www.gjenvick.com/OceanTravel/Titanic/25-ImageLibrary/TheShipbuilder-01-WhiteStarLine.html There's a cover scan which seems to describe it as "Special Issue, 1911", because there was often a desire to make these special issues less time-specific, so giving them a longer sales life. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC){{Cite web |website=Gjenvick-Gjønvik Archives |title=Titanic Images - The Shipbuilder - 2: Harland & Wolff |at=Fig. 3: Plan of the Queen's Island Works |access-date=2019-10-21 |url= https://www.gjenvick.com/OceanTravel/Titanic/25-ImageLibrary/TheShipbuilder-02-HarlandAndWolff.html}}
|issue=
might work. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Do you have a copy of that periodical in hand?WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT always applies. If you do not have a copy of the periodical in hand, you are citing the website. It is not clear to me that the Gjenvick-Gjønvik Archives webpage is a faithful facsimile of the periodical. Sure, the images are, but is the (limited amount) of text directly quoted from the periodical or is it paraphrased by Gjenvick-Gjønvik Archives? Is that all of the text that there is in the periodical? I think not.
|archive-url=
set to the url of that archive and |url-status=live
.{{Cite magazine |magazine=The Shipbuilder |volume=VI |issue=Special Number |date=1911 |title=The Builders of the "Olympic" and "Titanic" |at=Fig. 3: Plan of the Queen's Island Works |url= https://archive.org/details/the_shipbuilder_special_numbers_images_201909/page/n197 |via=Internet Archive}}
Virtually all citation styles lead off the citation with either the authors' names, or the title of the article (or larger work if not an article). If necessary, the so-called title can be a description devised by the person writing the citation and enclosed in square brackets. But in this case, we can't read the article in The Shipbuilder so we can't name the author, we can't give the exact title of the article, and we can't even give a decent description of the article. I see no choice but to cite the archive rather than the article, although the fact that The Shipbuilder is the original source should be mentioned. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
|date=
values. 24.105.132.254 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Is there supposed to be no space rendered after the colon following the parameter denotations Bibcode
and doi
? If so, why exactly?--Hildeoc (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
|doi=
has been rendered for a very long time:Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Old | "Title". Journal. doi:10.12345/12345. |
Live | "Title". Journal. doi:10.12345/12345. |
I'm working on articles employing Greek, containing quoted ancient or modern text, etc. Not surprisingly, the modern quotes actually have cites. Unfortunately (as likely is true for other major languages?) parts of those cites contain Greek language text, either wholly or in part. In one cite I might find "|publisher=Έκδοσις Μεγάλης Στρατιωτικής και Ναυτικής Εγκυκλοπαιδείας". In another cite might be "|author=ΒΙΚΤΩΡΑΣ ΝΕΤΑΣ". Another might have "|title=Πολυτεχνείο: Η δίκη των Συνταγματαρχών".
I see in the documentation some reference to different forms for specific cite parts, e.g.
and of course there is "language: The language in which the source is written" to describe the text within the work/edition as a whole.
Is there a general mechanism to say "here is the author's name and it is in Greek"? Or publisher? Or we have only the original title in the original Greek? If the purpose of cites is to sort and qualify the identifying qualities, shouldn't language be one of those qualities?
Note that this is separate from the usage in something like
where one is able to insert language qualification inline, like so:
The other example cite parts mentioned above get quite sick if language templates are inserted in their texts.
While someone might say that 'everyone' could recognise these as Greek, and so no qualification is needed, how are you on your Coptic? - {{lang|cop|ⲠⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ ⲠϢⲎⲢⲈ ⲚⲞⲨⲰⲦ}} Shenme (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
base param | trans-param | script-param |
---|---|---|
article | trans-article | script-article |
chapter | trans-chapter | script-chapter |
contribution | trans-contribution | script-contribution |
entry | trans-entry | script-entry |
journal | trans-journal | script-journal |
magazine | trans-magazine | script-magazine |
map | (sandboxed) | trans-map |
newspaper | trans-newspaper | script-newspaper |
periodical | trans-periodical | script-periodical |
section | trans-section | script-section |
title | trans-title | script-title |
website | trans-website | script-website |
work | trans-work | script-work |
|trans-map=
, all |trans-<param>=
parameters have a matching |script-<param>=
. These are the parameters for which language has been deemed important.
|language=
accepts a comma-separated list of languages; not just one language as you state in your post. There is nothing in cs1|2 to say that author / editor / ... names are written in a particular script. Romanizing names per MOS:ROMANIZATION might be the appropriate thing to do until the name-list parameters are (if they ever are) modified to support a |trans-<param>=
form.{{lang}}
in any of the parameters that contribute to the citation's metadata. The parameters are listed on all cs1|2 template doc pages; see for example: Template:Cite book#COinS metadata is created for these parameters.|script-map=
.|script-map=
to the sandbox:
{{Cite map/new |map=Map |trans-map=Trans Map |script-map=zh:Script Map |title=Title}}
until the name-list parameters are (if they ever are) modified to support a |trans-<param>= formI'm sure you meant to say |script-<param>= form, as translating names (trans- prefix) doesn't make sense. (Unfortunately, "trans" can be interpreted as both "translation" and "transcription", which leads to confusion; it would be better to use transl- .) — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
There are several cs1|2 parameters that accept only certain parameter values: |url-status=
will only accept dead
, live
, usurped
, unfit
, bot: unknown
is one example of these kinds of parameters.
A discussion at my talk page showed that the current module suite doesn't provide good support for internationalization of these parameter values. So, I have tweaked the sandboxen to do that.
Here is an example of that change that uses French and German keywords (these keywords will be removed from the ~/Configuration/sandbox before updating the live modules):
{{cite journal/new |journal=Journal |mode=cs2 |last=Brown |first1=Alpha Bravo |last2=Red |first2=Charlie Delta |name-list-style=vanc |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2019-10-08 |url-status=vivre |doi=10.1234/12345 |doi-access=frei}}
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid |doi-access=frei
(help); Invalid |url-status=vivre
(help)And, unsupported keywords are still flagged as errors:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |url=//example.com |url-access=frei}}
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The documentation for pages= says:
Hyphens are automatically converted to en dashes; if hyphens are appropriate, for example: pp. 3-1–3-15, use
|pages=3{{hyphen}}1{{ndash}}3{{hyphen}}15
Presumably, that advice used to work, but it no longer appears to (the example below uses |pages=3{{hyphen}}1{{ndash}}3{{hyphen}}15
):
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal: 3-1–3-15. |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal: 3-1–3-15. |
Did I miss a change that necessitates updating this documentation? Is this related to this recent discussion about large page numbers? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
hyphen_to_dash
in Module:Citation/CS1 which includes mw.text.split (str, '%s*[,;]%s*')
. That regards any commas or semicolons as page number separators. The fact that the semicolon is removed from the -
produced by {{hyphen}} gives the strange result. It seems that was introduced on 29 September 2018 and surrounding the page numbers with double parentheses works. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Then I guess the documentation needs to be modified. I have done so. Here's the above citation with double parentheses:
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal: 3-1–3-15. |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal: 3-1–3-15. |
Thanks for the help! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
{{cite book |article=Picking a band |title=The ARRL Operating Manual |edition=8th |editor=Ford, Steve |page=1{{hyphen}}15 |publisher=[[American Radio Relay League]] |place=Newington, CT}}
WP:CITEWATCH is a compilation of potentially unreliable citations (see Signpost for background). It's not perfect, and it doesn't catch everything, but it does cover a lot, and will likely cover more as things get developped. However, one thing it doesn't do is have a way of determining if a citation has already been checked to see if it was appropriate to cite it. Supporting a |citewatch=yes
or similar (|cw-check=ok
maybe?) would let us build the compilations without having to verify the same citations over and over. For example, if citation to Pharmacologia (a source that's on Beall's list was an appropriate citation) and other questionable sources we deemed acceptable, they could be marked as such with
{{cite journal |doi=10.5567/pharmacologia.2012.344.347 |title=Pharmacological Properties of Scoparia Dulcis: A Review |year=2012 |last1=Murti |first1=Krishna |last2=Panchal |first2=Mayank |last3=Taya |first3=Poonam |last4=Singh |first4=Raghuveer |journal=Pharmacologia |volume=3 |issue=8 |pages=344 |cw-check=ok}}
And, upon the next bot run a table like this
Rank | Target/Group | Entries (Citations, Articles) | Total Citations | Distinct Articles | Citations/article |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
106 | Journal of Physical Therapy Science [Beall's journal list] |
|
15 | 11 | 1.364 |
601 | Pharmacologia [Beall's journal list] |
|
1 | 1 | 1.000 |
could be updated to something like
Rank | Target/Group | Entries (Citations, Articles) | Total Citations | Distinct Articles | Citations/article |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
106 | Journal of Physical Therapy Science [Beall's journal list] |
|
15 | 11 | 1.364 |
601 | Pharmacologia [Beall's journal list] |
|
1 | 1 | 1.000 |
For now |cw-check=
would just be a whitelisted parameter that does nothing, although there could be some validation on what's acceptable (e.g. |cw-check=yes
, |cw-check=ok
) with a maintenance category for anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
|cw-check=yes
not throw an error like it currently does (e.g. Smith, J. (2006). "Foobar". Quack Journal of Nonsense. 23 (3): 24. doi:10.1234/123456789. {{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |cw-check=
ignored (help)). Likewise, WP:CITEWATCH does not take a position on weather or not a source is appropriate to cite, it just raises a flag that it's probably a good idea to double check. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Well that's what WP:CITEWATCH picks up. Citations with high likelihood of being unreliable. Having support for |cw-check=
(or something similar), would let us have (click [show] to see)
Rank | Target/Group | Entries (Citations, Articles) | Total Citations | Distinct Articles | Citations/article |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
47 | Science Publishing Group [Beall's publisher list · Beall's publisher list / update] Social Sciences could be multiple other journals. Several of SPG journals are named either identically or are very similar to other publications, e.g. International Journal of Data Science and Analysis vs International Journal of Data Science and Analytics and may thus have similar ISO 4 abbreviations. |
|
43 | 42 | 1.024 |
Or similar (ignore the "All 0", it's a counting error due to how the template does its counting based on the currently logic) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I would not support this. The global approach it is designed to facilitate is contrary to the idea in WP:RS that context matters. The reliability of sources used in an article is a matter to be discussed with reference to that article on the talk page or WP:RSN. It is not the function of citation templates to be applying scarlet letters to sources in article space. Kanguole 14:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
|cw-check=ok
would let us flag false positives, so that people who use the citewatch don't waste time reviewing the same potentially problematic sources over and over. The alternative is something ugly and error-prone like |journal=MIT Review<!--Citewatch: This is not the hijacked journal, and is OK-->
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Category:CS1 errors: DOI is showing error for doi:10.1130/focus122009.1. because it ends in punctuation (see Paleocene), but it's a valid DOI. — Chris Capoccia 💬 02:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
,:;
characters).{{cite journal |last1=Belcher |first1=C. M. |title=Reigniting the Cretaceous-Palaeogene firestorm debate |journal=Geology |year= 2009 |volume=37 |issue=12 |pages=1147–1148 |doi=((10.1130/focus122009.1.)) |bibcode=2009Geo....37.1147B}}
Per MOS:NOITALIC, short musical works, such as songs (and therefore also music video titles; the MOS specifically lists songs, album tracks and other short musical works
) should appear between quotation marks but not be italicized. Template:Cite music video redirects to Template:Cite AV media, yet the latter automatically italicizes the title of the work. Is there any way to circumvent this other than by entering the work title as below?
