Loading AI tools
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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I'm trying to cite a web page which gives its publication date as "2009 and updates". If I code "date=2009 and updates" (or "year=...") it formats OK but adds a red message Check date values in: |date= at the end. Is there any way of avoiding this message?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
|access-date=
to identify that point in time where the cited source supported the article text.I've been getting this error on hundreds of citations since the update to Lua. Cite news no longer accepts section= for newspaper titles. I know a section above discusses this, but I'm not sure why it's taken several months without a fix nor am I prepared to read that wall of technical text as I am unfamiliar with Lua. Newspapers have sections, the section parameter should be handled by it as it was previously. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
|newspaper=
for the name of the newspaper: |newspaper=New York Times
|title=
for an article title |title=11 Women, Seven Seas and One Point to Make
|department=
for the section |department=Sports
(which see){{cite news |last=Museler |first=Chris |title=11 Women, Seven Seas and One Point to Make |department=Sports |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/sports/international/in-volvo-ocean-race-womens-sailing-team-hopes-to-navigate-new-path.html?ref=sports |date=23 December 2014 |page=B9}}
|section=
is not and hasn't been a documented parameter for any CS1 templates except {{cite manual}}
(now redirected to {{cite book}}
) where it is an alias of |chapter=
, and {{cite map}}
where it is used to hold grid location identifiers.|at=
parameter for the section title. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC){{cite conference|first=Jean-Claude|last=Larchet|title=The question of the Roman primacy in the thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3mxbj99yRaQC&pg=PA188|year=2006|conference=Academic symposium on the Petrine Ministry. Vatican City. May 21–24, 2003|editor-last=Kasper|editor-first=Walter|editor-link=Walter Kasper|booktitle=The Petrine ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in dialogue|location=New York|publisher=Newman Press|isbn=978-0-8091-4334-4|page=188}}
{{cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (help){{cite conference}}
in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. The error will go away and the citation will display correctly when the module suite is next updated.I have added a test to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox that tests months in a range for matching style: either both short: Jan–Mar or both long: January–March.
Month to month in the same year ranges:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)Because it uses much of the same code, season to season ranges in the same year should not be broken:
Day and month to day and month in the same year ranges:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)Month and year in different year ranges:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)Because it uses much of the same code, season to season ranges in the different years should not be broken:
Day month and year to day month and year ranges:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)Have I missed something? Keep this change?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Currently |format=
is dependent on |url=
where it should be dependent on |url=
or |chapter-url=
. In this example, adding a parent link seems overkill:
Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
{{cite book |chapter=Organizational Actions of Units to Form the 9th Field Artillery Regiment Under the US Army Regimental System (USARS) |title=Official Department of the Army Administrative Publications and Forms |id=General Orders No 34 |publisher=Department of the Army |date=15 January 1986 |chapter-url=http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go8534.pdf |format=PDF}} |
"Organizational Actions of Units to Form the 9th Field Artillery Regiment Under the US Army Regimental System (USARS)" (PDF). Official Department of the Army Administrative Publications and Forms. Department of the Army. 15 January 1986. General Orders No 34. |
-- Gadget850 talk 13:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
|chapter-format=
Thanks. Forgot this was added. -- Gadget850 talk 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This works,[1] this works,[2] but this gives a Check |url= scheme (help).
error.[3] In other words, {{Cite journal}} apparently cannot deal with {{Google books}} URLs. Would be nice if it could. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
|plainurl=yes
to that template, 82.136.210.153.
{{Google books|EToEAAAAMBAJ|Product Comparison|page=PT63}}
gives Product Comparison, p. PT63, at Google Books, which is not a plain URL in its output, so it's messing up the input into {{cite journal}}{{Google books|EToEAAAAMBAJ|Product Comparison|page=PT63|plainurl=yes}}
gives https://books.google.com/books?id=EToEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PAPT63, which is a plain URL that {{cite journal}}
can understand.[4]|url=
to {{cite journal}}
. Why type all of that extra text?References
{{cite journal}}
: Check |url=
value (help)|url=
parameter is that if the website changes its URL format, you just have to change the template instead of finding and changing many articles. 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
{{Google books|<identifier>|page=<page>|plainurl=yes}}
into Module:Citation/CS1 as a special identifier (somwhat akin to |doi=
or |jstor=
). But then, what if Google changes their identifier scheme? What then? I choose not to worry about something that I cannot predict and have no control over; "O, that way madness lies; let me shun that." (King Lear Act 3, scene 4)In Lawrencium is this citation:
{{cite journal|first=G. N.|last=Flerov|journal=At. En.|volume=106|page=476|year=1967}}
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)No |title=
yet no error message. Is this how it should be? The missing title error message is output when none of the meta parameters Title
, Periodical
, Conference
, TransTitle
, or ScriptTitle
are set. Because |journal=At. En.
has a value, no error message. I don't think that this is proper. I think that all CS1/2 citations must have |title=
.
Is there a reason that we shouldn't have this requirement and that I shouldn't remove Periodical
and Conference
from the title test?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)" Should we be using such citations? Probably not, but sometimes they are hard to avoid, partly because of access problems and partly because old botanical works often didn't use titles in the way that is done now. I'm already having to convert citations with open-ended dates to plain text and seeing others do so as well; I'd be sorry to see yet another category of citation unable to use citation templates. On the other hand, the great majority of citations should have titles. Ideally there would be a way of overriding a "missing title" error message. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC){{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (help)|title=none
option to explicitly override the need to insert the article title to "silence" a visible error message would be a good option. If silenced, I'd suggest that the template use some sort of tracking category so that interested editors can expand the citation out in full. As Trappist the monk's example shows, the longer citation (with DOI/PMID) is quite a bit more helpful. As for David Eppstein's comments, I understand a desire to allow academics to emulate their academic practices into Wikipedia writing, but at some point, I should think everyone would agree that Wikipedia has a house style (our MOS), and at least some things should eventually be updated to conform to our MOS's basic requirements in an effort to be accessible to the masses{{cite journal/new |author=E. F. Hefter |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=32 |page=1201 |date=1985}}
{{cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help){{cite journal/new |title=none |author=E. F. Hefter |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=32 |page=1201 |date=1985}}
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)|title=none
article is included in a maintenance category Category:CS1 maint: Untitled periodical.Occasionally an editor might want to refer to an entire issue of a journal (or newspaper) without specifying a particular article. This might be more likely if the issue being cited were a special issue or extra edition. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Minor tweaks to move the is-title-present test ahead of COinS generation so that we don't get &rft.atitle=none
; no special treatment of |title=none
when the template is {{cite encyclopedia}}
, or when {{citation}}
uses |encyclopedia=
:
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
As his personal physician, Rear Admiral George Gregory Burkley, completed the first "certificate of death" for JFK: front, back. (The notation in the upper left corners appears to indicate that it is a US Navy form.) This report can found in a few other places online, but the National Archives and Records Administration appears to hold the original documents and, therefore, be the most authoritative source of the document. My pathway to accessing these pdf's was 1) http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/, 2) http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/jfk-key-persons.html, 3) http://research.archives.gov/description/7460634, and 4) clicked the last two pages. I'm not sure what citation template to use since Template:Cite document redirects to Template:Cite journal. Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cite report}}
:
{{cite report}}
: Unknown parameter |authormask=
ignored (|author-mask=
suggested) (help){{cite report}}
(as it is currently implemented) does strange things when |work=
is made part of the citation (title is rendered quoted in italics):
|type=none
.Wikitext | {{cite report |
---|---|
Live | Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). Certificate of Death. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (Report). National Archives and Records Administration. pp. front, back. NAVMED Form N. |
Sandbox | Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). Certificate of Death. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (Report). National Archives and Records Administration. pp. front, back. NAVMED Form N. |
{{cite document}}
:
{{cite document}}
: Unknown parameter |work=
ignored (help){{cite document}}
with |type=Report
.{{cite web |author=[[WGBH Educational Foundation]] |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/faq/ |title=Oswald's Ghost |website=[[American Experience]] |publisher=[[PBS]] |accessdate=January 5, 2014}}
Outside style guides like APA don't treat collections as works. In the case of APA, the collection information is just put at the end of the citation. Perhaps like this:
{{cite document |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death |publisher=[[National Archives and Records Administration]] |pages=[http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0078.jpg front], [http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy/kennedy_john_f_4-1_autopsy-0079.jpg back]|id=NAVMED Form M |date=23 November 1963}} The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection.
which renders as
Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). "Certificate of Death" (Document). National Archives and Records Administration. pp. front, back. NAVMED Form M. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection.
Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
|via=
can come in very handily. Also, I wouldn't use |pages=
that way, using |at=
instead
{{cite document}}
: Unknown parameter |via=
ignored (help)|type=Form
instead of |type=Report
? - Location (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)|id=
but it can just as easily go in |type=
.Based on the discussion above, I've made a request at Template talk:Cite compare#Request to update the template to make code more visible. Discussion and technical assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I am attempting to cite an introduction written by one author which appears in a book written by another author. To make matters more interesting, the author of the introduction is credited as the editor of the complete text. The book, at its core, is an edition of the well-known Anna Lombard by Victoria Cross (Annie Sophie Cory). The introduction is by Gail Cunningham. I _think_ that the correct way this should display is:
Buuuut ... that raises at least two problems in my mind. First, the origyear parameter makes this look as though the Introduction was originally published in 1901, when that's not actually the case (just the book itself). Second, to get this outcome, I've stuffed Victoria Cross in the editor field, which is the opposite of reality. I feel that can only create trouble for metadata scrapers (and potential futures where we go back to displaying "ed."); indeed, the publication itself considered Cunningham the editor.
What's best practice here, with the ultimate goal of being able to tag this with a Cunningham-named sfn (naturally)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help); Invalid |ref=harv
(help) In Cross, Victoria (2006) [orig. pub. 1901]. Cunningham, Gail (ed.). Anna Lombard. Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-8264-8184-9.|chapter=
is modified:
|display-authors=0
|ref={{sfnref|Cunningham|2006
(in which case |page=vii–xxv
is inappropriate).|ref=harv
{{cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help){{harvnb|Cross|2006|pp=55–56}}
[[#CITEREFCross2006|Cunningham (2006), "Introduction" pp. vii–xxv]]
Just to compare, this is how an introduction would be formatted in APA and Chicago:
I am thinking that it might be useful to add "presenter" as a new parameter to Template:Cite conference. Currently only the authors are addressed, but the program will focus on the presenter. Thanks for considering this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
|others=
to meet this edge case need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
At this discussion I asked why we have several different separator parameters. This discussion assumes that we don't need so many and proposes a path to streamlining this set of parameters.
CS1/2 needs three types of separator: one to separate |first=
from |last=
, one to separate the items in a name list (authors, editors), and one to separate the various elements of the citation. This discussion applies to the first two of these.
The name separator parameters are:
|author-name-separator=
|editor-name-separator=
I can see no reason to have different separators for first/last name separation in a citation. Whatever separator is used to separate author last/first names should be used to separate editor last/first names. We should combine the functionality of these separate parameters into a single parameter. The most appropriate parameter name would be |name-separator=
. But that parameter name is already in use.
The name list separator parameters are:
|author-separator=
|editor-separator=
|name-separator=
Again, I see no reason to have different separators for name lists in a citation. Whatever separator is used to separate authors in the author list should be used to separate editors in the editor list. We should combine the functionality of these separate parameters into a single parameter. The most appropriate parameter name would seem to be |name-list-separator=
.
Because |name-separator=
is already in use, I think that we need a two-stage process to cleanup this mess. In the first stage we:
|name-list-separator=
|author-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, and |name-separator=
aliases of |name-list-separator=
|name-list-separator=
where it now uses |author-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, and |name-separator=
|author-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, and |name-separator=
in favor of |name-list-separator=
|author-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, and |name-separator=
with |name-list-separator=
|author-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, and |name-separator=
in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has been reduced to an acceptable level, these three parameters are added to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, are removed from Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, are removed as aliases of |name-list-separator=
, and are removed from the documentationAt some point after the last step in stage 1, do stage 2:
|name-separator=
from Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions|name-separator=
|author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
aliases of |name-separator=
|name-separator=
where it now uses |author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
|author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
in favor of |name-separator=
|author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
with |name-separator=
|author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has been reduced to an acceptable level, add these two parameters to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, remove them from Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, remove them as aliases of |name-separator=
, and remove them from the documentationAre there flaws in this plan? Should I proceed?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
|author-separator=
; every use also makes the style changes made by {{vcite2 journal}}. -- Gadget850 talk 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
|name=
and |published=
used by editors, for whatever reason.|name-separator=
as the separator between first and last names (typically a comma in CS1 citations), and |name-list-separator=
as the separator between authors (typically a semicolon in CS1 citations). These parameter names imply that there is a |name=
parameter, but there is not. I understand that we are trying to indicate that there is one of each separator parameter that covers both authors and editors.|author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
are just hacks that do that in some cases but not others. (Not that getting rid of the comma is necessarily a good idea, but that's a different issue). Kanguole 22:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)|name-separator=
we could use |last-first-separator=
because it only applies to |last=
, |first=
, |editor-last=
, and |editor-first=
. Or we could ask a more fundamental question: do we even need to specify a last/first separator character? It has been argued that we don't need to disable the separator for Asian names. It could be argued that we only 'need' |author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
when editors want to use CS1/2 in quasi-Vancouver mode (|author-format=vanc
or |editor-format=vanc
). Is there any other case where |first=
is separated from |last=
by any other character than a comma? If no, then why have |author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
?Discussion split from above.
That then begs the question: do we need any of the display parameters for CS1? I have previously expressed that if the Vancouver or other style is to be used, then a specific template should be created. And now we have {{vcite2 journal}} for just that purpose. Would it be possible to change the display parameters so that they can only be called by another module or template? This discussion may need to be split as it is straying from the original topic. -- Gadget850 talk 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
CitationClass
as a qualifyier. We have parameters that only work with one template: |mailing-list=
only works with {{cite mailing list}}
because we look for CitationClass
equals mailinglist
which is set with {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation|CitationClass=mailinglist}}
. Yes, I agree, if the question to be discussed is :Do we need any of the display parameters? then we should split that off.|author-mask=
is used for bibliography lists and I know |display-authors=
is well used.|authorformat=
|author-name-separator=
|editor-name-separator=
|author-separator=
|editor-separator=
|name-separator=
|last-author-amp=
|postscript=
|separator=
|author-name-separator=
.CitationClass
would do it, then that would be a solution. Set it to ExternalTemplate
or the like. -- Gadget850 talk 00:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)|postscript=
and |separator=
has some value because the allowed editors to mix CS1 and CS2 and have the rendered styling be the same for all citations. Here is an admittedly poor example. Presume that the page primarily uses CS2 so |postscript=
and |separator=
are added to the CS1 {{cite press release}}
so that it stylisically resembles the predominat CS2 style:
{{cite press release}}
: Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (help){{citation}}
: Missing or empty |url=
(help)|website=
; {{citation}} cannot). Hence users of CS2 are occasionally obliged to use "cite" templates with the ugly additions |separator=, |postscript=none
. How about |style=cs2
with alternatives like |style=vanc
? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|cs2=
would be for the occasional use where we need to mix with CS2 where {{citation}} simply does not work. If you are going to use the Vancouver style, then it needs to be used for all citations. The new {{vcite2 journal}} is a step in the right direction. With the name, it immediately establishes the citation style and allows follow on edits to conform. While doing parameter use searches, I found a number of articles with very inconsistent use; for example, Tropical cyclone has a number of uses of {{cite web}} but only one uses |author-separator=
. There is another article where one citation uses |
. There is currently no way to discover consistency within an article other than by scanning it by eye. -- Gadget850 talk 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|cs2=
would also be useful for using templates that provide a specific reference in cs1 style (example: {{Introduction to Algorithms}}) within a cs2-styled article, assuming those templates can easily be modified to pass that parameter along. But they would have to be individually programmed to do this, which makes it unlikely the {{cite doi}} can do this, unfortunately. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|cs2=
to each new citation, then add |cs2=
to each doi subtemplate, another bot job. But I'm not sure of the status of {{cite doi}}. -- Gadget850 talk 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|style=
because it's then relatively simple for an editor to copy a CS1 or CS2 template from a page using one style to a page using the other style. It's only one parameter so converting CS2 to CS1 would be {{citation |... |style=cs1}}
.|style={{{style|}}}
to the templates listed at Category:Cite doi templates looks like a relatively simple bot task. Trolling Category:Mathematics source templates, Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates etc. should be just as simple.|style=
parameter, and it's almost always intended for a semicolon-separated list of CSS declarations, and as such is passed unchanged into the style="..."
attribute of some HTML element. We should not introduce confusion by using |style=cs2
(or variations on that) for a completely unrelated purpose - at some point somebody will attempt to use |style=background-color: yellow; border: 1px solid blue; font-family: Times,serif;
and wonder what went wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
wonder what went wrong: Check |style= value (Help)? I like to think that most editors are clever enough to understand a word's meanings in when it is used in different contexts.
|styling=
, |mode=
, |form=
, |appearance=
For the sake of argument, let us assume that we have or will settle on a parameter name that is both descriptive and not likely to be confused for some other parameter. In the discussion that follows, I use |<style>=
to identify this unnamed parameter. What is required to implement this functionality?
CitationClass
Yin sandbox|author-format=vanc
can only modify |<style>=
author/editor related settings|author-name-separator=
|editor-name-separator=
|author-separator=
|editor-separator=
|name-separator=
|separator=
|<style>=
and/or these deprecated parameters in a citation. When they coexist, the value in |<style>=
controls. Yin sandbox
|author-name-separator=
and |editor-name-separator=
functionality (combined): separator character is comma; when |author-format=vanc
, space|author-separator=
and |editor-separator=
and |name-separator=
functionality (combined): separator character is semicolon; when |author-format=vanc
, comma|separator=
functionality: separator character is period (CS1), comma (CS2)|<style>=value
is not one of the defined values Yin sandbox|separator=,
and CitationClass
is CS1 then |<style>=cs2
|separator=.
and CitationClass
is CS2 then |<style>=cs1
What did I miss? Shall I proceed?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
not required in all CS1/2 templates; ...I meant that CS1/2 templates default to their 'native' set of separators. We don't need to have
{{citation |title=...|style=cs2}}
because the module will assign the defaults to the rendered citation based on what CitationClass
tells it. CitationClass
is a parameter passed to the module as part of its invocation. Here is the module invocation for {{citation}}
(which I notice is out of date because |separator=
, |ref=
and |postscript=
are set to their defaults inside the module):
{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=citation |separator=, |ref=harv |postscript=}}
{{citation}}
#invoke now fixed.cite-format
. -- Gadget850 talk 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
|style=
|citation-style=
|citation-format=
|styling=
|mode=
|form=
|appearance=
|cite-format=
|mode=
.The following examples are all derivatives of these to templates:
{{cite book/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |mode= |separator= |authorformat=}}
{{citation/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |mode= |separator= |authorformat=}}
First as they are rendered by Module:Citation/CS1:
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)and by Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)set |mode=cs1
for {{cite book}}
and |mode=cs2
for {{citation}}
, there should be no difference:
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)set |mode=cs2
for {{cite book}}
and |mode=cs1
for {{citation}}
, note change in separators and now cite book sets |ref=harv
, {{citation}}
does not; is this correct or appropriate behavior?
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)set |mode=
for {{cite book}}
and |mode=
for {{citation}}
, set |separator=#
; |separator=
value is ignored and cites rendered with deprecated error message:
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |authorformat=
(help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |authorformat=
(help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)set |mode=
for {{cite book}}
and |mode=
for {{citation}}
, set |separator=
, set |author-format=vanc
; cites rendered with comma separated author and editor names which are in the form <surname><space><initials>:
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator=
(help); Unknown parameter |authorformat=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator=
(help); Unknown parameter |authorformat=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)set |mode=cs3
for {{cite book}}
and |mode=bluebook
for {{citation}}
, set |author-format=
; cs3 and bluebook are not recognized modes:
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help); Invalid |mode=cs3
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help); Invalid |mode=bluebook
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)set |mode=cS1
for {{cite book}}
and |mode=Cs2
for {{citation}}
; |mode=
is case insensitive:
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help); Invalid |mode=cS1
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |separator=
and |authorformat=
(help); Invalid |mode=Cs2
(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)tldr; This appears to work. The questions that arise are:
|ref=harv
when |mode=cs2
?|ref=
when {{citation}}
has |mode=cs1
?|author-format=
and |editor-format=
; is there any reason to maintain two separate format parameters? These parameters take one of two defined values: vanc
and scaps
. Does it make sense to allow any and all combinations of these formatting parameters? Should they be combined into a single parameter? If so, what is that parameter called?—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
|ref=harv
the default whenever cs2 is used, even by "cite xxx"? Is it correct to make |ref=
the default even when "citation" is used? I'm not sure what current editors expect; my best guess is that "citation" should always default to |ref=harv
and "cite xxx" should only default to |ref=harv
if |mode=cs1
is set.|ref=harv
is superfluous. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)|mode=
is not a required parameter. Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox uses the content of |CitationClass=
in the {{#invoke:}}
to establish the defaults when |mode=
is empty or omitted from the template. These defaults in the sandbox version are the same as the defaults in the current live version. So, setting |mode=cs1
has no effect when the template is a CS1 template; setting |mode=cs2
has no effect when the template is {{citation}}
. Because a defining feature of {{citation}}
and hence CS2 is the automatic setting of |ref=harv
, it seems appropriate to auto-set |ref=harv
when a CS1 template is switched to CS2 styling via |mode=cs2
except when the template has |ref=sommat else
.|ref=harv
, CS2 does.|ref=harv
. CS2 doesn't really need to create an anchor to link to; it would have served it's purpose pretty well if |ref=
were the default. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)|ref=harv
really helps with that kind of list, but it isn't the default. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Trappist's example is OK except that the two numbered footnotes would be in a different section from the unnumbered bibliography entry. Also, his note number 1 would have been a short note if the article had a bibliography. I think a small change that would make CS1 easier to use in the application it is best for, alphabetical lists, would be to make |ref=harv
be the default for everything. That way, any instances of Citation that rely on it would continue to work, and the articles that contain alphabetical lists would be easier to edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
|ref=harv
should always be enabled — what does it harm? But the reason it isn't always enabled is that it can generate invalid html when two references have the same set of authors (or both have no authors) and the same set of dates (or both are undated). When this happens, we get two html entities with the same name, something that is not allowed. This is more common than you might think, especially with {{cite web}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, I have deprecated |author-name-separator=
, |editor-name-separator=
, |author-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, and |name-separator=
in addition to previously deprecated |separator=
. This completes steps 1–6 in my list of things to do (marked with Y).
Not part of that list, but something we need to answer is:
|author-format=
and |editor-format=
?
|name-list-format=
|author-format=
and |editor-format=
support vanc
and scap
. Step 5 in my list of things to do settles |author-format=vanc
which leaves us with: What to do about scap
?
|author-format=scap
; there may be others I don't know about. WP:MESO |author-format=scap
then I propose to deprecate and remove it.—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
|authorformat=
, |author-format=
, |editorformat=
, |editor-format=
and created |name-list-format=
.
{{cite book/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |name-list-style=vanc}}
{{cite book}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator=
(help); Unknown parameter |author-format=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator=
(help); Unknown parameter |editor-format=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)scap
and its associated code. Because there is nothing to replace it, it is simply gone and we get an error message:
{{cite book/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |mode= |separator= |name-list-format=scap}}
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator=
(help); Unknown parameter |name-list-format=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)|name-list-format=
is vanc
.|authorformat=
, |author-format=
, |editorformat=
, and |editor-format=
to |name-list-format=
, if you would like to share the results of those insource searches. (Was there another task to be done?) Ping me when you get closer to updating the live template so we can coordinate. Enjoy the holidays! GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)|authorformat=
or |author-format=
or has only |editorformat=
or |editor-format=
then that parameter can be renamed. If the template has |authorformat=
or |author-format=
and has |editorformat=
or |editor-format=
then both of them must be replaced by only one of |name-list-format=
.|authorformat=
found 991 (scap & vanc)|author-name-separator=
found 642|editor-name-separator=
found 1|author-separator=
found 4356|editor-separator=
found 2|name-separator=
found 2|last-author-amp=
found 1|postscript=
found 12247 (insource:/\|\s*postscript/) "|postscript=—Based on the Random House ...", "|postscript=<!--None-->", "|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. ...", "|postscript=none"|separator=
found 2901 (insource:/\|\s*separator/)|postscript=
is, I think, going to be the most difficult parameter because it is (mis)used in a variety of ways. |postscript=<!--None-->
, is the same as |postscript=
which does nothing; |postscript=none
specifies no postscript character which functionality would be handled by |style=cs2
; these can be removed by bot or script. Parameters like |postscript=—Based on the Random House ...
are problematic because they may contain useful information. It would seem that for such use where the value assigned to |postscript
is not a single character or html entity or hidden inside &<lt;!--...-->
, then such text should be moved so that it follows the citation template's closing }}
. And then there is this which is added by Citation bot: |postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}
. What do we do about that? If it has value, it can be moved outside the citation template.|ref=harv
linking, so that the added text stays within the text that is highlighted by clicking on the reference link. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)|postscript
for values over one character and put them in a hidden category so we can see what we are dealing with. This field was only intended for the terminating character of the citation, not for elements of a citation. -- Gadget850 talk 18:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|at=
or by just putting the text after the reference. (I agree with you re the intended use of postscript, and only use it for that myself, but any time we provide a convenient but semantically-wrong parameter for producing text in some kind of format, you know there will be editors who use it.) One style that I sometimes use is "(reference). As cited by (parenthetical cite of other reference)." for situations where it is clear from the other reference that the first reference is the appropriate one to cite for some piece of information but I haven't been able to track it down and read it myself. I think it's ok that the "As cited by" part doesn't get highlighted, but others could disagree. I'll also sometimes put "Reprinted in..." information following a reference to the original publication of some work. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC){{Cite book}} shows |origyear=
as alias to |orig-year=
, as per <templatedata>
on that page and on Template:CSdoc#date. However, {{Cite journal}} shows |orig-year=
as alias to |origyear=
, as per <templatedata>
on that page, inconsistent with Template:CSdoc#date. Which is it? Thanks :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
|orig-year=
is the RFC-preferred form.|orig-year=
has precedence - but since an error message More than one of |origyear=
and |orig-year=
specified (help) is also thrown, I don't think that it's worth worrying about. You also risk annoying people if you go around switching one form to the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
|orig-year=
. I'll leave them alone and become semi-agnostic, though. Thanks. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)I think we should not suppress the p./pp. prefix by default under "WORK" citations. While I understand the ugliness concern of "pp. front page" this is a bad idea for several reasons:
|nopp=y
command in the cite tag.
Finally, can anyone point to any discussion archive where the logic of this decision was debated and consensus was reached? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal}}
citation:{{cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (help){{cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (help){{cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (help)I just got an red error message, "Check date values in: |date=" from {{Cite web}}, because I copied and pasted a date as "01 February 2014", not "1 February 2014". It's significant that the error message did not say why the format I'd used was not accepted.
Per Postel's Law, and to make life easier for our editors, I think we should be more accepting of unambiguous date formats (another example is "17 Febr. 2015"). A Lua module should be able to handle them; and a bot could standardise them if desired.
If there is a reason why we can't do that, or ins cases where it is not possible to do so, then we should at least use more helpful error messages, such has "month not recognised". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"not one of the house formats". We're talking about data entry, not content display. The line should be drawn at ambiguity (5/4/2014 is ambiguous; 23/4/2014 is not). We have machines to do things like this for us; and humans' time - especially those willing to voleunteer their efofrts to building the encclopedia - is better spent doing things that machines cannot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing wrote: "The line should be drawn at ambiguity (5/4/2014 is ambiguous; 23/4/2014 is not). We have machines to do things like this for us..." You are right. As I said above, BattyBot will fix unambiguous dates to conform them to the MOS.
Please move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. The citation module is designed to mark citation date formatting that does not conform to the Wikipedia consensus. If that consensus is changed, the citation module will be changed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that VisualEditor is the place to add any such tolerance/conversion, not CS1. For the most part, the people who need the tolerance will be using VE anyway. I don't know about you, but I intend to avoid VE as long as that's possible (with any luck, until my Wiki-retirement), and I have no problem mentally converting a source date to the MOS/CS1 format appropriate for the context. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently the date field accepts "n.d." as a valid response in the date field, where this stands for "no date" For people who do not know the order of citations, having "(n.d.)" appear in the citation is not obviously recognizable as a note about the date, and even if someone thinks it might be, they will not be sure what this means without being told.
It should be acceptable to write "no date" in the field without getting an error, but an error message happens in this case now. This would make the citation more accessible to people without academic training in the Western citation system, which includes most of Wikipedia's readers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This:
{{Cite conference
| doi = 10.1109/ICPR.2014.624
| conference = 2014 22nd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR)
| pages = 3630–3635
| last = Banerjee
| first = Siddhartha
| coauthors = Cornelia Caragea, Prasenjit Mitra
| chapter = Playscript Classification and Automatic Wikipedia Play Articles Generation
| booktitle = 2014 22nd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR)
| date = 2014
}}
currently results in the following:
I.e. the "chapter" parameter is not displayed, and the template throws an (invisible) error message linking to Help:CS1_errors#deprecated_params - but "chapter" is not among the deprecated parameters listed there.
Another example (likewise from here), using the "title" instead of the "chapter" parameter:
{{Cite conference
| publisher = ACM
| doi = 10.1145/2661829.2661840
| isbn = 978-1-4503-2598-1
| pages = 2033–2035
| last = Zhang
| first = Kezun
| coauthors = Yanghua Xiao, Hanghang Tong, Haixun Wang, Wei Wang
| title = WiiCluster: A Platform for Wikipedia Infobox Generation
| booktitle = Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
| location = New York, NY, USA
| series = CIKM '14
| date = 2014
| url = http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2661829.2661840
}}
results in:
|chapter=
ignored (help)[[Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters]][[Category:CS1 errors: Chapter ignored]]The linked help page already indicated that this error message is erroneous, but in any case, the content of the "title" parameter should be displayed.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
|conference=
instead of |booktitle=
:
{{cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)|conference=Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '14)
. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite conference |
---|---|
Live | Zhang, Kezun (2014). "WiiCluster: A Platform for Wikipedia Infobox Generation". Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. CIKM '14. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 2033–2035. doi:10.1145/2661829.2661840. ISBN 978-1-4503-2598-1. {{cite conference}} : Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | Zhang, Kezun (2014). "WiiCluster: A Platform for Wikipedia Infobox Generation". Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. CIKM '14. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 2033–2035. doi:10.1145/2661829.2661840. ISBN 978-1-4503-2598-1. {{cite conference}} : Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help) |
|chapter=
will be displayed, as shown in the "Sandbox" version of the example citation above.|coauthors=
parameter: / and / . I'm not sure where/how to file upstream bugs for things like this in Zotero (there are a few other issues too, e.g. Zotero including multiple ISSNs in Template:Cite journal which the template can't parse).A lot of books have two or more parallel texts, each in a different language.
A lot of books have two or more titles, one per language used.
A lot of books are simultaneously published by two or more publishers, each in a different city ("location"). (I mean, the same one copy of the book says that it is published in NYC by company X and in London by company Y, for example.)
A lot of books have two or more ISBNs. (I have in mind books printed and bound at the same place and time and with identical pagination: hardback and paperback editions differing only in their binding, books jointly published by two publishers [see previous item], etc.)
A lot of books that don't have ISBNs have two or more useful OCLC numbers.