|title = ''"Music video title that should not be italicized"''
Furthermore, should there be a separate template to handle cases like this? Armadillopteryxtalk 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
{{cite av media}}
has italicized title from its pre-{{citation/core}}
days; see this 2006 edit when the template was still {{cite video}}
.|title=
because they will also be included in the citation's metadata where they will be wrong.|people=
as a parameter and with en.wiki editors' inclusion of other 'stuff' in that parameter (producer, director, assistant whatever; affiliations, ...). Because |people=
is an alias of |authors=
, none of the contributors are included in the citation's metadata. A solution to this might be to enable |contributorn=
for this template and also create a |rolen=
parameter so that en.wiki editors might write:
{{cite av media |contributor1=Contributor Name |role1=Contributor's role |title=Media Title}}
Podcast episodes are usually numbered, but {{cite podcast}} doesn't support a parameter for them. It should. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
|number=
might be required. There was a previous discussion that might be useful:
|title=#80 | Virtual Choir
for the same reason I wouldn't write |title=Important Book, 100th Edition
. To the point about metadata in the previous discussion, just because your particular client does not expose the metadata does not mean it doesn't exist. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
{{cite podcast/new |host=Dallas Taylor |subject2=Eric Whitacre |title=Virtual Choir |work=Twenty Thousand Hertz |number=80 |url=https://www.20k.org/episodes/virtualchoir}}
A discussion on my talk page has prompted changes to the cs1|2 language support. I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that it emits a category when |language=
is set to the local language and when a flag in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox, local_lang_cat_enable
is set to true
. At en.wiki we do not categorize articles with cs1|2 templates that have |language=en
or |language=English
so here local_lang_cat_enable
is set to false
.
As part of this change, I have also fixed the |script-<param>=
code so that language-names used in the titles of subcategories in Category:CS1 uses foreign language script are in the local language instead of in English.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I fixed a dead link by adding a link to its entry in the Wayback Machine. There was already an access-date parameter, do I now update it? The documentation is not clear on this; maybe an additional archive-access-date parameter is needed. – gpvos (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
|access-date=
identifies the date when the source linked by |url=
supported the en.wiki article text. Adding an archive link does not change that. In your example, I would suggest choosing an archive snapshot closer to the 20 August 2013 access date than the 2018 snapshot that you chose; this 2013-08-15 snapshot perhaps. Besides that, no further action on your part is required.Does anyone else get this error message? I've noticed it in the citation named "Guardian: how the rich" in Panama Papers, and I suspect that it's because the archive.org URL contains a second "http://" inside it, because of the truncated way the URL is displayed, but that doesn't ever appear to have been recognised as a problem before. I suspect a bug. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox to harmonize cs1|2 with Module:lang because the various {{xx icon}}
templates are deprecated. These {{xx icon}}
templates are not related at all to cs1|2 except in how cs1|2 displays language names from IANA and ISO 639-2 and -3 codes. More detail is available in these four discussions (which are mostly me talking and no one responding):
Here is how the changes look:
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Blackfoot). |
Sandbox | Title (in Blackfoot). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Blackfoot). |
Sandbox | Title (in Blackfoot). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Ilocano). |
Sandbox | Title (in Ilocano). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Ilocano). |
Sandbox | Title (in Ilocano). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Kölsch). |
Sandbox | Title (in Kölsch). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Kölsch). |
Sandbox | Title (in Kölsch). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Kölsch). |
Sandbox | Title (in Kölsch). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Colognian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Colognian). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Colognian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Colognian). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Ripuarian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Ripuarian). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Ripuarian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Ripuarian). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Taiwanese Hokkien). |
Sandbox | Title (in Taiwanese Hokkien). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Taiwanese Hokkien). |
Sandbox | Title (in Taiwanese Hokkien). |
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Minnan). |
Sandbox | Title (in Minnan). |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Article name should match category names should match template renderings.I support consistency. When discussions lead to changes in article titles, it is straightforward to change the article, affected categories, and templates to match the new article titles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
mis-x-colog
changed to ksh-x-colog
per discussion at Talk:Ripuarian language § language naming inconsistencies.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a bug in the error reporting for |script-title=
when it is used in {{cite encyclopedia}}
. Fixed in the sandbox I think:
Wikitext | {{cite encyclopedia |
---|---|
Live | Shohin, V.K. (2010). ПАПА–ПУНЬЯ [pāpa–puñña]. New Encyclopedia of Philosophy (in Russian). Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, National public and Science Foundation. {{cite encyclopedia}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing prefix (help) |
Sandbox | Shohin, V.K. (2010). ПАПА–ПУНЬЯ [pāpa–puñña]. New Encyclopedia of Philosophy (in Russian). Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, National public and Science Foundation. {{cite encyclopedia}} : Invalid |script-title= : missing prefix (help) |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I have been picking my way through Category:CS1 errors: script parameters. There have been several instances of |script-title=
where the language of the source is Ottoman Turkish. That language has an ISO 639-3 code of ota
. cs1|2 does not support three-character script-lang codes (ISO 639-2, -3) so I have fixed that in the sandbox.
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Hicaz vilayeti salnamesi حجاز ولايتى سالنامهسى [Hejaz Vilayet Yearbook] (in Ottoman Turkish) (5th ed.). Hicaz: Vilayet Matbaası [Vilayet Printing House]. 1892. p. 117. |
Sandbox | Hicaz vilayeti salnamesi حجاز ولايتى سالنامهسى [Hejaz Vilayet Yearbook] (in Ottoman Turkish) (5th ed.). Hicaz: Vilayet Matbaası [Vilayet Printing House]. 1892. p. 117. |
At the moment, ota
is the only three-character code recognized for the script-lang parameters.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd really love to create a simple cite template that basically wraps around {{cite web}} but with type=database. It'd kinda be like {{cite report}} in a way? The only feature I imagine being different, though, is that |number=
would probably be an alias for |id=
in the same way as {{cite techreport}} has it. I tried to figure out how the code would work here, but it didn't work as I intended. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
{{cite database}}
to look like {{cite report}}
but with |number=
aliased to |id=
then perhaps the best solution is to use Module:Template wrapper to wrap {{cite report}}
in {{cite database}}
so something like this:
{{#invoke:template wrapper|{{#if:{{{_debug|}}}|list|wrap}}|_template=cite report
|_exclude=id, ID, number, _debug
|id={{{number|}}}
|type=none
}}
|_exclude=id, ID, number, _debug
prevents these incoming parameters from being passed directly to {{cite report}}
|id={{{number|}}}
aliases |number=
to |id=
|type=none
prevents {{cite report}}
from emitting its '(Report)' annotationHow do we cite an online database that takes a string query as an input? I'm currently doing it this way:
{{cite web |url=https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=Borisov |title=JPL Small-Body Database Browser — Search string: Borisov |website=JPL Solar System Dynamics}}
"JPL Small-Body Database Browser — Search string: Borisov". JPL Solar System Dynamics.