It's considerations such as these that have until now made me avoid the template wherever possible. (I haven't fought against others' use of it; I simply haven't used it myself.) But I appreciate the motivation for it and of course I want to cooperate with others who do use it. So I can no longer ignore these problems. What's the approved/best approach to problems such as these? -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|id=
and still get the benefit of the template's more consistent formatting and richer metadata for the rest of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)|id=
, I recently used it to indicate the source of a document, embedding another cite template in it. Here the cited document is a translation of a single chapter from a Chinese work.{{cite journal |author=Shi-Xue Tsai |title=Introduction to the Scene Matching Missile Guidance Technologies |publisher=[[National Air Intelligence Center]] |others=SCITRAN (trans.) |url=http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA315439 |chapter-format=PDF |id=Translated from: {{cite book |title=Promotion of Chinese Aviation Between Centureis: Proceedings of Conference for 30th Anniversary of CSAA Establishment |language=zh |issue=Nr. 10, 1994, (Cama) Vol. 3, Nr. 1 |date=1996 |pages=227–237 |postscript=none}}}}
{{cite journal}}
: |chapter-format=
ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(help){{Cite book | editor-last=Berengo Gardin | editor-first=Susanne | author-last=Berengo Gardin | author-first=Gianni | title=Italianer |trans-title=Italians | location=Kempen | publisher=teNeues | year=2000 | isbn=3-8238-5453-4 | language=German, English}}
|trans-title=
holds an English translation of a foreign language title (regardless of how many times it's used) and is not necessarily constrained to translations only made by Wikipedia editors – the translation may be done by others, even by translate.google.com.|language=German, English
though I would hope to one day enhance language support so that the module will understand multiple languages. The content of |language=
is not included in the COinS metadata.As a small but significant percentage of large series more or less reach their expected completion, the editors or publisher think it's a good idea to redo the thing, and launch what they often term a "new series": more or less the same format as the existing volumes, but with revised content. An obvious example is Contemporary Authors (though I think the new volumes of this particular monster are titled "New Revision Series"). If I add "| volume=NS 11" or similar to the Cite book template, the result is formatted very differently from the same minus "NS". Should I be attempting this in some other way? -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cite book |title=Title |chapter=Chapter |series=New Revision Series |volume=11}}
|series=Contemporary Authors (New Revision Series)
would preserve that information and also include the fact that it's the new series? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC){{cite book |title=Contemporary Authors |series=New Revision Series |volume=142 |publisher=Cengage Gale |date=2005 |isbn=978-0787678968}}
I recently came across a URL in a |title=
parameter, and I got to wondering how many more citations had that error in them. I did a search for insource:/\|\s*title\s*=\s*http/
(for those of you who don't read regular expressions, that's " 'title' followed by an equals sign and 'http', with optional spaces") and got between 500 and 1000 results. I suppose that it's possible for the title of a web page to be a URL, but I scanned the list quickly and did not see any such legitimate titles.
I propose that we create an error category, or a least a maintenance category, to flag or track these. If we find that there are titles that legitimately should contain URLs, we may be able to find a way to accommodate them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
|title=
parameters. If we find legitimate URLs as title parameters, we could work around the error message via character encoding or some other recommended method (aside from creating yet another edge-case parameter). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
insource:/\|\s*title\s*=\s*(https?:)?\/\//
for the time being... —PC-XT+ 04:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, I regaulry see traineess enter the URL of a cited web page into |wesbite=
rather than |url=
. Could we trap this, too, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it time to update the module from the sandbox? It's been about five weeks, and we have a few bug fixes to roll out, along with a few new citation templates to convert to using the module and a few enhancements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | Malarz, Krzysztof (2015). "Simple cubic random-site percolation thresholds beyond Rubik's neighborhood". arXiv:1501.01586. {{cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (help) |
Sandbox | Malarz, Krzysztof (2015). "Simple cubic random-site percolation thresholds beyond Rubik's neighborhood". arXiv:1501.01586. {{cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (help) |
{{cite conference}}
and {{cite encyclopedia}}
fixes should be rolled out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)"The canonical form of identifiers from January 2015 (1501) is arXiv:YYMM.NNNNN, with 5-digits for the sequence number within the month." -- Gadget850 talk 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title. arXiv:1501.00001v1. |
Sandbox | Title. arXiv:1501.00001v1. |
{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid year{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – valid year, invalid month{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – valid year, invalid month{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – valid year, invalid month{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – valid year, invalid month{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid version{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid version{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid number{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid number{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid version{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid version{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid year{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – valid year, invalid month{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – valid year, invalid month{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid version{{cite book}}
: Check |arxiv=
value (help) – invalid version—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there a timeline for when this is getting fixed? Erroneous error messages are being generated on user talk pages due to bot notifications of errors generated by Module:Citation when this bug triggers the error routine -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
ReferenceBot is still producing error messages, even though this is a valid arXiv ID, so the module is giving editors invalid talk page messages. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have two suggestions:
2000–present
" (or, alternatively, "2000–
") in the |date=
or |year=
parameters doesn't generate a CS1 error? This occurs when a serial that is currently being published is cited. It would not be correct to indicate a range like "2000–2014
" as that would suggest the serial ceased publication in 2014.|origdate=
corresponding to |origyear=
?— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
|origyear=
can take values other than years, for example:
Both {{Cite doi}} and {{Cite pmid}} are marked as deprecated, but have 17,919 & 7243 transclusions respectively. Is the intention to replace these? If so, should a bot be requested to do the job? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
See the RFC: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?. The result was:
Existing and future DOI details should be included in articles, however, the bot function should remain, with a BRFA raised to change its function to use cite journal within articles without separate subpages. CSD:T3 does not apply, and mass deletion of orphaned citation templates should not occur without further consensus. Some consideration should be given to future automated processing of the data in case there is a future consensus to centralize citations. This is without prejudice toward further UI improvements that may render this discussion moot by providing seamless editing of centralized citations
If you want to alter this decision, then another RFC is required. The way this decision is worded is very confusing to me. -- Gadget850 talk 12:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cite pmid|10367338}}
was placed in Alcohol. Citation Bot then created {{Cite_pmid/10367338}} which contains the citation data. This data is then transcluded back into Alcohol as Alcohol#cite_note-15.I just tried subst:ing an example of Cite doi, as an experiment, and it failed. Any idea why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
<ref>
tags. -- Gadget850 talk 12:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why we have both {{Vcite journal}} and {{Vcite2 journal}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
support were added to {{cite journal}}, we could also deprecate {{Vcite2 journal}}. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
support directly to Module:Citation/CS1. That way, we can:
{{vcite2}}
templates,|author=
parameter with |vauthors=
so that clean author meta data is generated,|style=vancouver
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
support (that automatically sets |name-list-format=vanc
) to Module:Citation/CS1. The later is a much cleaner solution that avoids template proliferation. Boghog (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)I see this was proposed back in 2013 without a response. I think this is quite vital - if someone is quoting directly from non-English text, the translation could be flawed in some way. This would encourage people to put the original quote. It would be especially vital when the quote is used to support some kind of discrepancy. Wikimandia (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I miss a parameter "Wikidata". Imho we need three:
Even if we don't import the data right now, these parameters will save use a lot of work later. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal |wikidata-article=[[d:Q7110639]] |wikidata-journal=[[d:Q217305]]}}
{{cite doi}}
, {{cite pmid}}
, etc.{{cite journal |wikidata-journal=Q217305}}
? This unique identifier could be used for Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, helps finding typos etc. If we don't start now the only advantage is that we will have more work later. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Japan is a populous country with plentiful publishing and plenty of university and other large libraries. Putting aside Japanese books (in any sense of "Japanese") for a moment, just the Japanese holdings of English-language books published in the west are significant. Most large libraries pool their information to CiNii, which ends up as something like a Japan-specific Worldcat (though with a lot fewer near-duplications) -- and, conveniently for us, which has an English-language interface. The libraries that contribute to CiNii typically (or always?) ignore Worldcat: what's at CiNii usually (always?) complements rather than duplicates what's at Worldcat.
CiNii uses what it calls NCID numbers for books. Here's the page for one book: you can see that its NCID is BB15607497 and that the relationship between NCID and URL seems very simple. I suppose, but don't know for sure, that there's a bijection.
All things being equal (translation: if somebody other than me did all the work) it would be good if there were a Template:NCID (there's currently Template:NAID for journals) and an ncid field for this template too.
Just throwing this out. (translation: it's just my personal brainfart; don't expect me to wear out my little brain doing any hard thinking) -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
It also appears that an NCID can go in the |rfe_dat=
parameter of COinS metadata, per . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
|rfe_dat=
is. That parameter isn't among the parameters listed here and has a different prefix (rfe
v. rft
) and different separator (underscore v. period).q="rft.dat"+Z3988
finds a few examples in the wild, but not many. I wonder if it's a local extension? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)I've proposed a Wikidata property for NCID. See here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
"Template:Literatur converted to use Template:Citation. Should we convert foreign-language templates to English?"
{{Literatur}}
was recently converted to use {{citation}}
instead of {{citation/core}}
. If you see articles popping into CS1 error categories despite no recent edits to the article, that change may be the reason.
This template, along with {{Internetquelle}}
and {{Книга}}
, makes me wonder if there is a WP policy or guideline that says to prefer English in template code. I have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), but it does not apply. Is there a policy or guideline that would recommend the conversion of templates like {{Literatur}}
to {{citation}}
?
I am not suggesting that these templates go away; I think that they are useful for copying and pasting citations from one language's WP to another. I am wondering if we should routinely search for transclusions of these templates in the English WP and convert them to English-language citation templates so that English-speaking editors/readers can edit/read the references more easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've made {{Cite tweet}}, as a wrapper or {{Cite web}}, and directed its talk page here. Improvements welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Various style guides recommend a different method than what Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) set up. For example, the APA and the MLA say to use the entirety of the tweet as the title. Both also call for the usage of real names with account names in brackets/parentheses unless the real name isn't known, in which case only the account name outside of brackets would be used.
Since CS1 is heavily based on APA practices, with influences from the others like Chicago MOS, I would suggest the following changes:
|first=
|last=
|author=
) in addition to the account name, |user=
.|type=Tweet
to indicate that it is a tweet from Twitter. Since other "tweet" is unique to twitter, the website name is superfluous.|link=no
to shut off the wikilink for additional uses.|quote=
because the title of the tweet is the full text of the tweet itself.The question I'd have then is how to deal with links within the tweet text. APA's example added the "http://", but that text wasn't present in the displayed tweet, so as long as we faithfully quoted the original text, it wouldn't generate an issue with nested external links to link the text of the tweet to tweet itself. Imzadi 1979 → A few examples of what I'd use:
-- Imzadi 1979 → 18:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've numbered your suggestions for ease of reference:
|authorlink=
|quote=
parameter, not least semantically, but also because it's not a title, and because editors may wish to only quote part of a tweet, as with other cited works.The Twitter names in your latter examples should include the "@". I feel we owe no allegiance to APA or MLA, and need not be bound by their inadequate responses to this new medium. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I've written a number of articles that rely on academic book reviews. Databases usually provide their title either as blank, "Review", or the name of the book reviewed. In the journals, they're typically without a proper header or title within a book review section. Is there consensus somewhere on how they should be cited? Of the two examples below, the former is my normal format (i.e., title either "Review: Name of Book" or "Full Name of Book" in quotes, like giving the piece a title) and the latter is what Chicago uses ("Rev. of Title, by Author" without quotation marks in the place where the quoted title would be). The only way to get this second effect without the quotation marks in {{cite journal}} is to add something to the |journal=
field, but it's a jury-rigged hack and not a proper solution.
{{cite journal}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal=
(help); Missing or empty |title=
(help) (Login required)My questions are (1) is there a preferred way to handle this? (2) If not, how can I do the second format without the jury-rigged param? Would it make sense to make a |review=
param that would put unquoted, unitalicized text in the "Rev. of X, by Y" format after the title and before the journal params? czar ⨹ 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (help)|title=
or |journal=
corrupts the citation's COinS metadata. You can do simple wikimarkup styling in |title=
as I have done here because that markup is removed from the metadata. Use |type=
to identify this title as a review.|journal=''Rev. of ''Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited'', by Robert Francis Engs. '' [[The Journal of American History]]
&rft.jtitle=%27%27Rev.+of+%27%27Educating+the+Disfranchised+and+Disinherited%27%27%2C+by+Robert+Francis+Engs.+%27%27+The+Journal+of+American+History
&rft.jtitle
(which see) identifies the journal's name as
|journal=
param—I was just wondering how else I could have the same effect (see below). As for what JSTOR identifies as the title, if you export JSTOR book review citations, the title fields are blank unless the book review has a unique title. czar ⨹ 00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)|type=
, I've been using |department=Book Reviews
(or whatever the journal calls it) for many of these. And your example does indeed call it Book Reviews (look at the table of contents for that journal issue). So your example would come out Ahern, Wilbert H. (2000). "Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited: Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Hampton Institute, 1839–1893 by Robert Francis Engs". Book Reviews. The Journal of American History. 87 (3): 1045–1046. doi:10.2307/2675343. ISSN 0021-8723. JSTOR 2675343. {{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (help) —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{cite book review}}
perhaps? If it is to be made part of CS1/2, then this new template would require changes to Module:Citation/CS1 to support it. And of course documentation ... Would anyone be willing to help implement this in {{cite journal}}? I'm thinking |review=''Summerhill'', by A. S. Neill
could produce "Rev. of Summerhill, by A. S. Neill." in-between the title and journal fields, and use the URL if no title is entered. More flexibly, the param could just allow text in-between the title and journal fields, though the former is preferable for the purpose of book reviews. czar ⨹ 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|conference=
(should be okay as that param doesn't use COinS). Only thing is that {{cite conference}} omits |conference=
's trailing period and space when there is no |title=
present. E.g., the second bullet between Peshkin and Christianity:{{cite conference}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help){{cite conference}}
but in how it is misused: |journal=
(or any of the |work=
aliases) is not defined for use in {{cite conference}}
. Also, the title is not included in the metadata when {{cite conference}}
is used in this manner.|type=
or |department=
(this last might benefit from alternate naming).In World War II References there is a Cite book param I never heard about: authorformat. What about possible values, or «scap» is the only one? Carlotm (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
|author-format=scap
will become non-functional. This because that styling is in conflict with MOS:SMALLCAPS. After the update, the only valid parameter value will be |author-format=vanc
which renders last/first author and editor lists in Vancouver style. See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#Separator parameters.|vanc=y
is more concise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)|authorformat=vanc
and |author-format=vanc
. With {{vcite2 journal}} it is rather redundant. -- Gadget850 talk 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)insource:authorformat=vanc
and insource:"authorformat=vanc"
are less restrictive searches than insource:/authorformat=vanc/
and both of them find a few more instances.|author-format=
and |editor-format=
will be deprecated in favor of |name-list-format=
. All of |author-format=scap
, |editor-format=scap
, and |name-list-format=scap
will be non-functional.|vauthors=
directly into Module:Citation/CS1 and make {{vcite2 journal}} redundant. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)On the weekend of 14–15 February I propose to update the live CS1 module files from their sandbox counterparts:
Changes to Module:Citation/CS1 are:
{{citation |encyclopedia=...}}
mimics {{cite encyclopedia}}
; discussion|authorformat=
, |author-format=
, |author-name-separator=
, |author-separator=
, |editorformat=
, |editor-format=
, |editor-name-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, |name-separator=
, |separator=
;|mode=
and |name-list-format=
;|author/editor-format=scap
and for |separator=none
|registration=
and |subscription=
; discussionChanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration are:
|mailinglist=
; discussion|authorformat=
, |author-format=
, |author-name-separator=
, |author-separator=
, |editorformat=
, |editor-format=
, |editor-name-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, |name-separator=
, |separator=
;|mode=
and |name-list-format=
;|author/editor-format=scap
and for |separator=none
Changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist are:
|mailinglist=
; discussion|authorformat=
, |author-format=
, |author-name-separator=
, |author-separator=
, |editorformat=
, |editor-format=
, |editor-name-separator=
, |editor-separator=
, |name-separator=
, |separator=
;|mode=
and |name-list-format=
;|author/editor-format=scap
and for |separator=none
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
How should I cite a journal, using {{cite journal}} that has chapters inside of articles. Should I just cite them as though they were articles inside of departments or is there a better way? Also, when those chapters have multi-page sections, as in the examples below? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
My example is:
{{cite journal|journal=Applied History|volume=II|editor-last=Shambaugh|editor-first=Benjamin F.||place=Iowa City|year=1914|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Reorganization of State Government|author-last=Horack|author-first=Frank E.|chapter=State Government in America|section=The Legislature|pp=11-14}}
Which displays as:
Horack, Frank E. (1914). Shambaugh, Benjamin F. (ed.). "Reorganization of State Government". Applied History. II. Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa: 11–14. {{cite journal}}
: |chapter=
ignored (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(help); More than one of |section=
and |chapter=
specified (help)
Another example is (The articles are by various authors, though this one happens to be by the editor):
{{cite journal|journal=The Iowa Journal of History and Politics|volume=2|number=4|editor-last=Shambaugh|editor-first=Benjamin F.|place=Iowa City|year=1904|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa|author-last=Shambaugh|author-first=Benjamin F.|chapter=The Territorial Period|section=The Proclamation of Governor Mason|pp=521-24}}
Which displays as:
Shambaugh, Benjamin F. (1904). Shambaugh, Benjamin F. (ed.). "Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa". The Iowa Journal of History and Politics. 2 (4). Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa: 521–24. {{cite journal}}
: |chapter=
ignored (help); More than one of |section=
and |chapter=
specified (help)
Any assistance is appreciated. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
|at="The Territorial Period: The Proclamation of Governor Mason", pp. 521–524
. It would look like this:{{cite journal|journal=The Iowa Journal of History and Politics|volume=2|number=4|editor-last=Shambaugh|editor-first=Benjamin F.|place=Iowa City|year=1904|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa|author-last=Shambaugh|author-first=Benjamin F.|at="The Territorial Period: The Proclamation of Governor Mason", pp. 521–524}}
{{cite journal|journal=Applied History|volume=II|place=Iowa City|year=1914|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Reorganization of State Government in Iowa|author-last=Horack|author-first=Frank E.|pages=1–86}}
{{cite journal|journal=The Iowa Journal of History and Politics|volume=2|number=4|year=1904|title=Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa|author-last=Shambaugh|author-first=Benjamin F.|pp=520–603}}
{{cite book|last=Horack |first=Frank E. |editor-last=Shambaugh |editor-first=Benjamin F. |title=Applied History |chapter=Reorganization of State Government|chapter-url=//archive.org/details/appliedhistory02stat#page/10/mode/2up |place=Iowa City |publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa |date=1914 |volume=II |pp=11-14}}
|pp=1–86
may be appropriate. But, if the template is being used to cite a particular point in the article then the page range should be constrained to just large enough to contain the salient material in the source. There isn't any need to force the reader to search the whole range of the author's chapter in search of the supporting text.|page=
and |pages=
. For a book where no named chapter is given they are used to specify the page(s) on which the relevant information appears. For a journal article they are used to specify the page span of the article as a whole. For chapters in books I've come across both uses. This kind of semantic ambiguity always causes problems. However, I think it's too late now to correct it (by having different parameters) given the huge number of uses with both meanings. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)But back to my original query. Is it generally thought, then, that the chapters and sections should be omitted? I generally prefer providing more information when possible, but if that's the general rule ... – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
|pages=
parameter is the range of the whole source (e.g., article). In a short cite (as implemented with {{harv}}) the |p=
parameter is the location of the specific material. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Apparently the new |name-list-format=vanc
has now gone live. However it doesn't seem to display the middle initial. For example:
What happened to the to the middle initial "T"? According to the definitive Vancouver system guide:
{{cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help)the middle initial should be displayed. Boghog (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
reducetoinitials()
. So, that would seem to suggest that for the case you illustrate above, the function never worked as you would have wanted.reducetoinitials()
function should check for the special case where |firstn=
contains only one word with two capital letters. If it encounters such a case, it should return the initials unchanged. Boghog (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)if string.len(first) == 2 and string.match(first,'%u%u') then return(first) end
at the beginning of the reducetoinitials()
function should be sufficient. Boghog (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Fixed in the sandbox I think. Also fixed the case |first=J.T.