Another option would be:
{{cite web |url=https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=Borisov |title=JPL Small-Body Database Browser |at=Search string: Borisov |website=JPL Solar System Dynamics}}
"JPL Small-Body Database Browser". JPL Solar System Dynamics. Search string: Borisov.
I don't like either. The first one puts the query string inside the quotes, which is wrong—it's not a part of the title (at least on the website shown in the example). The second one separates the title from the query, which is ugly. There's also |entry=, but it's not available in {{cite web}}. So how do I do it?
Perhaps, we should add a special parameter to {{cite web}} to handle such citations (which are quite common is scientific articles), like so:
"JPL Small-Body Database Browser", query: Borisov. JPL Solar System Dynamics.
— UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I looked at Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., "Scientific Databases", p. 14.257. It gives this example of a footnote and bibliography entry that are similar to what you seek:
1. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (object name IRAS F00400+4059; accessed April 6, 2016), http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/.
[following bibliography entry has hanging indent in original]
NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (object name IRAS F00400+4059; accessed April 6, 2016), http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/.
Jc3s5h (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Cite web emits metadata consistent with the item cited being a periodical. A database is not a periodical. Therefore we shouldn't use cite web at all for a database.The Template:Cite web documentation says something entirely different:
This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template.From which it follows that {{cite web}} is suitable for citing a database. Either your reasoning is wrong, or the documentation is wrong. 2. Thanks for the relevant CMOS excerpt. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
as a catch-all for everything. Editor Jc3s5h is incorrect: To avoid error messages (currently hidden) one must specify a website title...The website-required-check has been wholly disabled per this discussion at WP:AN.
The sync problem with search queries in citations is not about the results, primarily. Queries do not provide consistent targets, and the query syntax itself may change. Apart from that they are susceptible to bias: they can be structured with a bias towards a desired set of results. The cited material must have an unambiguous, singular verification target. As mentioned previously, if you want to cite a set of entries in a database, cite the first one, and optionally add a note that this is one of several such entries. I would also take a look at {{cite techreport}}. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Queries do not provide consistent targets…In general case, yes. In this particular case, even if Gennady Borisov discovers another 10 comets, and the Small-Body Database changes its output, the citation will still be correct, because the relevant sentence in the article says "Between 2013 and 2017, he has discovered seven comets" and the database output will always list 7 comets discovered between 2013 and 2017. The Small-Body Database is not like Google Search: it doesn't change its output rapidly, it's not user- or location-sensitive, it shows all matching results, and its output changes are incremental, i.e. new results are appended to the bottom of the output list.
Apart from that they are susceptible to bias: they can be structured with a bias towards a desired set of results.The same can be said about citations in general: they can be selected with a bias towards desired conclusions. That doesn't mean that citations should not be used. Similarly, the fact that someone may use a biased query does not mean that queries should not be used. In fact, queries are better in this regard, because a query can always be inspected and is executed automatically by a machine, so a biased query would be immediately visible, while the process of citation selection by an editor is completely opaque and cannot be inspected by other editors.
I would also take a look at {{cite techreport}}.I don't quite understand how to apply {{cite techreport}} in this case and would be grateful if you could expand on this. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
To add, it seems to me that citing every record cannot be avoided if the information about the number of comets etc. is included. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Isn't there any other reliable source that aggregates the information? 98.0.246.242 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
{{cite web |title=Borosov |url=https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=Borisov |work=JPL Solar System Dynamics |publisher=Jet Propulsion Laboratory |accessdate=6 October 2019}}
{{cite web |title=11016 Borisov (1982 SG12) |url=https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?ID=a0011016 |work=JPL Solar System Dynamics |publisher=Jet Propulsion Laboratory |accessdate=6 October 2019}}
|title=JPL Small-Body Database Browser
as the title is also unsatisfactory as the page content changes according to the search parameters. What is the point of emitting the correct metadata for |title=
when referring to a page with uncertain content. It only makes sense to refer to the naked search page, i.e. without a search. |title=
needs to be accompanied by something else if it is to be useful or have an alternative parameter that can be linked without emitting metadata. Jts1882 | talk 06:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
|title= needs to be accompanied by something else if it is to be useful…Hence my query parameter proposal above. The metadata output can be modified accordingly to make sense. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the JPL solar system dynamics web site.The header above says:
JPL Solar System Dynamics. It's pretty clear that "JPL Solar System Dynamics" is the name of the website, not the publisher. The publisher is "Solar System Dynamics Group", as can be inferred from the footer:
This site is maintained by JPL's Solar System Dynamics Group.Therefore, "JPL Solar System Dynamics" goes into website, not publisher. 2. I share your displeasure at the {{cite web}} automatically italicizing the website parameter. As you can see from the discussion above, I am against it. However, that's what the template is currently doing. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I would guess that at least half of the 400,000-odd articles with a taxobox (i.e. articles about organisms or groups of organisms) cite at least one taxonomic database. For CS1 style citations, the general approach seems to be to use "cite web" with whatever kind of url displays information about the taxon linked to a title parameter that includes the taxon name, regardless of whether it shows up as a page title, and then to use the work/website parameter for the database. There are many specialized templates that generate a citation template in this way, although my experience is that direct use of citation templates is more common. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Template:Cite ebook redirects here, but I don't see any directions for how to cite an ebook. I'm trying to reference something in an ebook I have on Amazon, but the reader in read.amazon.com doesn't display pages, only locations. And, those locations change depending on what the font size is. How can I either a) get the actual page from this, or b) properly cite the location in a way that everyone can access the same place in the book? Thanks. —scarecroe (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
|chapter=
is probably your best option. You could also use |quote=
to quote a short passage; that would help readers locate the passage you are citing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Apparently some users (see example) have misinterpreted location
to mean "location of info within book" and pages
to mean "number of pages in said book" (which in fact checks out). I doubt any amount of documentation could have prevented these errors, but these do both seem like immediate red-flag input detectable from the module. Perhaps we could show a warning/error message and/or populate appropriate tracking categories for:
location
containing numeric digits (and/or "page(s)"/"pg(s)"/"p(p)" as a whole word) is probably bogus. If any books are published at Area 51, the government would neither confirm nor deny it.pages
parameter containing only one integer is suspect:
page
to avoid further confusion.I've stumbled upon oddities like this a few times before, often enough to wonder how many other articles are affected, hence this request. ―cobaltcigs 14:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
|location=
.|pages=
with only a single integer is not something that we should seek to alarm on. If I'm not mistaken, there are bots or citation tools that for their own convenience write |pages=
and then fill it with whatever rather than do the work of determining which of |page=
or |pages=
is appropriate to the citations. They do this because cs1|2 renders single-integer |pages=
correctly:
{{cite book |title=Title |pages=6}}
→ Title. p. 6.{{cite news/new |date=17 March 2013 |author=Miroff, Nick |page=27 |title=Pope's activity in Dirty War Draws Scrutiny |location=Sec. 1 |agency=Washington Post |work=Chicago Tribune}}
|location=
in the above template adds a maint cat Category:CS1 maint: location.Hi there, I have read the previous discussion on the topic, and I would like to reopen the discussion on whether we should add a licence parameter to the template, to signal reusable material. Previous opposition argued that the only purpose of citations is to satisfy WP:V, and thus access only. I would like to argue that reusability is another facet of WP:V, allowing to not only cite, but add material we could not otherwise (such as drawings, figures, tables, etc). Furthermore, in addition to be a useful signal for other Wikipedia editors, it IS also useful for readers, that are nowadays as much creators as they are data consumers, Wikipedia being an epitome of this change in Internet usage. --Signimu (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In poking through Category:CS1 maint: extra punctuation I've been finding a lot of crap. Some of it should have been detected before we implemented the extraneous punctuation test. Specifically, we should have been looking for 'editor' and 'editors' as the only content of an author parameter. I have remedied that in the sandbox:
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | editors, Paul De Vos ... ,; et al. (2009). Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 0-387-68489-1. {{cite book}} : |last1= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) |
Sandbox | editors, Paul De Vos ... ,; et al. (2009). Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 0-387-68489-1. {{cite book}} : |last1= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) |
from Arthrobacter monumenti |
I've also added a test to catch the bracketed 'et al'. —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | editors, Paul De Vos ... ; et al. (2009). Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 0-387-68489-1. {{cite book}} : |last1= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help) |
Sandbox | editors, Paul De Vos ... ; et al. (2009). Bergey's manual of systematic bacteriology (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 0-387-68489-1. {{cite book}} : |last1= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help) |
from Arthrobacter monumenti |
Should we add an optional parameter for GGKEY, a google book identifier? . It can be found in some google books and added to the article, for example see Battle of Hel where the code was included in the refs (I think through this tool). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
GGKEYs are only used internally within Google.We don't typically privilege a vendor's internal key, especially when identifiers like OCLC and ISBN ids are almost always available. When I do a web search for "GGKEY 8THUT9WAPTR", the GGKEY added to that article, I don't get anything except WP and WP mirrors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
|id=GGKEY:...
should be detected and flagged with a maint cat so that these can be removed. This insource search found about 1900 instances.Regarding the problem where "In:" is not prepended to a title when no editor is specified (previous discussion), where Kanguole demonstrated a fix that was not implemented due to press of other work: could we have that implemented now? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kanguole? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |first=Ann |last=Author |title=Book}}
{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |first=Ann |last=Author |title=Book |editor-first=A.N. |editor-last=Editor }}
incorrectand that my
grasp of the context muddled, show me where I am incorrect and muddled. Just claiming these things for whatever reasons you might have is not sufficient to persuade me to change my position. You are right, I don't like it, but I don't like for the reasons that I've stated. Tell me what you think is muddled or incorrect, and I will attempt a clearer explanation.
Trappist: In the previous discussion you stated (at 16:02, 22 Aug) that:
cs1|2 rendering has been in use for a long, long time and, so far as I know, has not caused our readers untoward confusion",
this proposal seems like a fix for something that isn't broken", and
The proposed use case ... would result in incomplete citations with, consequently, incomplete metadata."
In the previous discussion I explained why this is needed: there is an exceptional challenge in citing reports of the IPCC, especially in articles where there are dozens of such citations. Now I can't speak to what you may know about citing IPCC reports (though I suspect you have little or no experience in such cases), nor whether these details have "caused our readers untoward confusion
" (how would we know?). But I can speak for editors: judging by the results it is a challenge for those who try, and with previous results being inconsistent, inadequate, and confusing. Strictly speaking your statement is correct (you don't know), but irrelevant. What is incorrect is the unstated premise that you would know if there was "untoward confusion", and the inference that therefore there isn't any problem.
As explained previously, I have developed a way of handling these cases which is fully in accord with standard citation practice, except for one little detail: cs1|2 omits the "in". That is broken.
You argue that the proposed use "would result in ... incomplete metadata
". Not really, but refusing to supply "in" is not going to force inclusion of editors. It will result — and currently does — in corruption of the title metadata where editors include "in" in the title itself. You might note that in my approach the top level citation is complete in every way, including the editors (up to four).
More could be said, but let's thrash out the foregoing first. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
has not caused our readers untoward confusion. Do you know for absolute sure that readers have been caused untoward confusion? Without evidence either way, perhaps this point is moot.
I have instances of multiple chapters in books where it is preferable to not list the book's editors in each chapter's citation, yet I would like to indicate that the chapter is "in" a larger work.This is the proposed use case. Omitting pertinent information because it is 'preferable' (the why of that has not been explained) is improper because the resulting metadata are incomplete.
|series=
to hold what in IPCC's citation is a subtitle. I presume that you are doing this as a way of avoiding the URL–wikilink conflict error that would arise from wikilinking part of the subtitle (...[[IPCC Fifth Assessment Report|Fifth Assessment Report]]...
) when |url=
has a value. This is problematic because the value assigned to |series=
is made part of the citation's metadata in &rft.series
misleading readers who consume the citation via the metadata into thinking that the report is part of a series named:
|harv={{harvid|IPCC AR5 WG1|2013}}
as an anchor link from § Notes and from the various chapter citations in § Sources. I suspect that you also did this because the first four authors of "Summary for Policymakers" and "Technical summary" are the same and the first three editors of the book are also the same so Stocker et al. (2013) is ambiguous.|title={{Harvnb|IPCC AR5 WG1|2013}}
→ IPCC AR5 WG1 2013 → [[#CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013|IPCC AR5 WG1 2013]]<span class="error harv-error" style="display: none; font-size:100%"> harvnb error: no target: CITEREFIPCC_AR5_WG12013 ([[:Category:Harv and Sfn template errors|help]])</span>
fully in accord withsome (not named)
standard citation practice, but not with cs1|2.
Can this not be handled by a mixture ofYou answered:{{sfn}}
templates pointing to{{harvc}}
templates that point to a single full citation template?
no, this can NOT [quote of my question redacted]. You did not say why. At User:Trappist the monk/sandbox/ipcc I have used
{{harvnb}}
, {{harvc}}
, and the original {{cite book}}
(slightly modified) to do what it is that I think you want.
Responses:
1. That's right: you don't know that there isn't a problem in regard of the readers. And therefore you should not claim that. However, there is a problem in regard of our editors, which is evident in various confused attempts to cite IPCC reports. (I can state from personal experience that the confused and incomplete state of some of these attempts impairs verification, and it is reasonably inferred that there is confusion amongst that small slice of the readers that attempt to go to the source.)
2. So we will have delve into your prior statements. For now I will just summarize what I (and Kanguole) have said: what is "in" a book is the chapters, not the editors. More on this later.
3. "Omitting pertinent information
" and "incomplete metadata" seems to be the essential core of your complaint. (Right?) As for explaining why: I did so explain in the previous discussion. Perhaps that explanation was inadequate? Or perhaps you didn't read it? Well, I provide the same example as before of a typical citation as requested by the IPCC:
Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.-M. Bréon, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson-Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D. Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and S.-P. Xie, 2013: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
The problem here is a useless glut of metadata. As I said before (highlighting added): That's only ten editors and 34 authors (and I have several instances of over 50 authors); it does not include the chapter's contributing authors and review editors. This is a surfeit of "fullness", a useless glut of metadata that paralyzes the grasp of essential information. (A demonstration: how quickly can you scan that citation and pick out which chapter it refers to?)
It should be noted: that citation is intended to carry full details about BOTH the chapter AND the volume (book). Which is fine for a single standalone citation, but what I am dealing with is contexts where multiple chapters are cited from a given volume. In such cases repeating the volume information in each chapter's citation is not just useless redundancy, it buries the vital information (such as which chapter) in that useless information.
The "omission" here is not of editor metadata (other than being trimmed to only four editors), but of useless redundancy. That you want (?) the COinS data for a chapter to include all of the information for the volume is pointless because in most of these cases the chapter is not available separately, but only in the volume. (But of course there is an exception.) (If the emission of seemingly incomplete COinS data is a concern, then give us an option to suppress that.)
The rest of your comments are mainly an attack on the method I have developed, and not really relevant to the issue here of "in", but I will address them briefly.
the book is really the product of the editors and its various contributors" is wonderful, and totally immaterial: that the IPCC attributes some content as collectively "IPCC" (instead of to individual authors and editors) is their call, not yours.
|series=
can be discussed, but is off-topic for this discussion.|title=
in the chapter citation is as a link to the book, and can be considered as incorporating by reference all of the details of the book, including the title, subtitle, editors, publisher, isbn, other isbn, and doi. The use of a symbolic link more clearly identifies for both readers and editors the target of that link.My reference to "standard citation practice" refers to nearly universal practice (see any style manual): chapters get an "in", even without editors. That cs1|2 does not do this is the deviation that I am trying to get fixed.
Your suggestion to use {{harvc}} is unworkable, and grotesque. Even if it produces an acceptable result, it introduces an additional, more complicated template, where many WP editors find the simpler harvnb somewhat challenging. It is grotesque in requiring the use of this additional template in every case (and additional instruction in its use), all of which would be avoided by a simple, one-time fix to cs1|2.
Your belief that "in" should be contingent on having editors I will have to address later, as I am out of time now. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
|display-authors=
and |display-editors=
as a way of reducing the quantity of author and editor names in the rendered citation; you have been using these parameters to, apparently, aid the the grasp of essential information.
repeating the volume information in each chapter's citation is not just useless redundancy, it buries the vital information (such as which chapter) in that useless information. I know that you want to omit
useless redundancyby which you mean volume or book bibliographic detail. I get that. This is precisely why
{{harvc}}
was created and it does it well without the need to misuse cs1|2 by use of invented book names and omitted bibliographic detail that results in incomplete and wrong metadata. If the emission of seemingly incomplete COinS data is a concern, then give us an option to suppress that.You have it:
{{harvc}}
.|series=
is a misuse of |series=
so is pertinent to this discussion about improper metadata{{harvnb}}
in the cs1|2 template's |title=
(book title) parameter to link to the book's full citation so that you don't have to repeat all of the book's bibliographic detail for every chapter. My claim is that such use in a cs1|2 template is wrong because each cs1|2 chapter citation produced by this method generates flawed and incomplete book metadata."standard citation practice" refers to nearly universal practice (see any style manual)This seems to me to be an other-stuff-exists argument. cs1|2 has never inserted in between the rendered value assigned to
|chapter=
and the adjacent rendered value assigned to |title=
. I see no reason why that practice should be changed.{{harvc}}
as grotesque; what does that mean? You don't like how it looks?
{{harvc}}
is more complicated than {{harvnb}}
. But, for the most part, {{harvc}}
uses the same parameter names as cs1|2 and {{sfn}}
/ {{harv}}
templates. {{harvc}}
adds |in1=
–|in4=
and |anchor-year=
. Editors who can work out how to use cs1|2 and the short-form templates can work out how to use {{harvc}}
. The en.wiki editor confusion is not fixed by the addition of 'in' between chapter and title.Trappist:
Let us consider your other contention, that cs1|2 "isn't broken
" because (given chapter and title) the "in" should be contingent on specifying one or more editors.