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | Groves, JT (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature. 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. {{cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | Groves, JT (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature. 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. {{cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) |
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | Groves, J.T. (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature. 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. {{cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | Groves, J.T. (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature. 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. {{cite journal}} : Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussions at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#name-list-format=scap now producing error and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Proposed exceptions to general deprecation of Allcaps. -- Gadget850 talk 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is pretty important when citing a peer-reviewed journal article to be able to indicate whether the source is a review article or an original research article. Is there a parameter in the cite journal template which would serve to support indicating this distinction? If not, would folks entertain the notion that maybe a new parameter "review=yes" be added which would ... maybe add "Review: " before the title in the presentation of the citation? Thanks for considering this. I did a brief search of archives to see if this had been discussed before and did not find an indication that it had been. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|department=
or |type=
? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|type=
refers to the media type and therefore is probably not appropriate. |department=
refers to a "regular department within the periodical" which comes closer. I take "department" to mean a regular section of a journal like communications, full articles, and reviews. Perhaps the department parameter documentation should be clarified so that it is clear that the parameter can refer to publication type (e.g., communication, full article, review, etc.). Boghog (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)The documentation also says that |type=
isn't displayed when |work=
or an alias is set. That appears to have once been true:
Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | "Title". Journal (Type). |
Sandbox | "Title". Journal (Type). |
I don't know when that changed, or if we should 'fix' the module to match the documentation or fix the documentation to match the module. Is there a reason that |type=
shouldn't be available when citing journals and other periodicals?
I don't know that |type=
couldn't be used to distinguish a review article from an original research article. We set |type=
for {{cite AV media notes}}
, {{cite DVD-notes}}
, {{cite mailinglist}}
, {{cite podcast}}
, {{cite pressrelease}}
, {{cite report}}
, {{cite techreport}}
, and {{cite thesis}}
more as a visual indicator of what the citation is than as an indicator of the citation's media type. So, if we keep |type=
handling in Module:Citation/CS1 as it is, then I see no reason why |type=Review
couldn't be used for this purpose.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|type=
contains "Additional information about the media type of the source". Furthermore the value of |type=
appears after the journal name and not title. Hence |type=
appears to refer to the journal, not the article. While some journals only publish review articles it is much more common for journals to publish a mix of original research and reviews. So unless the output were modified so that type appears after the title instead of the journal name, I don't think |type=
would be a good solution for this particular request. |department=
does appear after the title:Wikitext | {{cite journal |
---|---|
Live | "Title". Department. Journal (Type). |
Sandbox | "Title". Department. Journal (Type). |
|department=
is a good solution to this request. Perhaps a new alias |article-type=
for |department=
should be added. Boghog (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)|department=
called |article-type=
. Boghog (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Thanks for the discussion. I think that the last comment from Boghog sums up, that |department=
would be appropriate, but that an alias more akin to Journal structure, that being |article-type=
, should be added. Would this be added to the common code for Citation Style 1 or would it be specifically added to the code for {{Cite journal}} as it is only (at this time) relevant to that citation case (as well as to {{Citation}} when used for journal article citations, though). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
|article-type=
should not be limited to journal articles. It equally applies to other types of publications including magazines. Furthermore we should not expect that editors are familiar with Chicago MOS nomenclature. The meaning of a parameter should be immediately clear from its name. |article-type=
fulfills that requirement. |department=
does not. Boghog (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)|article-type=
refers to how the journal/magazine defines it (or alternatively how PubMed Publication Types define it). Boghog (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)|department=
places its contents. So we can have either two separate parameters, "department" for magazines and "article-type" for journals, or have one an alias of the other. Since the two parameters are highly analogous and have identical output, it makes more sense to use an alias. To insist this parameter only be named "department" and only follows the Chicago MOS while ignoring APA, MLA, and NLM is not rational. Boghog (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)|department=
parameter is not extensively used (1,120 results and a good number of these are false positives). WP:MEDRS is an important guideline that stresses secondary sources are strongly preferred to support medical claims. Adding |article-type=
parameter that distinguishes between primary and secondary sources would be of significant value to the WP:MED (and other) projects. Boghog (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)It is exceedingly useful to note whether or not an article is a review or a primary source when it comes to medical content. Pubmed as mentioned does a good job of listing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
|review=
parameter: I think it would tend to get used for reviews of books, shows, and other material of no special authority, and thus would be confusingly inconsistent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Nor does standard citation practice (or the relevant authorities) have any provision for providing such evaluations in the citation– As stated above, the National Library of Medicine Style Guide refers to an optional Article Type that if present should appear in brackets after the article title. Likewise both the APA and MLA styles require that citations of reviews and letters to the editor be designated as such after the title. Boghog (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
|type=Editorial
in {{cite news}}. That follows the advice on the CS1 help page, which says: type: Specifies the type of work cited. Appears in parentheses immediately after the title. ... Other useful values are Review, Systemic review, Meta-analysis or Original article.Compare:
|type=
to indicate that the source is an editorial, and the second also adds |department=
. The output in these cases is the same between {{cite news}}
and {{cite journal}}
. I'll also note that in both templates, |title=
refers to the title of the article within the newspaper or journal, so the documentation implies that the |type=
should trail it, and not the newspaper/journal name. In other words, the output of |type=
should come immediately after the article title, when a citation is specifying both the |title=
and an alias for |work=
because we're not citing the full work, but rather a component (article, chapter, etc) of that full work. Imzadi 1979 → 07:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)|department=
field has the virtue of reporting a distinction made by the publication, and is sufficient for marking editorials, letters, book reviews and abstracts. If a journal has separate sections for surveys and research reports, we can put that in |department=
, but we cannot record our own assessments. Kanguole 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You and Ceyockey keep throwing out "peer reviewed" and "original research", so no wonder I was a bit confused on that point. It's fine with me if you want to focus on the PubMed article type, but that has no mention of peer review or original research. Nor of the primary/secondary source distinction you just mentioned, which is more of a Wikipedia thing. So what should we be discussing here:
|review=
parameter (which is only a single article type)?If we could have some clarity on this it would avoid a lot of uneeded discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|review=yes
(secondary/tertiary) or #1 |review=no
(primary). Ceyockey was not (I think) asking for #2. Boghog (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)PubMed article type ... has no mention of peer review or original research– Exactly. Most of what is in PubMed has been peer reviewed. Scientific publications that have not been peer reviewed are generally not appropriate for either PubMed or Wikipedia (with limited exceptions as noted by WP:SCIRS). All primary sources in PubMed are by definition original research. Per WP:PSTS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:SCIRS, primary original research sources should only be used with caution. Per WP:SCIRS, non-peer reviewed sources are only appropriate if they are written by experts in the field. Secondary sources as designated in PubMed include "Meta-Analysis"and "Review". Tertiary sources include "Textbooks". Boghog (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|review=yes/no
parameter assumes that the source is peer reviewed. Boghog (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)a new parameter "review=yes" ... able to indicate whether the source is a review article or an original research article" (emphasis added), perhaps by adding "Review:" before the title. My #3 is not equivalent to #1, because while "review articles" (as commonly found in scientific journals) are generally secondary sources, that is not an adequate criterion for determining primary/secondary/tertiary: many secondary sources are not such reviews, and many primary sources (orignal research) contain a certain amount of review which is secondary in nature. And this criterion says nothing about tertiary sources.
All primary sources in PubMed are by definition original research." By whose definition? As I said before, PubMed makes no distinction of peer review or original research (nor, I might add, of "primary" or "secondary" sources) let alone any definitions; these interpretations are entirely your own. PubMed article types that by WP definition are primary ("close to an event") but not original research in the scientific sense (and most certainly not peer reviewed) include Abbreviations (lists of), Account Books, Addresses (Lectures), Advertisements, Anecdotes, Annual Reports, Autobiography, and many more. QED, your statement is incorrect.
if a scientific source is not peer reviewed, it is not worth talking about." Looking at just Science and Nature, there many "pieces" written by scientists and very knowledgable science reporters (usually in the form of "news" or "commentary") which are not peer reviewed, yet are most excellent secondary sources. As you already said, the issue here is "
not peer review", so I would suggest not raising it.
|laysummary=
, but they are not marked as review articles in PubMed (see for example PMID 25631438) nor are they considered reliable secondary sources by WP:MEDRS. Only review articles published in medical/scientific journals would qualify.PubMed makes no distinction of peer review or original research– Again, you are confusing these two concepts. Both original research and review articles are peer reviewed. The distinction that needs to be made is between primary and secondary, not between peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed. If PubMed marks a publication as a review (or meta-analysis), it is by definition secondary. If it is not marked as a review (or meta-analysis), it is not secondary. The template {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} relies on this distinction. When this template is transcluded into an article's talk page, it provides links to citations in PubMed about the subject of the Wikipedia article that have been designated as review articles and hence secondary / WP:MEDRS compliant.
|review=yes
. Boghog (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)|pmid-publication-type=
parameter would remove any possible disagreements about interpretation. Boghog (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)PubMed makes no distinction of peer review or original research– as stated above, PubMed is selective as to what journals it chooses to include and as a general rule, these need to be peer reviewed. Hence PubMed does not need to to designate individual "Journal Articles" as peer reviewed, this is a given. Furthermore PubMed does mark review articles, and these are by definition secondary. In addition, articles that are marked as "Case Report", "Clinical Trial", or "Research Support" are primary.
many primary sources (orignal research) contain a certain amount of review which is secondary in nature– these "mini reviews" that are in the introduction of original research articles are not generally regarded as reviews and they certainly are not WP:MEDRS compliant.
these interpretations are entirely your own– these are logical conclusions that follow directly from definitions provided by PubMed and WP:PSTS. It is not original research to state that a PubMed citation marked as "Review" is secondary. It is also not original research to state that a PubMed citation marked as a "Case Report", "Clinical Trial", or "Research Support" is primary. Boghog (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" — to "
join A and B together to imply a conclusion C" — is indeed your own interpretation, and constitutes WP:synthesis. Even worse, these "
definitions provided by PubMed" don't seem to exist (the article types being descriptions, not definitions, and not at all mentioning peer review or original research).
[t]the issue is not peer review." Well, it seems to me you are the one that keeps kicking this dicussion around in circles. As you can't figure out which issue you want to discuss I'm done with this.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
not at all mention peer reviewAgain according to MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Selection, journals are selected for inclusion into PubMed based in large part on the "quality of editorial work" and "especially on the explicit process of external peer review". Boghog (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
... then all the regular articles ... within that journal are peer reviewed") is false, arising only from your own erroneous intepretations. But I weary of trying to explain this to you. For the record, I find your faulty understanding and invalid logic insufficient to support any proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
arising only from your own erroneous interpretations– You clearly do not understand how scientific publishing works. If a journal has a policy of peer review, it will apply that policy uniformly to all regular articles (i.e., articles that are not "Comments") published within that journal. No reputable journal would ever peer review some regular articles and not others. Furthermore it is relatively straight forward using PubMed's classification to distinguish those secondary articles within a journal that are subject to peer review (those marked as "Meta-Analysis" and "Review"). Other articles that are marked as "Case Report", "Clinical Trial", or "Research Support" are peer reviewed primary sources. Articles marked as "Comment" are not subject to peer review. Boghog (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think things are being over-thought here. We currently have |type=
to indicate the type of a source, and if I was dealing a with "Review" or "Meta-Analysis" article in a journal, I'd just add |type=Review
or |type=Meta-Analysis
. All this discussion of peer-reviewed status is really not required to resolve this situation. At most, we may need an |article-type=
parameter or discuss moving where in the order the output of |type=
appears. Imzadi 1979 → 08:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
|type=
field has a clear definition, "additional information about the media type of the source", and we should keep that clarity. A |pubmed-type=
field would avoid the original research problem, but it seems unjustifiable for Wikipedia to innovate in that way when no-one else does it. Kanguole 12:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
type: Specifies the type of work cited. Appears in parentheses immediately after the title. Some templates use a default that can be overridden; example: {{cite press release}} will show (Press release) by default. Other useful values are Review, Systemic review, Meta-analysis or Original article.That's what Help:Citation Style 1 says for documentation on the parameter. As for the "immediately after the title", that's why I wonder if the output of
|type=
shouldn't be right after the title of a journal article. As for your comments about "additional information about the media type of the source", I think you're talking about what we use |format=
for. Imzadi 1979 → 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
|type=
in {{cite journal}} is after the journal name (see "Cite journal compare" example above), not the article title. The documentation is misleading and probably should be changed. |department=
is placed after the article title. What we need is an |article-type=
and/or |pubmed-type=
alias for |department=
. Wikipedia's places a unique emphasis on the importance of review articles that does not exist with other types of publications and therefore this innovation is justified. Boghog (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{citation/core}}
|department=
becomes |TitleNote=
and in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration becomes metaparameter TitleNote
. |type=
becomes |TitleType=
and metaparameter TitleType
. I think that this suggests that an alias for |department=
aka TitleNote
might be appropriate. Position of the metaparameters TitleNote
and TitleType
might also be addressed. Where do they belong in a rendered citation? Which comes first if both are present? What formatting should be applied to them?|type=
to indicate that gives us:
{{cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (help)The Road Atlas (Map).and
Important Journal (Review).parse as a single unit as if the content of the parentheses is modifying the title, yet in those cases, it should be modifying the title of the component of the encompassing work.
|department=
is not rendered with in parentheses, yet for maps, press releases, etc, the indicator of the type of the source is rendered that way. Also, it fails to allow an editor to specify the name of a department and the type indication. Imzadi 1979 → 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC){{citation}}
. It's unfortunate that the two are inconsistent. Kanguole 16:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Quick question for anyone watching the page... has something happened to the way that the separator and postscript bits of the template are working? The appearance of the citations using the template on a number of pages has changed, probably quite recently, and I can't work out why! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|separator=
has been replaced with |mode=
which takes one of two values cs1
or cs2
. For CS1 templates setting |mode=cs2
causes the citation to be rendered using CS2 style ({{citation}}
is CS2). Similarly using {{citation}}
with |mode=cs1
causes the citation to be rendered using CS1 style ({{cite web}}
, {{cite journal}}
, {{cite book}}
, etc are CS1). |mode=
sets the default terminal puntcutation but may be overridden by |postscript=
. See this discussion.|ref=none
.Prior to this change a separator could be set to many different characters for example a semicolon, this functionality has now been removed. Why not keep it? For example if ref=harv is indeed turned on this may cause problems with short citations linking to the wrong article if there happens to be more than one source with the same author year combination which previously was not active because the ref=harv parameter was off by default.