Your statement that cs1|2 "isn't broken
", the "conclusion of the preceding paragraph
", goes back to our previous discussion last August, where you said: "'In' without editors, to me, seems to be extraneous because
" |authorn=
(and aliases) identify the author(s) of the entire book so saying explicitly that "Chapter title" is 'In' Book title written by Author(s) is overkill or clutter.
I find this quite muddled because in the cases at hand there are not any "author(s) of the entire book
". The chapters have authors (and also editors), and the books (volumes) have editors; there is NO "Book title written by Author(s)
". That statement (the core of your argument!) needs considerable rework.
I am further baffled by how "'In' without editors" could be "extraneous". (I will be quite impressed if can provide a sensible explanation.)
On the otherhand, is it not clear to you that the factual nature of a chapter being in a book – both physically, and in the abstract concept of a work – is not altered by the specification, or not, of any attributes such as authors or editors, or titles, publisher, etc.? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
overkill or clutterstatement. Taking the simple case, a book authored by a single author. The book has a title: Book Title. The book is subdivided into chapters. We want to cite "Chapter 6". Because there is only one author, that author must be the author of "Chapter 6" so there is no point in saying in a cs1|2 citation that "Chapter 6" is in Book Title. Of course it is; that is obvious. There is no need to state the obvious.
cases at handare edited works where chapters are contributed by a variety of authors. Another simple example, a book assembled by a single editor. The book has a title: Book Title. The book is subdivided into chapters. Each chapter is written by a separate author: Author A wrote "Chapter 1", Author B wrote "Chapter 2", etc. We want to cite Author B's "Chapter 2" so cs1|2 names Author B and "Chapter 2" which is in Editor's Book Title. Because cs1|2 now adds an '(ed.)' or '(eds.)' suffix to editor name lists it might be argued that rendering 'in' when there is an editor name list is unnecessary. I have more sympathy for that argument than for adding 'in' between adjacent chapter and book title. And, I have to wonder: if it is necessary to have 'in' text between chapter and book title, isn't it also necessary to have 'in' text between journal/magazine/newspaper article and the adjacent journal/magazine/newspaper name?
cases at hand, because the book has editors, has the 'in' text between the cited chapter and the editor list as it should. Leaving out the editor list as you want to do tells cs1|2 that there are no editors so it doesn't include the 'in' text.
In your first paragraph you describe "the simple case, a book authored by a single author.
" (Whether authorship is a single person or entity, or plural, is immaterial, so let us agree that "author" includes "authors".) The essential character of your simple case is not "a single author", but no editors, and also no division of authorship within the work.[Removed duplicated content.]
Then you state that "The proposed change
[applies to]where there is no named editor
", which you describe as "superfluous". And you conclude: "Leaving out the editor list as you want to do tells cs1|2 that there are no editors so it doesn't include the 'in' text.
"
And there is the heart of the problem: you equate "no editors specified" (that is, no list of editors) with both no editors, AND no division of authorship. Both of those equivalences are false. (I direct your attention to the sample IPCC citation above, where the editors are listed in brackets, which indicates they are optional. I also direct your attention to the last line of my last comment: "the factual nature of a chapter being in a book [...] is not altered by the specification, or not, of any attributes such as authors or editors ....
" Do you disagree?)
Your belief seems to be that listing of one or more editors is required to show when a chapter's authorship does not apply to the containing work. My view is that "In" communicates that. Which is not "superfluous" in the simple case of unitary authorship and no editor, because it is not used in that case. That is not because no editor is specified, but because authorship of the chapters is the same as for the whole work. Where chapters have different authorship it is quite legitimate to cite them without specifying the editors (if any), but "In" is required. In that regard cs1 is in fact broken.
And no, "In" is not used between the title of articles and the name of the journal or periodical because it is understood that the attributed authorship applies solely to the article.
In summary: you err in making "(eds.)" do the work of "In". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
no division of authorshipunless it is somehow possible to subdivide the single author into halves or quarters or whatever. Had there been an editor for my single-author example, I would have so stated. The point of that example is to show that 'in' text is superfluous because the single author is understood to be the author of both the chapter and the book.
listing of one or more editors is required to show when a chapter's authorship does not apply to the containing workbecause without that list, the cs1|2 citation is incomplete. 'In', without an editor name list does not indicate that a chapter's authorship does not apply to the containing work. Inclusion of 'in' text between chapter title and book title as an indicator that editors have been omitted, as it appears you want, will misrepresent all chapter citations where the chapter author and the book author are the same. The proposed change to Module:Citation/CS1 would include 'in' text between chapter title and book title. Your statement that
the simple case of unitary authorship and no editor, because it is not used in that caseis contradictory to that reality because the 'in' text would be included in the unitary author case.
Where chapters have different authorship it is quite legitimate to cite them without specifying the editors (if any), but "In" is required. In that regard cs1 is in fact broken.False and false. In a cs1|2 template, naming an authored chapter in an edited work where the editor(s) has/have been omitted, misleads readers into thinking that the chapter author(s) is/are the author(s) of the book; the cs1|2 template appears to Module:Citation/CS1 as the unitary author case. cs1|2 cannot discriminate between a book that has no editors and a book with editors whose names are not present in the template. The insertion of 'in' text between the authored chapter and the edited book title (editor list omitted) says nothing about an omitted editor name list. For this, cs1|2 is not broken. The rendering of the citation that should have editors is flawed because an en.wiki editor did not include the necessary editor name list; that is not the fault of the template but is the fault of the en.wiki editor.
Your "subdivide the single author into halves or quarters or whatever
" is bullshit, and shows just how muddled you are, and even ridiculous. There is no question here of dividing authors; the "division" refers to authorship – that is, the work, and thereby the attribution, of one, or more. authors.
Regarding your "simple case": back where you said "there is no point in saying in a cs1|2 citation that "Chapter 6" is in Book Title
", I had actually agreed with that statement, and presumed that you would not say "this chapter is in this book". But the only way "In" would be included is if you did "say" (specified) "|chapter=Chapter 6
" in the {cite book} template.
Which is wrong. In this kind of simple case you do not create a full citation (using cs1|2) for a chapter; the full citation is for the book as a whole. Citation of a specific chapter, or pages, or any other part, is specified as an in-source location. If you are not using short-cites (or similar) that data can be appended to the template along the lines of <nowiki>{{cite book |year= 2001 |author= Author |title= Book Title |isbn= 99999}}, Chapter 6, p. 110.</nowiki>
Note: no |chapter=
, therefore no "In" in the result. A chapter rates a full citation only where it is separately citeable, usually because of different authorship.
I may provide some explicit examples, but it looks like I don't have time for that today. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
single authorto mean just that; a 'single author' means: 'one author'. I meant the 'subdivision' phrase to show that
division of authorshipis a meaningless concept then there is only one (a single) author.
{{tq}}
template). Here is the whole sentence: Because there is only one author, that author must be the author of "Chapter 6" so there is no point in saying in a cs1|2 citation that "Chapter 6" is in Book Title.Of course I would say:
"this chapter is in this book"because it is. The proposed change to Module:Citation/CS1 would insert, unnecessarily, 'in' text between the chapter's title ("Chapter 6") and the book's title (Book Title).
|chapter=
in a {{cite book}}
template? It is done quite a bit. Here is an insource search for articles using {{cite book}}
with |chapter=
but without any of the |editor...=
parameters. Because it is an insource search, the number of articles returned by the search is quite variable so the number of articles found by the search is likely quite a bit less than the actual number of articles that meet the search criteria.Which is wrong. ...Really? Says who? Were it wrong in cs1|2 to specifically cite a chapter in a book's full citation, then cs1|2 would not allow en.wiki editors to do just that by providing and supporting the
|chapter=
parameter and its various aliases. Yeah, if en.wiki editors want, they may choose to append chapter and other in-source locator information after a cs1|2 template but why would they want to do that? That is guaranteed to produce inconsistently styled citations and to contribute to the citation maintenance headache.|chapter-url=
(and its aliases). Here's an example:
|chapter=
and |chapter-url=
would be incorrect. In that case the availability of one (or more?) chapters (your #3) is information best appended to the template. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)I have fully understood that your "simple case" is of a single author. I also understand – perhaps you do not? – that whether authorship is attributed to a single author, or multiple authors, is immaterial, as it makes no difference in the case presented. Your "subdivide the single author into halves or quarters or whatever
" comment shows that you do not understand that my "division of authorship" is not over the domain of authors, but over the domain of what portion of the work is attributed to the identified author or authors.
The concept of division of authorship is not meaningless even in this simple case, because it allows for an affirmation of no such division. It also provides a basis for distinguishing a not quite so simple case of a book attributed to a single author, yet some part of it has different authorship.
And I have not misrepresented your statement. I quoted the part of your statement with which I agree. I left out your preliminary bit because it is muddled (and arguably wrong), and is immaterial to your point that "there is no point in saying ...
", in order to focus on the key point.
As to saying explicitly that "this chapter is in this book
": now you say "[o]f course
" you would, though previously you said "there is no point
}" in saying so. I think you were right the first time. Given a book with unitary authorship (that is, with no division, and regardless of whether "author" is singular or multiple), there is no point in listing all of the constituent parts. As long as the various parts have the same authorship (and date and publisher), they are presumed to be a single work. For which there should be a single full citation.
The actual point in referencing the chapter is to specify the in-source location of the content referred to. (Right?) But here you err (along with a thousand or so others) making the full citation refer to a specific part. Consider this: if you wanted to cite Chapter 1 and Chapter 6 of a book, would you invoke {cite book} twice, making two full citations? Or would you use |chapter=Chapter 1, Chapter 6
? In such cases appending such information to the template is more sensible than trying to make the template handle all of that.
Where a chapter (or other part) should be specified in a full citation is where that is distinctly citable in its own right (typically because of differing authorship), not simply part of a larger source. E.g.: where a book is attributed to "Smith", we don't repeat that information for each chapter (let alone each page!), as each part is presumed to inherit the attributes of its parent. But if one chapter is actually written by (or with) "Jones", that needs to be said. This is where the citation should be "Chapter by Jones in Book by Smith".
"[I]nconsistently styled citations
" already exist, are exactly what I am trying to address (particularly with the IPCC reports), so it rather amazing that you raise every possible objection to what I am doing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
|chapter=
and |title=
and without your proposed change to insert 'in' text between the two parameter renderings, it is obvious that the chapter is part of the book. There is no point to the extraneous addition of 'in' text between chapter and book title; they are both in the same citation.|chapter=Chapter 1, Chapter 6
or the like in the wild. Such use would probably be contrary to the requirements of the metadata which appears to want one chapter item per &rtf.atitle=
key. Editors usually write separate full citations using |chapter=
for these kinds of cases or they crowbar the chapter titles into multiple {{sfn}}
or {{harv}}
-family templates. Appending multiple chapter names to the end of a full citation works only to the extent that the chapters are only visible to those who consume cs1|2 template visually; the chapter information is wholly lost (as it is with all short cites) to those who consume these cs1|2 citations via the template's metadata. Keeping the chapter in the cs1|2 template at least gets the metadata consumer in the general vicinity of the information being cited. And yep, free-form text inserted in the <ref>...</ref>
tags is free-form text that one en.wiki editor will write one way, and other en.wiki editors will write in other ways. That is a recipe for inconsistency."Chapter by Jones in Book by Smith"is supported:
{{cite book |title=Book by Smith |author=Smith |contribution=Chapter by Jones |contributor=Jones}}
I have found expert opinion (Chicago Manual of Style) that "In" is never superfluous, but required in all cases where a chapter is cited, even in a single-author book where there is no division of authorship. From the 17th edition:
- 14.106 Chapter in a single-author book.
- When a specific chapter (or other titled part of a book) is cited in the notes, the author's name is followed by the title of the chapter (or other part), followed by in followed by the title of the book.
Similarly for multiauthor books. It appears this is to distinguish chapters, which are always in a work, from parts which are of a work. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
When I referred to "standard citation practice" a week ago you demurred [i.e., implied "the raising of an objection or taking of exception so as so as to delay action"] that these practices were "not named
", and not in accord with cs1|2. [15:26, 12 Oct.]. But when I do name an authoritative source your response is that "cs1|2 is not beholden to them.
" To judge by some of your earlier statements – such as "I see no reason why that practice should be changed
" – cs1|2 is beholden to only you, the self-appointed gate-keeper. This is starting to sound like a case of WP:OWN.
And now you have .. YET ANOTHER OBJECTION!! That if editors are allowed to insert free-form text into notes there will be inconsistency (gasp!), which you are not going to allow. Which is quite irrelevant to the change I am requesting, and comes into this discussion only because of your confused understanding of how to handle in-source locators. I have tried to address every objection you have made, but this is getting to be whack-a-mole. Perhaps you should codify your objections in a list, and be done with making them up as you go. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
authoritative sourceis an authoritative source about itself. But, CMOS, as an authoritative source, has no control over MLA (its own authoritative source about itself), nor APA (also its own authoritative source about itself), nor Bluebook (yep, also its own authoritative source about itself), and, therefore, no control over cs1|2. So, yeah, cs1|2, while it may have been influenced by CMOS, as it may have been influenced by MLA and influenced by APA, is not beholden to any of those authoritative sources.
cs1|2 ... beholden to only [me]nor does my willingness to defend this opinion make me cs1|2's
self-appointed gate-keeper. Such assertions are nonsense. I do not own cs1|2; never have, never will.
If you are not using short-cites (or similar) that data can be appended to the template along the lines ofFrom this I understand that you do not want en.wiki editors to use<nowiki>{{cite book |year= 2001 |author= Author |title= Book Title |isbn= 99999}}, Chapter 6, p. 110.</nowiki>
Note: no|chapter=
, therefore no "In" in the result.
|chapter=
, |page=
, or the other in-source-locator parameters in a cs1|2 template but, to instead, add that information, free-form, after the template. One en.wiki editor's free-form text will be different from another en.wiki editor's free-form text so, yes, citations adhering to this method will be inconsistent.You have a curious way of twisting things around. E.g., I did not "decline
" to name a standard, as no one requested such information; that word is misrepresentation.
When I said I had a method "fully in accord with standard citation practice, except for one little detail
", I was referring to the general forms and practice of citation that are common amongst essentially ALL citation authorities, such as the ordering and styling of author(s), title, publisher, etc. — which you can confirm by consulting what ever authority you may have at hand. And with which cs1|2 certainly IS "in accordance". The detail at issue here is a certain case where cs1|2 is not "in accord" with itself.
But your complaint here (that I did not name a particular standard) is just more bullshit, because when I do name an authoritative source you assert that it is authoritative only about itself, and assert that it "has no control
" over cs1|2. Which is more twisting of reality, as no one claims that the Chicago Manual of Style has any "control" over anything but what the University of Chicago Press publishes. What you reject is the fact that CMS has influence because it is respected for providing a useful, clear, and consistent (as far as can be expected) model for citation, based on over a century of experience. Whereas your opposition is based on ... what? No authority, extremely little experience, just your personal interpretations and preferences of how matters should be.
You see no reason for this change, therefore you won't make this change. That sounds like ownership to me. If not, how about stepping aside and letting someone else make the change? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The detail at issue here is a certain case where cs1|2 is not "in accord" with itself.How do you reckon that? Your proposal here is to insert 'in' text between chapter-title and book-title. This is something that cs1|2 has never done. How can cs1|2
not [be] "in accord" with itselffor this thing that it has never done?
What??? How can you seriously say that inserting "in" is "something that cs1|2 has never done
"? Here is an instance of {cite book} (highlighting added): Author (2000). "Chapter". In Editor (ed.). Book. {{cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (help) Do you not see "in" immediately following "Chapter"? QED: cs1 has inserted "in", and your statement that it never does is disproved.
The bottom line of all the rest you just wrote is: 1) you do not accept any external authority, and 2) you "approve" of the way cs!| works now, so are not going to change that. The problem with that first position is that you have not indicated that you accept any authority or expert guidance, showing no basis for your opinion other than undisclosed, personal LIKE. And your "approval" can't be because you think the past work of sacred authors is perfect, because you are constantly changing it. You have also made all kinds of arguments, but they're pretty much all bullshit (like your "never done" argument above, or the "free-form text" argument before it), or just irrelevant. The bottom line to all of this is: you DON'T LIKE the request, and therefore you WON'T ALLOW IT. How is this not an indication of ownership? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
So your sense of "between" is without any other text also between, the other text being that about the editors. In that case your previous statement is missing a key qualification, and a more correct statement would be: Cs1|2 has never inserted "in" without also inserting editor(s).
Which (with a possible quibble about "never") is my statement of the problem. And your position is, quite simply, "having never done this before, it never should do it." Which is absurd, and not a valid argument.
Your statement that inserting "(eds.)" "makes the 'in' text somewhat redundant or superfluous
" further demonstrates that you do not understand the nature and scope of "in": it does not apply to the editors. It applies to the entire containing work (which has attributes of editor(s), title, etc.). Likely you have been confused because the list of editors immediately follows the "in", but that is incomplete; you should parse the range of "in" greedily, not parsimoniously. "Eds." describes the nature of the named persons as "editors". "In" relates the preceding part of the citation – about the chapter, which has a title and possibly zero or more named authors — to the rest of the citation, which has a title, and possibly empty list of named editors. (And I can provide an example of a book with a chapter with different authorship, and no named editors.) "In" relates the chapter to the work, quite independently of whether any editors are named; it is neither redundant nor superfluous.
"In" applies to chapters, and conditioning it on having editor(s) is thus an error. Having never been fixed is not an acceptable argument for should never be fixed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
without any other text also betweenchapter-title and book-title is the essence of your proposal and the thing that I oppose as superfluous and unnecessary. It is true that
cs1|2 has never inserted "in" without also inserting editor(s). If it makes you happy to write it that way, do so. No. My position is that 'in' text
without any other text also betweenchapter-title and book-title is superfluous and unnecessary; does not convey any information that is not already present in the rendered citation. cs1|2 has never inserted 'in' text between chapter-title and book-title; it ain't broke so it don't need fix'n.