As I have repeatedly stated there needs to be far border consultation before changes to parameters are introduced, including discussions about the side effects of such changes. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|mode=cs2
causes a CS1 citation to act and render just like a CS2 {{citation}}
. Because CS2 sets |ref=harv
automatically, so too, does |mode=cs2
. Conversely, {{citation |mode=cs1 ...}}
automatically sets |ref=none
(unless overridden by |ref=<something>
) so that these render and act as CS1 templates.is different from
{{citation}}
that |title=
refers to a website (or journal or news article), {{citation}}
assumes that the work named in |title=
is a book and formats the citation accordingly. Rewriting the citations to use |website=
instead of |publisher=
gives these results:
{{cite web |title=Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf |url=http://www.trafford.gov.uk/news/press/details.asp?ID=2208 |website=Trafford Council |mode=cs2 |date=16 December 2010}}
{{citation |title=Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf |url=http://www.trafford.gov.uk/news/press/details.asp?ID=2208 |website=Trafford Council |date=16 December 2010}}
|contribution=
without a title to get round this issue. This is one of the reasons for |mode=cs2
– there are some outputs now impossible to produce with the citation template using the same parameters as the correct "cite X" template. If you really want to use {{citation}} for a web citation, you need to include something to be italicized. This can be done in at least two ways, not only Trappist the monk's above. (I changed the example because the link is dead.)
&rft.atitle=Coronation+Street+move+approved+by+Trafford+Council
&rft.jtitle=BBC+News
&rft.btitle=BBC+News
{{citation}}
that we aren't citing a book.&rft.jtitle=BBC+News
, "jtitle" means "journal title" and this isn't what it is either. Why is it more wrong to treat BBC News as a book rather than as a journal? (The OpenURL standard only seems to provide for books and journal articles.) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)&rft.jtitle
is the title of a journal, like an academic journal, in which &rft.atitle
is the title of an article. However, I do understand that you've only been trying to improve and error-check existing templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)|website=
, as they seem to be more common here, and that books should require differentiation, but I strongly suspect that making one of |publication-place=
, |isbn=
, etc. compulsory wouldn't be popular either. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)smart enough to write code that can intuit what an editor wants, you replied:
Unlike you, I am.So, teach me that; I'll be content to learn other stuff from other people.
{{cite web}}
and {{citation}}
work identically. They didn't when they shared {{citation/core}}
:
{{citation}}
, without some sort of indicator parameter to tell it otherwise, assumed that |title=
is a book title. In the present day that still holds true which brings us right back round the circle to your 2015-02-17T19:37UTC post. Why did the original creators of {{cite web}}
and {{citation}}
make the decisions they did? I don't know.Trappist the monk please revert your changes until they stop breaking existing uses of the template. NE Ent 20:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not produce something useful if the parameter subscription ({{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, etc) is given the value no?
Giving subscription|no has no effect. It should rather display something like (free access). It is a rule rather than an exception that subscription is required, at least for the references I use in math and physics articles. This rarely needs to be pointed out, while in the rare cases where papers are available, it should be made visible, preferably in a uniform way with support from the template. YohanN7 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me to wonder if, instead of a change to Module:Citation/CS1, editors couldn't, and perhaps shouldn't, segregate citations inside different {{refbegin}}
/ {{refend}}
sets under separate headers; one set for restricted access and one set for free access. Something like this perhaps:
==References== '''Restricted access references''' References in this section require registration or subscription for access {{refbegin}} *<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref> *<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref> {{refend}} '''Restricted access references''' References in this section are free access {{refbegin}} *<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref> *<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref> {{refend}}
I think that something could be implemented for {{sfn}}
and {{harv}}
style short- and long-form referencing.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Currently |mode=
can be set to cs1 or cs2 to change the style. Why did we not use |mode=vanc
instead of |name-list-format=
? -- Gadget850 talk 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
{{vcite2 journal}}
only applies to author and editor name lists. The style required the use of | |authorformat=vanc
|author-separator=,
, and |author-name-separator= 
. Vancouver style doesn't effect the element separator (old parameter |separator=
) nor the terminal punctuation. If we had made |mode=vanc
, we would have needed two of them: one each for CS1 and CS2 styles.|mode=
and small caps seem a gentle spring rain? I don't know that supporting clearly defined 'sub-styles' is necessarily a bad thing. It may be that |mode=vanc
would be a better parameter if we choose to strictly support Vancouver style which would make |name-list-format=vanc
obsolete.|name-list-format=vanc
parameter that supports a frequently used 'sub-style' makes far more sense than |mode=vanc
to support a style that no one uses. Templates and their parameters should follow existing usage, not dictate usage. Boghog (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Citation style | Parameter |
---|---|
Citation Style 1 | |mode=cs1 |
Citation Style 2 | |mode=cs2 |
Vancouverish | |authorformat=vanc |
Is there a consensus to have a bot automatically remove access dates from citations that do not have a URL, if (and only if) there is another link out such as HDL, PMC, PMID, JSTOR, or DOI. I suggest the link out requirement because otherwise it might be the url is missing because it was broken and someone just deleted it instead of pointing to an archive etc. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
|access-date=
says:access-date: Full date when the contents pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations. Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book....
I don't know what to make of Category:CS1 errors: invalid mode. The category page does not currently exist, but error messages are being displayed and articles are being placed in the category. The error message says "Invalid |name-list-format=scap", but the articles (e.g. Moctezuma I) do not use |name-list-format=
.
The "help" link goes to Help:CS1 errors, but there is no subsection to describe the error message yet. There are about 400 articles in the category so far. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
|registration=
. These, which take any value, could be checked but for now we don't care what that value is (we haven't restricted the value to yes
, true
, y
, whatever): |last-author-amp=
, |no-pp=
, nor |template-doc-demo=
. There may be others that aren't checked that I haven't though about.The following citation {{cite book|first=David|last=de Posada|editor-first=Alan|editor-last=West-Durán|title=Latino and Latina Writers|series=Scribner writers series|chapter=Edgardo Vega Yunqué (1936– )|year=2004|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|volume=2|pages=1019–30}} sets as
The book in question, Latino and Latina Writers, comes in two volumes, and is part of the unnumbered series "Scribner writers series". However, the template sets it and the boldface volume number 2 looks more like #2 in the series. Can this be made more intuitive? Choor monster (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
|volume=vol. 2
, which will drop the boldfacing because it's over 4 characters.
&rft.btitle=Latino+and+Latina+Writers+2
and &rft.volume=
doesn't get populated as it should.|series-num=
to identify the title's sequence in the series?I think we are likely to see many maps without an author. We still have the problem, which was agreed in an RFC long ago, that citations with an author put the date after the author but citations without an author put the date near the end of the citation. Since this problem is likely to occur often when citing maps, perhaps it would be better to finish work that we already have a consensus for before undertaking new work. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cite map}}
. Are you sure that the outcome of the 'RfC' places dates near the end when the citation doesn't have author/editor text? I don't read that conclusion in your Summary of results.|cartography=
parameter for a person or office and put that information into an author field. The reason I say this is that if you were to look for an atlas in the library, it's likely to be indexed by its publisher, so the Rand McNally atlas I've used as an example will be indexed under Rand McNally. The sheet maps printed by the Michigan State Highway Department/Michigan Department of Transportation are indexed in the catalog for the Library of Michigan under MSHD/MDOT. Imzadi 1979 → 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Hi, I would like to know how to cite (using {{cite web}}
?) a page from Gold Book web page, such as this. The web pages suggest the citation style at the bottom of the pages. I've tried to do this on Functional group page. I'm not sure if I've done it correctly. Also, the provided ISBN 0-9678550-9-8 does not return any book. Rishidigital1055 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that a significant number of my trainees use |webite=
instead of |url=
when using the toolbar to compete a {{Cite web}} template. (Here's an example of me fixing such an occasion). Pages with this error are added to Category:Pages using web citations with no URL, bit could we display a visible warning in this specific case? Perhaps the toolbar could issue the warning, and refuse to "insert"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
We could display the "missing url=" error message by default. This RFC resulted in the hiding of those error messages "until an appropriate bot fixes resolvable instances of the error", but after working with this category for a while, I don't see how a bot could fix those errors. Almost every instance I have seen requires human judgement to determine if a URL can be found, or if a URL has been placed in a different parameter, or if a different template is needed (e.g. cite book instead of cite web, or cite journal instead of cite web), or some other solution.
I looked at a random sample of about 30 articles in the category, and I did not see a pattern of parameters that a bot would be able to detect and modify with a low false-positive rate.
I propose that we display "missing url=" errors for articles that meet the criteria for inclusion in Category:Pages using web citations with no URL, since the conditions of the RFC have been met for that category. A group of us could also, either before or after displaying the error messages, embark upon an effort to reduce the number of articles in that category. I have found them to be pretty straightforward to fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
, {{cite podcast}}
, or {{cite mailing list}}
|url=
, |archive-url=
, |conference-url=
, and |transcript-url=
are used|conference-url=
should be part of this test because these templates are essentially all just web citations and shouldn't have anything to do with conferences. While it is a legitimate parameter, |transcript-url=
is not currently rendered – we make an external link out of it and then do nothing with that link – also, it isn't clear that this parameter should be part of this test.|url=
is missing, but |website=
is set. I think a trainee seeing a "missing url=" error message would respond "but I have given a URL!", and we may need a more specific error message. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)This edit request to Template:Cite news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Template:Cite news (and possibly other citation templates), the documentation says (emphasis added)
|display-editors=2
will display only the first two editors in a citation. By default, all editors are displayed except when there are four editors, then the editor list in the citation is truncated to three editors, followed by "et al." This exception mimics the older version of the template for compatibility. If a citation contains four editor names and one wishes all four editor names to display, "et al." may be suppressed by setting |display-editors=4
. Aliases: displayeditors.Surely that should read "more than three editors" and "all editor names" (or "the first four editor names"). Cf. higher on the page
So the paragraph should read (plus wikicode of course)
|display-editors=2
will display only the first two editors in a citation. By default, all editors are displayed except when there are four or more editors; then the editor list in the citation is truncated to three editors, followed by "et al." This exception mimics the older version of the template for compatibility. If a citation contains more than three editor names and one wishes the first four editor names to display, "et al." may be suppressed by setting |display-editors=4
. Aliases: displayeditors.Thnidu (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|display-editors=4
. When there are more than four editors, all editors are displayed unless constrained by |display-editors=
.{{cite book |title=Title |editor1=Editor1 |editor2=Editor2 |editor3=Editor3 |editor4=Editor4}}
{{cite book |title=Title |editor1=Editor1 |editor2=Editor2 |editor3=Editor3 |editor4=Editor4 |display-editors=4}}
{{cite book |title=Title |editor1=Editor1 |editor2=Editor2 |editor3=Editor3 |editor4=Editor4 |editor5=Editor5}}
Can somebody help me to make it possible to use also in de:wp? Thank you, Conny (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC).
I have added code to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that adds a message to citations that, for whatever reason, put the page in a CS1 maintenance category:
{{cite journal/new |title=none |journal=Journal |date=2014 |year=2014}}
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)The message is hidden by default but if you have turned on all error messages (see Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display), these messages are visible. Currently, and for simplicity, the message is the maintenance category name without namespace.
I'm not sure about the color which is #33aa33. If there is a better color, what is it? See also web safe colors. Whatever color is ultimately chosen should not be similar to the standard error message color and should have relatively good contrast against the standard background color.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|language=English
, but not for cases that do not have a clear way to remove the maintenance message, like |language=English and German
. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)|date=
and |year=
where the year values don't match.{{cite book}}
: Check |asin=
value (help){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link){{cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (help); Invalid |display-authors=1
(help){{cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2=
(help){{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)I've encountered a case where I need to add the translator's name to a citation. Since this property is critical when it comes to literature & history -- there are a lot of different translations of various works -- being able to indicate this property is important. So am I not reading the documentation correctly, or is this something that needs to be added to the template? -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
|others=Translated by John Smith
within the citation template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)The date format "c. 75" is in accordance with the documentation. Why then does it put out an error on Jewish_Messiah_claimants#cite_note-JW_Book_VII-14? Debresser (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a maintenance category, Category:CS1 maint: Date and year that collects page with citations that use both |date=
and |year=
. When the year-value in |date=
matches the value in |year=
, both are not required. The exception is when |date=YYYY-MM-DD
and |year=YYYYa
(disambiguating |year=
for {{sfn}}
and {{harv}}
references to multiple works by an author in the same year).
Currently the category is filled by detecting the presence of |date=
and |year=
without regard to content. I have tweaked the date validation code to detect differences between the year values in |date=
and |year=
(formatting is not considered in this test). In the sandbox version, when |year=
and |date=
have the same year values:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 2015 |year=2015}}
but if different:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 2015 |year=2014}}
With date ranges in |date=
, one of the two years must match the value in |year=
:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2014 – January 2015 |year=2014}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2014 – January 2015 |year=2015}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2014 – January 2015 |year=2013}}
The code doesn't yet do a special test for disambiguated |year=YYYYa
when |date=YYYY-MM-DD
(not an error and shouldn't be in Category:CS1 maint: Date and year) nor does it properly handle the case when |date=YYYY–YY
.
Why do this? Category:CS1 maint: Date and year should only contain pages where |date=
and |year=
have the same year values; the duplication is benign.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Now tests for disambiguated |year=YYYYa
when |date=YYYY-MM-DD
:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2014}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2015}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2015a}}
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2015a}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 1, 2015 |year=2015a}}
CITEREF2015a
|date=YYYYa-MM-DD
so for citations with a year initial numeric date, |year=
is required to handle disambiguation.And for dates in the form |date=YYYY–YY
and |date=<month/season> YYYY–YY
:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2015–16 |year=2015}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015–16 |year=2016}}
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2015–16 |year=2014}}
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Where a source is in multiple languages, use of |language=Foo and Bar
causes an "unrecognized language" error. How do we get around this? Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link). Where do you see this? -- Gadget850 talk 11:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)|language=
isn't in a form recognized as a language by Mediawiki, the page is placed in a maintenance category. At the next update, those who have enabled display of all CS1 error messages will see the CS1 maintenance message:
CS1 maint: Unrecognized language
message. Mjroots does not have any custom CSS, so he should not be seeing any CS1 messages. -- Gadget850 talk 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC){{cite book/new}}
).The situation the original poster describes is not an error. Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language page has explanatory text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Over the past couple of years, there have been many discussions about the 47,000+ errors in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. Probably not as exhaustive list - . Discussion has often gone in circles, but to condense it as much as possible (as I see it, at least), the errors aren't being fixed because it might be possible to use them to find URLs which once were present but have since been deleted, and the error messages are hidden by default until it's been decided how (or if) to get a bot to deal with them.
When I have come across these errors, I have simply deleted them because I thought that trying to use the accessdate to find a formerly present URL was an edge case that wouldn't be successful often enough to be worth the effort, but without actual data that's just another opinion. So, I compiled the data.