[make] the 'in' text somewhat redundant or superfluous.
Trappist: Repeating an earlier request: would you mind listing all of your objections? There are so many that I am not certain I haven't overlooked any. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The following summarizes the case for modifying the cs1|2 code so that the insertion of "in:" into a citation is conditioned on specifying a chapter.
It is standard citation practice (as recommended by all major citation authorities) to insert "in:" to indicate that a cited source is part of a larger work — such as a chapter in book — that has different authorship than the cited source. Currently cs12 does this only when one or more editors (presumably of the larger work) are specified. That functionality thus fails for actual and legitimate cases – such as contributions in conference proceedings where the editors that assemble the papers are often not named, or even books where an author includes someone else's work as chapter, but there simply is no editor – and the "in:" is needed despite the lack of any named editors.
There are also cases of works (possibly with a long list of editors) from which multiple chapters are cited, where it is unuseful and even detrimental to repeat all of the details of the work in the citation of every chapter.
In opposition (by Trappist the Monk), it has been argued that cs1|2 is "not beholden
" to any of these expert authorities, and therefore they do apply here. That is an unuseful attitude. Such authorities reflect "best practices" based on years of professional experience that would be unwise to ignore, and the use of "in:" in this manner is a standard convention that readers expect.
It has also been argued that "in:" introduces the editor(s), and without a list of editors it is "superfluous and unnecessary
". However, the prerequisite that "in:" introduces a list of editors is incorrect. It should be understood as applying to the work, not to just the first detail that describes the work. It might be noted that some citation authorities place the editors after the book title, which shows that the scope and meaning of "in:" is not changed by the ordering of the details of the work.
It has been argued that not specifying any editors "misleads readers into thinking that the chapter author(s) is/are the author(s) of the book....
" But that is the point of "in": to indicate that a chapter has different authorship (or editorship) than the work; the problem arises not from a lack of editors, but from a missing "in:". It is precisely this point why "in" should be inserted even when no editors are specified.
The inverse has also been argued, that where the authorship of a chapter is the same as the work (book), inclusion of "in:" implies otherwise, and is extraneous. However, this only happens if |chapter=
is specified, which is an improper usage in such cases. Full citations (such as created by cs1|2) cite only the whole source, not the constituent parts. Such cases are presumably where a WP editor is trying to provide an in-source location, which should be done by other means. As has been said before, "that is not the fault of the template
". At any rate, an extraneous "in:" does no harm.
Additional arguments of opposition have been made (see the long discussion above), but are not substantive. If there are no further comments I will propose proceeding with the requested modification. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kanguole:: There being no additional comments or objections, I propose we proceed with the requested modification. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
You must not take my silence as approval or even acquiescence. It is not. Neither of us were able to convince the other to change position. Nothing that I have read in your writings here since then has changed my position. Lest my self-imposed silence be misconstrued as approval or acquiescence, I must break that silence to reaffirm my opposition to this proposed change.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not take your silence as approval, and I recognize your position of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So we will let others decide. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Trappist the monk's first comment here was "I think that I oppose this change
", and his concluding position is that he won't discuss it. In between I have tried to address each of his objections, but he is adamant: he doesn't like it, and won't discuss it. Therefore it is not to be done. He is the boss here, and he has -- spoken? He has not articulated a persuasive argument against. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
{{cite book |contributor=Contributor |contribution=Contribution |title=Book |author=Author |editor=Editor}}
? Displays as: Contributor. "Contribution". Book. By Author. Editor (ed.). {{cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (help). Is that somehow insufficient? --Izno (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Full citations (such as created by cs1This is simply false. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
would have us add additional text to every edited (and unedited) book citation ...", is false. This falsity arises in part from an incorrect premise, that the condition for inserting "In:" is whether a "book" (or other work) is "edited", or not. Now most books are edited (whether an editor is credited or not), and if you also include whatever books are not edited, that would cover all of them, right? Which is ridiculous, and not at all what I requested. So let's presume you meant "where an editor is specified". Even in that case citation of a book does not require "In:". (What exactly is the book "in"? Itself??)
|chapter=
and |title=
, though off-hand I don't recall the exact details here.) What I have requested is NOT going to "add additional text to every edited (and unedited) book citation"; it adds "In:" only in those "
super-special cases" where chapter and title have been specified and it should be included, but is not, for lack of a named editor.
< Authors of the chapter|pages= 169–194
Everything below here applies to the volume >|title= Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects |series= Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |author= IPCC |author-link= IPCC
< Author of the volume.|display-editors= 4 |editor-first1= C.B. |editor-last1= Field |editor-first2= V.R. |editor-last2= Barros |editor-first3= D.J. |editor-last3= Dokken |editor-first4= K.J. |editor-last4= Mach |editor-first5= M.D. |editor-last5= Mastrandrea |editor-first6= T.E. |editor-last6= Bilir |editor-first7= M. |editor-last7= Chatterjee |editor-first8= K.L. |editor-last8= Ebi |editor-first9= Y.O. |editor-last9= Estrada |editor-first10= R.C. |editor-last10= Genova |editor-first11= B. |editor-last11= Girma |editor-first12= E.S. |editor-last12= Kissel |editor-first13= A.N. |editor-last13= Levy |editor-first14= S. |editor-last14= MacCracken |editor-first15= P.R. |editor-last15= Mastrandrea |editor-first16= L.L |editor-last16= White |publisher= Cambridge University Press |place= Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA |isbn= 978-1-107-05807-1 |url= https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf }}
An updated version of PubMed has been released, will become the default in spring 2020, and will ultimately replace the legacy version. It has a new web interface, including a new URL scheme with prefix https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ + PMID + /, though I don't know where this is documented. It's a cleaner, more responsive website, and should be the default here. See: Collins, Marie (18 November 2019). "The New PubMed is Here". NLM Technical Bulletin (431): e3. ISSN 2161-2986. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | "Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site". Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. PMID 16639905. |
Sandbox | "Actinides in Deer Tissues at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site". Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. PMID 16639905. |
{{pmid}}
has been updated, and does not include a trailing slash
In the following cite journal, the id should render as MR2108435 (with no space between the MR and the number, the way these numbers are universally used in the mathematical publications from which they come, including in the review database to which they refer, and the way {{MR}} correctly renders them) but instead a space is included. Has this been broken recently, because I don't remember seeing this bug before?
Regardless of whether this is a new regression or an old bug it should be fixed. Think of it this way: suppose you used a template that for whatever reason produced a visible link to this page, "Help talk:Citation Style 1", but the template you used formatted it as "Help talk: Citation Style 1" rather than its proper name because whoever wrote that template somehow thought that Wikipedia namespaces looked better with a space after the colon, even though we all know that's not the proper name. Or if that's not drastic enough, suppose that some space-happy template editor decided that urls should be shown in an expanded form that puts spaces around each set of slashes. Would you be happy? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
{{citation/identifier}}
(used by {{citation/core}}
) with this edit. A
was added with this edit which was, apparently, unchallenged. Comparing {{citation/core}}
rendering with current Module:Citation/CS1 rendering:Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Old | Giaro, Krzysztof; Kubale, Marek (2004). "Compact scheduling of zero-one time operations in multi-stage systems". Discrete Applied Mathematics 145 (1): 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.dam.2003.09.010. MR 2108435. |
Live | Giaro, Krzysztof; Kubale, Marek (2004). "Compact scheduling of zero-one time operations in multi-stage systems". Discrete Applied Mathematics. 145 (1): 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.dam.2003.09.010. MR 2108435. |
since this edit in April 2013. So, not a recent change.{{MR}}
because of this revert of an edit where the edit summary of the reverted edit noted that it ...breaks format alignment with WP:CS1/WP:CS2...I can find no discussion here or at Template talk:Citation nor in their archives subsequent to that reversion to indicate that either Editor in that
{{MR}}
dispute bothered to notify anyone that cs1|2 should perhaps be changed.Anyway, I fixed it. Should be fine now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
|mr=
even more inconsistent with all of the other identifiers because all of the other identifiers have links to articles that explain the identifier; as they should.|mr=
inconsistent with all other identifiers because, at present, all identifiers have something (either a :
or
) between the identifier's en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link. The proposed change is arcane because only those who participate in this discussion will understand why, if the change is made, the en.wiki article link and the target link are allruntogether. The proposed change can cause confusion for the casual reader, for whom identifiers are already obscure, because the lack of a distinct separation can result in mis-clicks of either the description link or the identifier target (because they are allruntogether) and land the reader in an unexpected place.Thinking about this reminds me of the PMCID and the PMC prefix discussion where we chose to ignore the official NIH recommendation (PMCID: PMC#####). Now here we have a proposal to follow someone else's recommendation. While I think that the wikilink should be separate from the weblink for reasons that I have stated, additionally, we should not be internally inconsistent in how we treat identifiers and their associated wikilinks. The proposed change will make |mr=
inconsistent with other identifiers.