I used a pseudo-random method to select articles in the error category and went back through the revision history to find the edit containing the origin of the citation causing the error. Often, an individual editor wrote multiple citations that caused errors for the same reason - in these cases, they were counted as a single error. When errors on the page originated from multiple editors, those errors were counted once for each editor. I corrected 500 errors and tallied the results.
In other words, I searched through 500 errors and I was able to repair 3 citations that I couldn't have otherwise fixed without knowing the accessdate. Not very profitable. That made me wonder how successful I would have been if I had just ignored the original citation and done a Google search instead based on the title, author or other info present in the citation. I started another batch of 500 articles containing errors.
I didn't finish them, though - the trend was clear enough that I stopped after 250 articles, so you can double the numbers to scale them up. After using Google to search for URLs which could be put into the citations which had accessdate without URL errors, I found 63 correct matches out of 250 with the URL containing the full article content being cited (not merely abstracts, no limited book previews, etc). Another 14 matches were found that I didn't add to the citations, as I thought those hits would have caused copyright problems (newspaper articles that had been cut & pasted into blogs, academic journal articles found on students' personal pages, scanned copies of computer gaming magazines, etc).
So, I'm going to continue deleting the accessdate parameters that are causing the errors. Trying to use them to find the correct URL for a citation is a real waste of time compared to simply doing a Google search, which gave me a success rate more than 40 times higher. Stamptrader (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox has grown to be a file in excess of 100k bytes. Of course a lot of that is non-executable documentation. Today I spent some time reorganizing the code. The purpose is to prepare it so that chunks of it may be split-out into separate modules. For example, it seems that all of the special identifier code (arXiv, ISBN, ISSN, PMC, etc) can be placed in its own module; common utility functions that were used repeatedly can go into their own module, and the like).
As part of the reorganization, I have change almost all functions to be declared as local
which limits their visibility (scope) to the module in which they reside and effects whether other functions can see them. In order for a function, local function b()
for example, to call local function a()
, it is necessary for local function a()
to precede local function b()
in the module. I think that I have got all of this kind of organization noodled out but it is certainly possible that I haven't.
Another thing that I changed was function names. Before today, there were at least three separate naming 'styles', allruntogether()
, camelCase()
, and underscore_separated()
. I have changed all function names to this latter. I think that I've got these all squared away, too, but of course I could be wrong.
So, when we update the module next time, it is distinctly possible that certain citations will Script error or Lua error fail because I didn't catch all of them.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
A bit off-topic, this; but people posting here seem to know about this kind of stuff, so here goes.
If I google for donne "fotografie degli anni sessanta" "berengo gardin", one of the hits is this, a potentially useful bibliographical record with a grotesquely long URL within sbn.it. The page tells me "Ricerca: BID = IT\ICCU\CFIV\016866" and "Codice identificativo IT\ICCU\CFI\0039704". Anyone know how one might use either the "BID" or the codice identificativo to go either to this page or to any other useful page? (Incidentally, neither BID nor it:BID says anything about this.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{cite report}}
:
Should "origyear" be changed to "origdate"? I think it would make the current usage of cite templates more consistent. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
To avoid duplication of a thread, please see Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference#coauthors. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
|author=Alpha Beta, et al.
-> |author=Alpha Beta
|author2=et al.
". Re-titled to remove templates. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)]
I searched the archive, and the only treatment (implied, at best) of this scenario I found was here, placing et al. in the (deprecated) |coauthors=et al.
parameter. My gut says to do |author=Alpha Beta
|author2=et al.
, so that a subsequent |author-link=
will be properly displayed, and/or that someone will come along and enumerate the literal et al., but I wanted to check with you guys first. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|authorn=et al.
should be discouraged because et al. is not an author's name and because, Module:Citation/CS1 not being very smart, the non-author et al. gets added to the COinS metadata as if it were an author's name. I have seen cases where other author names have been added after |authorn=et al.
which makes no sense. Better, I think, would be to create some sort of parameter that might be used to explicitly add et al. to the author list when there are one or more authors identified: perhaps |et-al=yes
or some such. The parameter would display all of the identified authors so its functionality would be distinctly different from |display-authors=
.|et-al=yes
being created? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 17:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)|author=Alpha Beta
|author2=et al.
in the metadata, if and only if 1 author is explicitly named in the original |author=
parameter, or for both to be contained in |author=Alpha Beta et al.
, identical to the n>2 case? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)|authorn=
parameter, then the author metadata looks like this:
&rft.au=Author&rft.au=et+al.&rft.aulast=Author
|author=
parameter, then the metadata looks like this:
&rft.au=Author+et+al.&rft.aulast=Author+et+al.
&rft.au
and &rft.aulast
so the lesser of two evils is et al. in its own parameter.I am going to reiterate what Trappist said: use of |authorn=et al.
should be discouraged. I will also expand: |author[n]=
is for institutional or other "authors" whose names do not parse into first/last. Most authors have a definite last name - more precisely, a surname - which is the primary term for identification and sorting. This should be put into |last=
, with the rest of the author's name in |first=
.
The only people who care about metadata are the people who use it. That is sufficient reason to not dismiss it out of hand.
I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that it detects a variety of forms of 'et al'; italicized or not, with or without a leading comma, with or without a terminal period. When any of the various forms are detected, they are stripped from that parameter before it is included in the metadata and a flag is set. The flag tells follow-on processes to include the static form of 'et al.' (same way that |display-authors=
does). The code also handles the case when el al. is used in an editor name list. Et al. is presumed to be the last item in a parameter.
{{cite book/new |title=Title |author=Author, ''et al.''}}
{{cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(help)metadata:
<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox/styles.css"></templatestyles><cite id="CITEREFAuthor" class="citation book cs1">Author; et al. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.au=Author&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+7" class="Z3988"></span> <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">{{[[Template:cite book|cite book]]}}</code>: </span><span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment"><code class="cs1-code">|author=</code> has generic name ([[Help:CS1 errors#generic_name|help]])</span>; <span class="cs1-visible-error citation-comment">Explicit use of et al. in: <code class="cs1-code">|author=</code> ([[Help:CS1 errors#explicit_et_al|help]])</span>
other variations:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First, ''et al.''}}
{{cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |first=
(help){{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First |last2=''Et Al.''}}
{{cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2=
(help){{cite book/new |title=Title |editor-last=Last |editor-first=First |editor-last2=''et al.''}}
{{cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor-last2=
(help){{cite book/new |title=Title |author=Akhmet al-Hassan}}
– should not find the et al in this (contrived) author nameI'm inclined to make these conditions emit error messages and have a couple of additional parameters, perhaps |more-authors=
and |more-editors=
, which if set to yes
or true
would add the static 'et al.' text to the rendered citation; the parameters could be categorized so that those editors with the inclination, or a bot, could fill in the rest of the authors/editors.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
On the weekend of 21–22 March I propose to update the live CS1 module files from the sandbox counterparts:
Changes to Module:Citation/CS1 are:
reduce_to_initials()
; discussion{{citation/core}}
; discussionChanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration are:
|map=
, |mapurl=
, |map-url=
|map-format=
; Section annotation; discussionChanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist are:
|map=
, |mapurl=
, |map-url=
|map-format=
, |sections=
; discussionChanges to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation are:
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
|publisher-link=
in {{cite map}} (see Category:Pages using cite map with publisher-link) should be cleaned up before the transition. Does someone have an AWB script that can make quick work of the category? If not, I'll go through it manually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)|publisher=
with the content of |publisher-link=
. If they are the same, then the fix is to wrap the content of publisher with wikilink markup:
|publisher=Publisher Name
== |publisher-link=Publisher Name
then
|publisher=[[Publisher Name]]
|publisher=[[Publisher link|Publisher Name]]
I've copied these over to Welsh language WP, and used two in the cy:w:Modur trydan (electric motor article). Gan I set it up so that when we copy citations from en and paste into Welsh Wikipedia, it automatically translates to the Welsh names of months? ie the third citation on the Modur trydan page cites '12 February 2013' which should be 12 Chwefror 2013. Diolch, thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
get_month_number()
so that it lists month names in both English and their language:
local long_months = {['January']=1, ['February']=2, ['March']=3, ['April']=4, ['May']=5, ['June']=6, ['July']=7, ['August']=8, ['September']=9, ['October']=10, ['November']=11, ['December']=12};
local short_months = {['Jan']=1, ['Feb']=2, ['Mar']=3, ['Apr']=4, ['May']=5, ['Jun']=6, ['Jul']=7, ['Aug']=8, ['Sep']=9, ['Oct']=10, ['Nov']=11, ['Dec']=12};
local welsh_long_months = {['Ionawr']=1, ['Chwefror']=2, ['Mawrth']=3, ['Ebrill']=4, ['Mai']=5, ['Mehefin']=6, ['Gorffennaf']=7, ['Awst']=8, ['Medi']=9, ['Hydref']=10, ['Tachwedd']=11, ['Rhagfyr']=12};
– these month names not checked for correctnessreturn 0;
temp=welsh_long_months[month];
if temp then return temp; end -- if month is the Welsh long-form name
mw.language:formatDate ()
that may or may not be useful – documentation is pretty sparse. You might experiment with that.Thanks all. Still hitting my head against that wall! Into which template does the above code go? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Would an editor with coding skills be able to add a parameter allowing for the display of "ed." and/or "eds." when the "editor=" field(s) are used? My concern is that the following two citations are significantly different:
However, when using {{cite book}}
, the two will appear identically on the page if the standard parameters "first=" and "editor-first", etc., are used. I've taken to adding "ed."/"eds." in the "editor-first" parameter, but I'm sure this is messing up the COinS data. If this option doesn't currently exist, could a coder create it, please? Many thanks. White Whirlwind 咨 16:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
|first=
and |last=
:
|editor-first=
and |editor-last=
:
|editor1-first=
|editor1-last=
|editor2-first=
and |editor2-last=
:
|first=
/|last=
are for an author, while |editor-first=
/|editor-last=
are for an editor, complete with the "ed.". As you can see, if you specify multiple editors, it automatically switches to "eds.". Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
{{citation/core}}
to Module:Citation/CS1. Clearly it was done intentionally and is briefly mentioned at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 3#Multi-phase transition to Lua cites. I didn't find the discussions that led to that decision; they may be in the archives of the individual template talk pages.
Personally, I think we should add ", ed." and ", eds." as appropriate in that case, but that will require some discussion.
In one situation, we will need a way to add the name of an author of a contribution in a book that wasn't edited; in other words, how to cite the forward or introduction to a book. Because of the ambiguity caused by dropping "ed." or "eds.", some of us have been able to exploit that with something like:
I suppose that we could switch that to:
but that doesn't make it clear that the text being cited on p. 5 is from the Forward. In several citation styles, the preface materials like the Forward or an Introduction are cited like a contribution in an edited book, but because there are no editors involved, "ed." or "eds." would be dropped. I know that we have {tl|harvc}} now, but that seems a clumsy way to create a single footnote in Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
Is there any chance a Lua proficient editor might be able to add a "translator-first"/"translator-last=" functionality to deal with published translated titles. We have the "trans_title=" field now, but that doesn't help for works such as:
In the above citation on fu (poetry), I had to add the "translated by..." stuff in "first=", which I'm sure is terrible template usage protocol. Is there a way to do this currently, or could we possibly add this functionality otherwise? Thanks. White Whirlwind 咨 22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
{{cite book |last=Gong |first=Kechang 龔克昌 |others=translated by David R. Knechtges |date=1997 |trans-title=Studies on the Han Fu |title=Han fu yanjiu |script-title=漢賦研究 |location=New Haven |publisher=American Oriental Society}}
{{cite book}}
: Invalid |script-title=
: missing prefix (help)A link to a lay summary can be included in {{cite book}} via the |lay-url=
parameter, but there doesn't seem to be any way to indicate the format, eg PDF. Would it be possible to add a |lay-url-format=
parameter for this purpose? - Evad37 [talk] 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
{{Cite book | author1=Main Roads Department | title=Main Roads Dept. of Western Australia: Collection of Ephemera Materials |location=Western Australia |date=1952–{{CURRENTYEAR}} | url=http://catalogue.slwa.wa.gov.au/record=b1886857~S2 |type=Various items |at=Call No. PR8302/161 |layurl=http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/pdf/ephemera/pr8302.pdf |laysource=State Library of Western Australia: List of items in this collection |quote="An invitation to the official opening of the Old Coast Road and a map of the Old Coast Road. 19 September 1969"}}
An invitation to the official opening of the Old Coast Road and a map of the Old Coast Road. 19 September 1969
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |laysource=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |layurl=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)|lay-url=
and |lay-source=
. Would it not be more appropriate to split this single citation into two:
{{Cite web | author1=Main Roads Department | title=Main Roads Dept. of Western Australia: Collection of Ephemera Materials |website=[[State Library of Western Australia]] |location=Western Australia |accessdate=2015-03-20 | url=http://catalogue.slwa.wa.gov.au/record=b1886857~S2}}
{{Cite web |title=Ephemera PR8302 |website=[[State Library of Western Australia]] |location=Western Australia |accessdate=2015-03-20 | url=http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/pdf/ephemera/pr8302.pdf |format=pdf |at=Call No. PR8302/161 |quote=An invitation to the official opening of the Old Coast Road and a map of the Old Coast Road. 19 September 1969}}
An invitation to the official opening of the Old Coast Road and a map of the Old Coast Road. 19 September 1969
<ref>{{cite book|postscript=,|...}} summarised in {{cite web|...}}</ref>
) is probably a good idea in this specific case, as the first isn't actually a technical work, just hard to access with an easily accessed (online) summary. But in general, one should be able to specify formats for the url parameters. - Evad37 [talk] 23:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC){{cite news}}
: Vancouver style error: non-Latin character in name 1 (help)I think |name-list-format=
should check whether name is Latin script or not. � is a replacement character. --Namoroka (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|firstn=
not being a Latin character in the set [A–Za–z].{{vcite2 journal}}
(Module:ParseVauthors) functionality into Module:Citation/CS1 ...*{cite news/new|title=title|name-list-format=vanc|last1=Smith |first1=Jon Jacob|last2=González|first2=Ángel}}
I've tweaked the code a bit so that the module gives an error message when |last=
or |first=
contains characters that are not in the ASCII character set plus spaces plus the hyphen. This will allow western hyphenated names and Hispanic multiple surnames
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Tweaks:
There is a requirement to place family rank (Jr, II, III, etc) after the initials as Jr, 2nd, 3rd, etc. When a rank is used directly in a CS1/CS2 template, an incorrect name may be rendered because the code interprets the 'Jr' as a second name. When the rank is an ordinal number, the code emits an error message because the digit is not in the set [A–Za–z]. Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox does not support family rank.
|last1=Lagrot|first1=JL Jr
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) |last1=Lagrot|first1=JL 2nd
Some non-Latin characters are romanized into multiple Latin characters (Θ → Th) so that the romanized name 'G. Th. Tsakalos' should become 'Tsakalos GTh'. Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox does not support this form because it can't know that Th is a multi character romanization and not an abbreviation of Thomas:
|last1=Tsakalos|first1=G. Th.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the error message from 'Author/editor name not Romanized' to the more generic 'Vancouver style error'. Is there a better error message?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I recently had a brief argument with User:The Vintage Feminist about what constitutes good practice in citation cleanup. The bone of contention was this edit, where she added http://dx.doi.org/...