I will revert the change to {{citation/identifier}}
. That template is maintained as a record of how-things-were when we transitioned to Module:Citation/CS1 so should not be modified.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I don’t know whether it matters much that there is a space but if a *controversial* change was implemented without a discussion, the correct procedure is roll-back the change. —- Taku (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
|mr=
identifier added to {{citation/identifier}}
without a space character between the en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link
inserted between the en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link
; this is in the overlap period where cs1|2 transitioned from {{citation/core}}
to Module:Citation/CS1{{MR}}
a short-lived edit dispute occurs between two editors wherein the edit summaries of two edits refer to the discrepancy in rendering style between cs1|2 and {{MR}}
this breaks format alignment with WP:CS1/WP:CS2 as well as instantiations using parameters {{{2}}}...{{{9}}} and {{leadout}}} (Module:Catalog lookup link inserts
between the en.wiki article link and the identifier's target link)this is not how MR ids should be displayed; if some other template does it wrong then fix it too. And when would you ever need multiple ids?
was inserted in {{citation/identifier}}
and 2019-11-21 when this discussion began is 7 years, 6 months, and 16 days. I am not aware of any complaints about how cs1|2 renders |mr=
in that 7.5 year period except for the brief dispute at {{MR}}
which did not get raised here at cs1|2. That suggests to me that the 2012-05-05 change was not controversial.Suggestion (somewhat clumsy): Tooltip over the cs1 id rendering it without space. 98.0.145.210 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
<span>
tag. And, in an actual implementation, what is the tooltip text?In this project to build an encyclopedia it is our top duty not to make up stuff. We simply report what is as it is. Since the official and long established MR format is without a space, we must use this format as well. Everything else is wrong and must be regarded as a typographical error. Thanks, David, for bringing up this topic. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
{{cite ssrn|last1=Dichev|first1=Ilia D.|last2=Janes|first2=Troy D.|title=Lunar Cycle Effects in Stock Returns|year=2001|doi=10.2139/ssrn.281665}}
gives
{{cite SSRN}}
: |ssrn=
required (help); Unknown parameter |doi=
ignored (help)There should be a better error message for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
{{cite ssrn/new|last1=Dichev|first1=Ilia D.|last2=Janes|first2=Troy D.|title=Lunar Cycle Effects in Stock Returns|year=2001|doi=10.2139/ssrn.281665}}
At User talk:Citation bot § Erroneous move of publication-place to location it is claimed that Citation bot improperly replaced |publication-place=
with |location=
in three {{citation}}
templates (this diff).
Template documentation for |place=
and |location=
is here and template documentation for |publication-place=
is here. Also see Help:Citation Style 1 § Work and publisher.
Examples of how cs1|2 currently handle various combinations of |publication-place=
, |place=
and |location=
in {{citation}}
(same for cs1 templates):
{{citation |title=Title |place=Austin, Texas |newspaper=The Villager}}
→ "Title", The Villager, Austin, Texas{{citation |title=Title |location=Manhattan |newspaper=The Villager}}
→ "Title", The Villager, Manhattan{{citation |title=Title |publication-place=The Woodlands, Texas |newspaper=The Villager}}
→ "Title", The Villager, The Woodlands, Texas{{citation |title=Title |publication-place=Manhattan |place=London |newspaper=The Villager}}
→ written at London, "Title", The Villager, Manhattan{{citation |title=Title |publication-place=Manhattan |location=Manhattan |newspaper=The Villager}}
→ "Title", The Villager, ManhattanIn the examples above:
|place=
, |publication-place=
or |location=
, is appropriate here to disambiguate the geographic locale for a particular The Villager|publication-place=
to disambiguate The Villager and |place=
to identify where the (missing) author wrote the article (the byline)|publication-place=
and |location=
with the same value (Manhattan) so the template renders only |publication-place=
Our article Byline suggests that a byline applies only to newspaper and magazine articles and that a byline identifies an article's author.
If a byline is defined as the author of a news or magazine article (which it seems to be) then shouldn't we:
|publication-place=
and either of |location=
or |place=
only to {{citation}}
when |newspaper=
or |magazine=
are set, and to {{cite news}}
and {{cite magazine}}
?{{citation}}
using the other periodical aliases) treat |publication-place=
, |location=
, and |place=
as equal aliases; when two or more are present in a cs1|2 template, emit a redundant parameter error message?|publication-place=
and one of |location=
or |place=
have assigned values?
{{citation}}
template renderings when there are no author-name parameters—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
|newspaper=
and |magazine=
are aliases of |work=
, as are |website=
, |periodical=
, and |journal=
, so limiting any check to just two of those aliases does not appear to be feasible. It would make different aliases behave differently. Third, I don't see why an item using a {{cite web}} or {{cite journal}} template could not (in theory) have a place where it was written and a place where it was published, although I definitely don't have an example or a good WP:V-related reason to include both pieces of information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
|volume=
and |issue=
differently in {{cite journal}}
and {{cite magazine}}
(and {{citation}}
with |journal=
or |magazine=
) and not at all in {{cite web}}
(and {{citation}}
with |website=
); limiting the check to just magazine and news citations is not at all difficult{{cite news}}
...) does a dateline make any sense? For journals, I suspect that almost all articles are written someplace other than the geographic location of the publisher so a dateline doesn't make much sense there either, does it?|first=
differently from |first1=
, for example. If we want to have certain parameters stop being aliases of others, we would need to have that discussion, fix all parameter usages so that they were accurate, have never-ending arguments (cf |publisher=
/|work=
in {{cite web}}), and sometime, years from now, separate the function of the aliases. I don't have the energy for any of that; maybe others do.|publication-place=
, |location=
, and |place=
should become simple aliases? To get the 'written at' static text, a |dateline=
parameter should be invented that only works with {{citation}}
(when either of |magazine=
or |news=
is set) and with {{cite magazine}}
and {{cite news}}
. More than one of them in a cs1|2 template triggers the redundant-parameter error?|publication-place=
and |location=
or |place=
. So I decided to see how commonly such pairings are used. If one is to believe these searches, not often:
|publication-place=
with |location=
or |place=
and as part of that make all three simple aliases of each other and make |location=
the canonical parameter name to reflect use in article space:
{{cite conference}}
. The proceedings go in |book-title=
, the paper in |title=
, the place of publication into any of the three |publication-place=
, |location=
or |place=
. If it is necessary or desirable to include the name of the conference and conference location and dates there is |conference=
– free form parameter that is not included in the citation's metadata. And for those who use cs2: |mode=cs2
.Regardless what what the documentation says, the current, overwhelming practice is that |location=
is the location of the publisher. If additional specificity is required, then those are the ones that should have dedicated parameters, e.g. |writing-location=
, |conference-location=
, etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
FYI, in case any validation code needs tweaking: https://bisg.org/news/479346/New-979-ISBN-Prefixes-Expected-in-2020.htm --Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
|isbn=
emits an error message.{{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=978-3-943302-34-9}}
→ Title. ISBN 978-3-943302-34-9.{{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=9791095833017}}
→ Title. ISBN 9791095833017.{{cite book/new |title=Title |isbn=979-0-50226-047-7}}
→ Title. ISBN 979-0-50226-047-7. {{cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid group id (help)979- prefix is "expected" for books published in the USA, but is already being used (and cited on Wikipedia) for a recent subset of books published in France, South Korea, and Italy (which have already exceeded allocations in the 978- prefix). See above section. Just be careful to note that 100% of 978- ISBNs and 0% of 979- ISBNs have a 10-digit predecessor, and disregard almost everything posted by the anon user (from various IPs). ―cobaltcigs 14:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
In January 2019 we changed the selectors for the access icons. That broke {{catalog lookup link}}
and Module:catalog lookup link which underlie many of the individual identifier templates (there is a list of these on the template's doc page).
I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css to add a less specific selector for use by this and any other templates that might want to use the cs1|2 css.
In this example from Template:catalog lookup link/testcases, links 1, 2, 5, and 8 have access icons:
{{Catalog lookup link/sandbox|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|article-link=Wikipedia|article-name=WP|link-prefix=//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/|url-access1=free|url-access2=subscription|url-access5=limited|url-access8=registration}}
cs1|2 works as it should:
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Cite magazine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to fix poor usage: For the quote parameter in the table, please change needs to include to must include. Eric talk 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
is it proper to put a range of dates in {{Cite web}} to show that a website has been online for a certain period of time, or is it best to just use a specific date? —Soap— 15:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
|access-date=
to indicate when you read that page and confirmed that it supported the en.wiki article the uses the citation.|date=
can be safely deleted because a date range does not identify a particular point in time when information on that website supported an en.wiki article's text. The handful of Taxapad citations that I looked at do not have |access-date=
so we don't really know if the archived snapshot supports en.wiki article text. |date=1997-2015
does not help to pin that down.|date=2015
and |orig-year=1997
could be used to indicate this. However, the problem is that it may be difficult now (in 2019) to determine if some specific supporting statement was already online in 1997 (or in some other year before 2015) already under the given link, unless you can find this in archived snapshots. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Vancouver style does not support the use of an ampersand between the last two author names in a name list so I have tweaked the module to ignore |last-author-amp=
when used with |vauthors=
:
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | Red R, Brown B, Green G. "Title". Journal. {{cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | Red R, Brown B, Green G. "Title". Journal. {{cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.