links to the |url=
option of citation templates that already included DOI information in the |doi=
option. In some cases, she also added JSTOR IDs, which led to citations like this:
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)This is now three times the same link information. The Vintage Feminist appeals to the fact that WP:INTREF3 encourages people to "fill in as much information as possible about the source," but I wonder if this is link overkill rather than good practice. Any opinions on this, or maybe guidelines I'm not aware of? --bender235 (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
|url=
provides) than on an obscure series of letters and numbers and symbols following a cryptic initialism. I haven't done A/B usability testing with readers to find out if this is true, but it seems reasonable to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)|doi=
and |url=
provide exactly the same external link (http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1884513 in this case). What's the point of having the same link twice? --bender235 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC){{cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help)CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help)CS1 maint: postscript (link){{cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)|isbn=
then the template must also have |title-link=Special:BookSources/123456789X
and similarly for arXiv, ASIN, Bibcode ..., Zbl. Yeah, sure, nothing is 'harmed' but it sure seems like a waste of time.|url=
I think is a bad idea. But using the JSTOR link in addition is fine with me. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Last two and I've put them off as long as I could but now its time to migrate these two template into Module:Citation/CS1. I'm thinking to do them at the same time because they are related and share common peculiarities that are different from the rest of the CS1 suite. I will notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Television which seems to be the parent project of a whole raft of other projects that use {{cite episode}}
and {{cite serial}}
. Are there any other projects that should participate?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Some parameters in {{cite episode}}
are different/new and that will require some thinking:
|credits=
alias of |author(s)=
– while not necessarily confined to this template, this sort of catch-all parameter often includes text that might not properly belong in the citation's COinS metadata. For example I have seen things like |credits=John Smith (producer); Jane Doe (director)
. We need to think about how to do this kind of attribution in a better way.|transcript=
, |transcripturl=
– assigned to {{citation/core}}
meta-parameter |Other=
|airdate=
– alias of |date=
|began=
and |ended=
– combined to become a date range as an alias of |date=
; should probably be deprecated because Module:Citation/CS1 supports date ranges|serieslink=
– alias of |title-link=
|episodelink=
– makes my head hurt; this parameter is used in {{citation/core}}
meta-parameters |TransTitle=
, |IncludedWorkTitle=
, and |Series=
; some of this arose from this conversation|at=
, |minutes=
, |timecaption=
, |time=
– |page=
or |pages=
are not supported|id=
gets |network=
and |station=
– probably a misuse of |id=
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is it that the current live {{citation/core}}
version of {{cite episode}}
doesn't display the value from |seriesno=
when |season=
is set? Shouldn't it? These four show that |episodelink=
does not effect the output:
Wikitext | {{cite episode |
---|---|
Live | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. Episode Number. {{cite episode}} : |number= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. Episode Number. {{cite episode}} : |number= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Wikitext | {{cite episode |
---|---|
Live | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. {{cite episode}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. {{cite episode}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Wikitext | {{cite episode |
---|---|
Live | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. Episode Number. {{cite episode}} : |number= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. Episode Number. {{cite episode}} : |number= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Wikitext | {{cite episode |
---|---|
Live | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. {{cite episode}} : Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Season Season. {{cite episode}} : Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
This one shows that |seriesno=
displays when |number=
is set:
Wikitext | {{cite episode |
---|---|
Live | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Episode Number. {{cite episode}} : |number= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. Episode Number. {{cite episode}} : |number= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
And this one shows that |seriesno=
displays when it alone is set:
Wikitext | {{cite episode |
---|---|
Live | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. {{cite episode}} : Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | "Mission to the Unknown". Doctor Who. {{cite episode}} : Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |seriesno= ignored (|series-number= suggested) (help) |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
|seriesno=
and |season=
are alternatives. |seriesno=
is generally used by UK and Australian programmes, while |season=
is used by US, Canadian and some Australian programs. US terminology seems to dominate the world these days so, since "season" is used more than "series" I'd assume that its use overrides "series". --AussieLegend (✉) 18:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
|seriesno=
be displayed even if |season=
is set? If not, should there be an error message?This one may be done. See Template:Cite episode/testcases and feel free to add others if there is something there that you think should be.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
|began=
, 227 empty. Obsolete and update to |date=
}. -- Gadget850 talk 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)|began=
and |ended=
are deprecated and the module code promotes their content to the meta-parameter |Date=
. After the migration, a simple AWB script can fix the extant uses and we can then obsolete these parameters.
{{cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |began=
ignored (|date=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |ended=
ignored (|date=
suggested) (help)Some parameters in {{cite serial}}
are different/new and that will require some thinking:
|transcript=
, |transcripturl=
– assigned to {{citation/core}}
meta-parameter |Other=
|airdate=
– alias of |date=
|began=
and |ended=
– combined to become a date range as an alias of |date=
; should probably be deprecated because Module:Citation/CS1 supports date ranges|episode=
– alias of |chapter=
|page=
, |pages=
, and |at=
, in-source location supports |minutes=
, |timecaption=
, and |time=
|serieslink=
– different from {{cite episode}}
, applies to |series=
|id=
gets |network=
and |station=
– probably a misuse of |id=
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
| title = | episodelink = | series = | serieslink = | network = | station = | date = | season = | seriesno = | number = | minutes = | time = | quote =
This makes my head hurt. Here is the statement of purpose from {{cite episode}}
:
and the same from {{cite serial}}
:
From this one might conclude that {{cite serial}}
refers to or cites the named group of episodes. Yet, {{cite serial}}
has a parameter |episode=
. Why? If one is citing an episode, then oughtn't one use {{cite episode}}
? I note that {{cite episode}}
doesn't have a |episode=
parameter.
So, what to do about this? Since {{cite serial}}
is transcluded in less than 200 articles, perhaps it should be modified so that it can't refer to episodes?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a clear path to merging these two templates so I think I have migrated {{cite serial}}
; see Template:cite serial/testcases. The glaringly obvious difference is that the {{citation/core}}
version does not support |credits=
while the module sandbox does (because the {{citation/core}}
version of {{cite episode}}
does). This parameter was removed in September 2012 (though no one appears to have noticed). Two other parameters were removed from the template code in April 2012 but may still exist in article text are |season=
and |number=
. The module simply ignores these when encountered.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature. I'm referring to this version of Deneb and this particular citation: {{cite arXiv
|last1=Turon |first1=C.
|last2=Luri |first2=X.
|last3=Masana |first3=E.
|date=2012
|title=Building the cosmic distance scale: From Hipparcos to Gaia
|eprint=1202.3645
|class=astro-ph.IM
|author2=Xavier Luri
|author3=Eduard Masana
}}
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 13:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
{{cite arxiv}}
does not use Module:Citation/CS1, so no error messages.In April 2014 Editor Imzadi1979 started a conversation with me on my talk page and another at WikiProject U.S. Roads regarding the migration of {{cite map}}
to Module:Citation/CS1. Perhaps the time has come to consider what needs doing to make the migration.
There is some support for {{cite map}}
that was done before my time:
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Road map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department. Vol. 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013 – via Google Books. |
Sandbox | "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Road map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department. Vol. 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013 – via Google Books. |
|map=
and |mapurl=
were added to the {{citation/core}}
version as aliases of |chapter=
after what support there is was added to Module:Citation/CS1.
Clearly WikiProject U.S. Roads should be notified of this discussion; who else?
Comments? Opinions?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas (2013 Walmart ed.). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. |
Sandbox | Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas (2013 Walmart ed.). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. |
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Michigan State Highway Department (July 1, 1930). Official Highway Service Map (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by H.M. Gousha. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Highway Department. Detroit Area inset. § C3–C4. |
Sandbox | Michigan State Highway Department (July 1, 1930). Official Highway Service Map (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by H.M. Gousha. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Highway Department. Detroit Area inset. § C3–C4. |
Some thoughts I've had:
|authorn=
, |firstn=
|lastn=
and |authorn-link=
parameters, and the publisher should be shifted back into the order. If editors wish to list the publisher up front, they'll update articles to duplicate it in the appropriate author parameter. I would not repurpose |cartography=
as an author.|via=
parameter needs to be added, which I assume would be something that module support would accommodate. As it is, we can't indicate that the map being linked is hosted by a different entity than its publisher.|title=
because there won't be a |map=
defined.
|sections=
to provide the plural form of the label. I would suggest we consider using the section mark (§) as a label, with the plural (§§) as well.Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
|map=
, |map-url=
, and |mapurl=
as pseudo-aliases of |chapter=
.|via=
already available in the module.|type=
; this has always been available (see the first comparison above where |type=Road map
).Chapter
isn't listed here. It is lumped together with Authors
, Date
, Chapter
, Place
, Editors
but Others
is in this group. One would think that contributors would all be in the same group and title components would be in another group.|others=
output. (I would imagine that other contributions would be rare, but why omit the possibility?) As for |agency=
, I could foresee noting that a map out of a newspaper came through the Associated Press if someone were so incline to specifically cite just a map from a newspaper article. Looking at a book citation:
|access-date=
|via=
and archive-related information.|map=
in a |title=
or just a |title=
alone. Using cite book as a mock up:
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | U.S. Geological Survey (1999) [Photorevised 1993]. Raleigh West quadrangle, North Carolina (Map). 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series (in French). Cartography by USGS. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. |
Sandbox | U.S. Geological Survey (1999) [Photorevised 1993]. Raleigh West quadrangle, North Carolina (Map). 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series (in French). Cartography by USGS. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. |
Comment: I have posted a link to this discussion on the Talk pages of half a dozen WikiProjects that appear to be active and (in my judgement, based on the articles transcluding this template) may have an interest in the use and formatting of this template. We have had objections in the past about decisions made by one of two editors, and I'd like to avoid those objections in the case of this template, which is used in 18,000 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Tweaks that I think get the spacing and punctuation right, add |sections=
, use § and §§ for sections:
See also Template:Cite_map/testcases.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
|agency=
and |others=
? I realized a case where the latter may be employed: noting a translator.|map-format=
as the companion to |format=
to note when maps online are in PDF or MrSID files. (The latter definitely requires special software to use.)|language=
should remain following the series as it is in book citations. It looks somewhat odd following the publisher.|others=
is supported and follows |cartography=
. If we are to support |agency=
it should only apply to the periodical version of {{cite map}}
.|map-format=
|langage=
to follow |series=
.{{cite map/new |type=Road map |publisher=Colorado State Highway Department |date=July 1923 |map=New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System |map-url=http://books.google.com/books?id=czs5AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA10-PA12 |title=Colorado Highways |scale= Scale not given |cartography=CSHD |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=12–13 |oclc=11880590 |accessdate= November 18, 2013 |via= Google Books}}
|title=
to |journal=
and |map=
to |title=
):
{{cite map/new |type=Road map |publisher=Colorado State Highway Department |date=July 1923 |title=New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=czs5AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA10-PA12 |journal=Colorado Highways |scale= Scale not given |cartography=CSHD |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=12–13 |oclc=11880590 |accessdate= November 18, 2013 |via= Google Books}}
{{cite journal}}
-like volume/issue/page style.|map=
et al. to achieve this effect. I'll think on that.|journal=
over |title=
to invoke the journal-style page display and leave |map=
as is. The question then should be, do we need a |atlas=
or |book-title=
as an alias for dealing with maps in books, just to minimize possible confusion? Then an editor could specify map/journal or map/atlas.|location=
is specified, it's "hanging out" in the middle of the citation without something to follow it. I know Scott5114 below has objected, but we really need to either have the template copy |publisher=
into both places (and retain |publisher-link=
to link the version displayed as the author), or we need to break this behavior and force editors to manually specify the author(s), even if that means manually duplicating the publisher to keep the desired effect. Imzadi 1979 → 15:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC){{cite map}}
use |title=
to refer to the title of the map. We introduce |map=
and its companion parameters for the case where |title=
is used for the atlas or book title. In {{cite journal}}
we use |title=
to name the article and |periodical=
(or an alias) to name the periodical (journal, magazine, or what have you). If the goal is to make {{cite map}}
act like {{cite journal}}
when the map is in a periodical, then we should use |title=
and |periodical=
.I have moved |edition=
in the cases where the citation is for a map in a book and a stand-alone map (|edition=
doesn't apply to periodicals):
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas (2013 Walmart ed.). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. |
Sandbox | Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas (2013 Walmart ed.). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. |
This, I think answers items 1–5 in Editor Imzadi1979's list of things to change.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to strongly oppose any change to this template that would move the publisher information away from the beginning of the citation. This is usually the only way of identifying a particular map, since most of them are just titled after the geographic area they cover. ("Map of Oklahoma". Which map of Oklahoma? The Esso map.) Burying this key information in the middle of the citation for no good reason decreases the utility of the template's output. (Consistency with other templates is not a good reason in this case—maps are different than other sources and should be treated as such.)
It should be noted that the reason the cartography field exists at all is because sometimes a map is published under the branding of one company but the actual map is contracted out to another. This is most frequently encountered with U.S. gas station maps of the 20th century, which were essentially Rand McNally or H.M. Gousha maps bearing the branding of Texaco, Esso, Standard Oil, etc. Seldom are the actual people that did the cartography credited publicly, so that is not the use case the template was intending to address. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
|cartography=
field has not been removed in the sandboxed version. Imzadi 1979 → 22:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)|author=Rand McNally
in case #8, we get "Chicago" just floating along in the middle of the citation output when it really should be joined as "Chicago: Rand McNally" to make more sense. Currently specifying any author parameters (last/first or author, with or without author-link) breaks this assumption that the publisher is the author and shifts the publisher value to the appropriate location. We either have two options to get the publisher displayed in the appropriate location with the place of publication:
Are we done? Have we done all that needs doing to migrate {{cite map}}
to Module:Citation/CS1?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that there are two maintenance categories in the existing template that may need to be considered in this migration: Category:Pages using cite map with both series and version and Category:Pages using cite map with publisher-link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | England - Lincolnshire (Map). 1:10,560. County series. Ordnance Survey. 1891. Sheet 115/NE. {{cite map}} : More than one of |version= and |series= specified (help) |
Sandbox | England - Lincolnshire (Map). 1:10,560. County series. Ordnance Survey. 1891. Sheet 115/NE. {{cite map}} : More than one of |version= and |series= specified (help) |
|series=
and |version=
could be combined into |series=County series Epoch 1
. It isn't clear to me if Epoch 1 is something that Ordnance Survey used in naming the map series or if that is something applied by British History. See here. |sheet=
isn't a supported parameter in either the old or the new template.Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Grantham (Map). 1:25 000. Explorer. OSGB. 03/04/2006. p. 247. § Bottesford & Colsterworth. ISBN 9780319238332. {{cite map}} : Check date values in: |date= (help); More than one of |version= and |series= specified (help) |
Sandbox | Grantham (Map). 1:25 000. Explorer. OSGB. 03/04/2006. p. 247. § Bottesford & Colsterworth. ISBN 9780319238332. {{cite map}} : Check date values in: |date= (help); More than one of |version= and |series= specified (help) |
|publisher-link=
would end up in the "unsupported parameter" category.Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Iowa Highway Map (Map). 1:10,000. Iowa Department of Transportation. 1974. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |publisher-link= ignored (help) |
Sandbox | Iowa Highway Map (Map). 1:10,000. Iowa Department of Transportation. 1974. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |publisher-link= ignored (help) |
|version=
might be analogous to a different |edition=
of the map. It's something worth investigating slightly, and that might be the first to make it "(Epoch 1 ed.)." in the display of the citation. Imzadi 1979 → 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)|publisher-link=
parameter was put in use to deal with the author/publisher situation. If there is no author defined in any of the usual ways (|author=
|first=
|last=
, etc) then the value of |publisher=
is moved into the authorship position. However, for a brief period of time, the |publisher=
was merely copied, and the value was also displayed in the traditional publisher location in the middle of the citation, following a |location=
. In that brief period of time, |publisher-link=
was added to serve as the analog of |author-link=
so that one could link the name of the "publisher as author" without also linking the "publisher as publisher" output. Otherwise we'd have forced editors to insert the brackets to wikilink the publisher name, and it would be linked in both locations.|location=
is defined, it appears alone in the middle, disconnected from the publisher unless an editor also defines |author=
.|publisher-link=
so that the "as author" portion of the citation can be linked without also linking the "as publisher" location.|cartography=
name) if they want some name to appear ahead of the map title.|publisher-link=
as unneeded and simply wikilink |publisher=[[<value]]
just as we would do in all other CS1 templates. When |author=
is not set, the code still copies the value from |publisher=
to |author=
. If |location=
is set then strip wikilink markup from |publisher=
; if |location=
not set then delete |publisher=
. These examples illustrate:{{cite map}}
: |author=
has generic name (help){{cite map}}
: |author=
has generic name (help)|publisher-link=
. See the second paragraph of Editor Imzadi1979's 2015-02-25T15:52UTC post above. It would seem that if there is no |location=
then |publisher=
becomes |author=
and |publisher-link=
becomes |author-link=
and Bob's your uncle. Not quite so simple if |location=
is set; and this is where some thinking is probably still required.Compare the following examples, all citing the same map in the same atlas used as a source in the M-553 (Michigan highway) article:
Publisher, location, but no author:
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers p. 1962. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. {{cite map}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |mapurl= ignored (|map-url= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers p. 1962. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. {{cite map}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |mapurl= ignored (|map-url= suggested) (help) |
Publisher, author and location:
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Rockford Map Publishers a (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers p. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. {{cite map}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |mapurl= ignored (|map-url= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | Rockford Map Publishers a (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers p. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. {{cite map}} : Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |mapurl= ignored (|map-url= suggested) (help) |
Author, location, but no publisher:
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Rockford Map Publishers a (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |mapurl= ignored (|map-url= suggested) (help) |
Sandbox | Rockford Map Publishers a (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |mapurl= ignored (|map-url= suggested) (help) |
In each of the examples, I added an italicized a, c, or p to note when "Rockford Map Publishers" is defined as an |author=
, |cartography=
source or |publisher=
, respectively. Ignore the changes related to where "(Map)." is located, the change from "section" to "§", and the inclusion of the |via=
in the following discussion.
In the first comparison, no |author=
is defined. The current template, and its sandbox behave identically. The publisher is shifted forward to take the place of an author, and the location appears alone in the middle of the citation. In this case, there is effectively no publisher noted because of that shift.
In the middle comparison, |author=
is defined. In this case, the author is displayed up front, and the publisher appears in the middle of the citation after the location, as expected in the sandbox. The live template ignores the value for the publisher, as you can see, because that value is superfluous because we have something else to display up front for an author.
In the last comparison, the live template is ignoring the |author=
, and because there isn't a |publisher=
to take its place, there is nothing listed in the author location. As a result, the year appears in the middle of the citation after the location. In the sandbox, the template isn't ignoring the |author=
, so it appears where we expect, followed by the year. Because there is no |publisher=
, the location stands alone, also as expected.
This is the more fundamental question of template output behavior that needs to be resolved before discussing |publisher-link=
. Imzadi 1979 → 16:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
|publisher-link=
may be an effort in futility because the parameter may be needed after all.{{cite map}}
place the map's publisher in the author position of the rendered citation when |<author alias>=
is empty or omitted?Something to note, but these plat atlases were published with written text and advertising solicited from the local 4H program and the appropriate county office/agency, and most library catalogs actually list those two entities as the authors of the book. Rockford Map Publishers just drew the maps using that text and printed the books. As it stands, the role of the 4H program and the county has had to be ignored because the design choices made years ago with the template and carried forward to the initial {{citation/core}} conversion forced us to discount the possibility that there could be separate authorship, cartography and publication of a map source. Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
|author=Rockford Map Publishers
|author2=Illinois 4H
... In this case, the publisher will not be moved to the author position. Isn't this what you wanted?{{citation/core}}
version of {{cite map}}
does not support that but the sandbox does. Whether we continue to move publisher data into the author position when there is no author data is irrelevant to this case because when there is author data, publisher data is not moved into the author position.I have not been attending to all of the above because I generally cite geological maps, for which {{cite map}} has been wholly unsatisfactory. (I use {{citation}} in a somewhat hacked form.) However, I wonder if there might be some interest in getting citation/cite map into a form (eventually) of making it more satisfactory for use with geological maps, which are generally cited in a more scholarly form. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
|access-date=
, archival information and even |via=
.|editor-first=
|editor-last=
aren't working either. Those could be added though. So what is it that you'd need for geological maps? Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)|editor-first=
and |editor-last=
not working?Imzadi1979: your examples are free-form (untemplated), but as models your geological map examples are generally fine except that we usually:
Following are examples of how I have done this using {citation}. I also use |journal=
, which italicises the agency, and (with |volume=
) use to make the series name/number bold. (E.g.: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2010-1149.) Not an ideal implementation, but the best I have been able to devise.
{Cite journal} generates a very similar result, but {cite map} is not even close, in neither the old nor the new form:
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Dragovich, J. D.; DeOme, A. J. (June 2006). "Geologic map of the McMurray 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington, with a Discussion of the Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Darrington–Devils Mountain Fault Zone" (Map). Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Geological Map GM–61. 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000, 18 p. text. |
Sandbox | Dragovich, J. D.; DeOme, A. J. (June 2006). "Geologic map of the McMurray 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington, with a Discussion of the Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Darrington–Devils Mountain Fault Zone" (Map). Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Geological Map GM–61. 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000, 18 p. text. |
.
I am fine with using {citation/journal} (aside from the lack of bolding), but identifying maps as journals seems a little dishonest. Not a burning issue, but one I think we should think about. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Dragovich, J. D.; DeOme, A. J. (June 2006). Geologic map of the McMurray 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington, with a Discussion of the Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Darrington–Devils Mountain Fault Zone (1 sheet, 18 p. text). 1:24,000. Geological Map GM–61. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help) |
Sandbox | Dragovich, J. D.; DeOme, A. J. (June 2006). Geologic map of the McMurray 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington, with a Discussion of the Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Darrington–Devils Mountain Fault Zone (1 sheet, 18 p. text). 1:24,000. Geological Map GM–61. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help) |
|type=Geological map
, |type=Topological map
or even |type=Aerial survey
would be ways to change the default, but something should be noted.Wikitext | {{cite map |
---|---|
Live | Dragovich, J. D.; DeOme, A. J. (June 2006). Geologic map of the McMurray 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington, with a Discussion of the Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Darrington–Devils Mountain Fault Zone (Map). 1:24,000. Geological Map GM–61. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. 1 sheet, 18 p. text. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help) |
Sandbox | Dragovich, J. D.; DeOme, A. J. (June 2006). Geologic map of the McMurray 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Skagit and Snohomish Counties, Washington, with a Discussion of the Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Darrington–Devils Mountain Fault Zone (Map). 1:24,000. Geological Map GM–61. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. 1 sheet, 18 p. text. {{cite map}} : Unknown parameter |sandbox= ignored (help) |
Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
|volume=vol. 1
to both add context to the number and force the template to render the output in roman (plain) text. For series names, I would oppose the boldface treatment, and I think it would go against our MOS.
|series=
vs. |scale=
, the general order follows that of {{cite book}} combined with the map-specific items from the APA style.|cartography=
output followed by |others=
. (The former of those two is something I feel is a bit of a compromise based on how other road editors have and will use the template.)|via=
) all like the other CS1 templates.I raise a question of where the map scale (and certain other details, like the number sheets, numer of pages of text, etc.) should go. Imzadi1979 previously cited this page from NCSU Libraries that the scale "would come immediately before the series." I don't find that satisfactory. (In part because I find the NCSU examples generally clumsy and inelegant). In most (all?) geological usage the scale and other details are subordinated to, and therefore follow, the series; I recommend that here.
As to where scale should be placed relative to volume/issue/language: I do not recall ever seeing such a mixture. Do atlases and road maps have established usages in this regard? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
50. Richard Sobel, ed., Public Opinion in US Foreign Policy: The Controversy over Contra Aid (Boston: Rowman and Littlefield, 1993) 87, table 5.3.
|location=
is omitted by a lot of Wikipedians in citing books, so as I've mentioned, individual editors could omit it as they wanted.) We'll need a place to insert |cartography=
, to deal with the situations I illustrated in the next subsection. We'll also need a place in that order for |others=
as well as |agency=
in the rare cases of maps that have been translated (|others=Translation by Jean-Luc Picard
) or distributed through a news wire agency (|agency=Associated Press
).|at=
. To follow the APA guidance, if necessary, I'd note "Scales not given" in the plural, although some of Michigan's maps included the scale on the insets but not the main map, oddly enough. For something like the iconic London Tube Map, I had occasion to use |scale=Not to scale
. Imzadi 1979 → 04:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)|scale=
either required, or defaulting to "not given". (My initial question was "if there might be interest ...." We do seem to be well beyond a simple "yes".)|scale=
is not required and does not have a default value, which isn't something that is not being changed in the transition. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
|scale=
as not required is good. How this is ordered with other similar details does not seem very significant. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)The use of the |cartography=
parameter has been touched on in several places above. Scott5114 suggested (24 Feb) that this field is intended to identify the original source of the "cartography" that has been republished by others, the people doing the actual cartography being seldom credited. However, in geological and topographic maps it is common to identify who did the cartography. But (at least in geological maps) this is only part of the "authorship", and I am not aware that cartogrpahers, distinguished from authors, are ever mentioned in a citation. So possibly the use of this parameter needs clarification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: I think we're both in general agreement about most of the order of presentation. It seems to be a question of where to put the |series=
in relation to the publisher, and I'm ok with a general "Location: Publisher. Series" order. As you note, the publisher forms a type of natural disambiguation with the series name in that respect. ("Which '7.5-Minute Series'? Oh, the 'US Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Series'!") As for |scale=
, I'm neutral about running it after the map name or after the publisher/series. So if we had a general order of:
I think we'd both be generally happy. Maybe I've mis-read slightly, so one of those pieces may need a slight shuffling. (Others would be where to handle wire agency or |cartography=
in the general scheme.)
The various CS1 templates though have no function to note the total number of pages in a book, so something like "2 maps (scale 1:62,500, 1:24,000), 32 p. text" doesn't seem to fit with the way the rest of the template family does things. I might be tempted to tell editors who felt strongly enough to insert that into |scale=
since that is a free-form parameter that doesn't impact any metadata.
Turning to the "in-source" location, road maps have grid sections, which are supported through |section=
or the new |sections=
, which will be prefaced by § and §§, respectively. I'm wondering if we should add |sheet=
and |sheets=
. The MDOT Right-of-Way Map File Application (the name of their website) divides the state highway system into 83 "maps" (by county name) with individual numbered sheets as well as the county title sheets. I've used |at=Sheet 180
in the past, but a |sheet=180
along with |sheets=1–2
would be useful. I gather that would be useful for multi-sheet geological maps as well? Do geological maps ever have sheets numbered as multiple pages, or pages numbered as separate sheets? Imzadi 1979 → 03:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
|sheets=
parameter could be good. That could also take the number of pages of text. As to whether this should come immediately before or immediately after scale: I see no consistent pattern. (And I have no consistent opinion on this!) Any guidance from roadmap usage? Alternately, all this could go into (say) "desc=". Or simply appended to the template. But definitely after publisher/series.|journal=
. However, |publisher=
gets put after volume/series, so that isn't satisfactory. How do we manage this?|sheet=
and |sheets=
then? As for order, I'm thinking sheet/sheets should go with the page/pages ahead of any inset or section/sections. That would keep things in a general largest-unit-to-smallest-unit order, I think.|sheet=
and |sheets=
. I'll note that we have |at=
for free-form locations, which is quite handy for more custom situations. The initial Lua conversion was implemented today, so if we make a list of specific tweaks, they can be implemented in the next regular update in a few weeks. Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
|page=
, |pages=
, |at=
but its |sections=
over |section=
. I think that's backwards. I should also add the redundant parameter error detection.|page=
, |pages=
, or |at=
is included in the COinS. Should |sheet=
, |sheets=
, |section=
, and |sections=
be combined with |page=
, |pages=
, |at=
in some appropriate order for assignment to COinS rft.pages
?|sheet=
and |sheets=
, I still think that would be good to add. As I suspected, a map citation should not refer to both a page and sheet number, so in terms of an in-source reference, they'd be first followed by any inset and ending with the grid section(s). That would tell me that we could combine them into the COinS metadata in that order. Imzadi 1979 → 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)|sheet=
parameter.|sheet=
and |sheets=
. No other purpose is intended.{{cite map}}
is a CS1 template. The CS1 family is based on APA and the Chicago Manual of Style. Editors are free to use any style of citation they which, but they are supposed to do so consistently. Until now, this template was not very consistent with the rest of the CS1 family, and now it is.|scale=
, nor can it because the template needs to be able to cite variable-scaled maps like Google Maps, Yahoo! Maps, OpenStreetMap, etc.|title=
has a corresponding |trans-title=
; should we have a |trans-map=
to go with |map=
? Imzadi 1979 → 23:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)|desc=
parameter where the scale can be included with the descriptive details. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)A minor rendering bug in the code: If the final editor of a {{cite book}} has a first name ending in a period, then the template is clever enough to omit the extra period separating the editors from the rest of the citation, preventing an ugly doubled period. For example,
produces
But, if the editor's name is wikilinked, then the doubled-period suppression doesn't work:
produces
One could work around this by omitting the period from the editor-first parameter, of course, but this is undesirable for a couple of reasons: it breaks the metadata, and it causes the wikilink to fail to include the final period in the editor's name. So fixing the code to suppress the doubled period in this case would be better. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Where should it be used and where is it even necessary? Should it be used for TXT files? PHP files? Dustin (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
|format=
only applies to the content of |url=
. Similarly, |chapter-format=
only applies to the content of |chapter-url=
. The parameters should be used whenever the file format of the file referred to in the url parameters is not an html document. Wikimedia adds the pdf icon to external links that have urls ending in .pdf
but, these icons do not have alt=
descriptors to tell screen readers what the image is so for pdf documents, it is important to include |format=pdf
in the citation..php
usually render HTML files so using |format=
for them is unnecessary. For .txt
files, it probably doesn't matter but might be a good thing to do so that readers have some idea of what they might expect if they click the citation's link.|chapter-format=pdf
. Explain to us please, how that simple addition has made the actual useful information harder to find?
{{Citation
| last = West
| first = Julian
| author-link = Julian West (author)
| contribution = Championship-Level Play of Dots-and-Boxes
| editor-last = Nowakowski
| editor-first = Richard
| title = Games of No Chance
| pages = 79–84
| publisher = MSRI Publications
| place = Berkeley
| year = 1996
| contribution-url = http://library.msri.org/books/Book29/files/westboxes.pdf |chapter-format=pdf}}
|format=pdf
should be used. The New York Times, for example, publishes archived copies of old articles in PDF format but the URLs don't end in .pdf
so a reader has no way of knowing that the link to the article is not the usual HTML that is used for archival of more recent articles:
|format=
value is displayed without the period, I would add "PDF" in uppercase because it's an acronym. GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
At MediaWiki:Common.css, the file extensions that change the normal external link icon to the pdf icon are .pdf
, .pdf?
, .pdf#
(also in uppercase, but not mixed case). It occurs to me that it is relatively simple to test urls for these extensions. I've hacked a test into Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that tests the url that is applied to the archive link. If the file extension is one of the Common.css recognized extensions then the code adds what amounts to |archive-format=PDF
to the rendered citation (there is no such parameter).
The other thing I did was to shrink the size of the format annotation. Editor GoingBatty noted that because PDF is an acronym, it should be capitalized. I have always found that to be rather loud so have usually done |format=pdf
as you can see from my New York Times example above. In the experiment, I set the annotation to 85% of the surrounding text. These examples are encloded in {{ref begin}}
and {{ref end}}
to mimic how reduced size format annotation might look in real reference lists.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
|format=
, |chapter-format=
, etc. The style is the same as described above except that it forces the content of the format parameter to be uppercase before the size is reduced:Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | "Chapter" (pdf). Title (PDF). |
Sandbox | "Chapter" (pdf). Title (PDF). |
is_pdf()
test described above should be applied to all url-holding parameters and the appropriate format-holding parameters set to PDF
if not already set.At Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#lay-url-format I suggested that we should probably have format parameters for all url-holding parameters. The url-holding parameters that don't have matching format parameters are:
|archive-url=
|conference-url=
|contribution-url=
– alias of |chapter-url=
|event-url=
– alias of |conference-url=
|lay-url=
|section-url=
– alias of |chapter-url=
|transcript-url=
So, without objection I'll add format parameters for the above.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
|archive-format=
yet to be done.
{{cite speech}}
: Unknown parameter |event-format=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |event-url=
ignored (help){{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-format=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (help)|format=fmt
and without |archive-format=afmt
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
|archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
and |archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
|archive-format=afmt
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|chapter=
, |chapter-url=
, |url=
:
|format=fmt
|chapter-format=cfmt
|archive-format=afmt
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
|chapter-format=cfmt
|archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
|chapter-format=cfmt
, |archive-format=afmt
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
|chapter-format=cfmt
, |archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
, |chapter-format=cfmt
|archive-format=afmt
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
, |chapter-format=cfmt
|archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
, |chapter-format=cfmt
, |archive-format=afmt
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|format=fmt
, |chapter-format=cfmt
, |archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|chapter=
, |chapter-url=
, |url=
|chapter-format=cfmt
|archive-format=afmt
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|chapter-format=cfmt
|archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|chapter-format=cfmt
, |archive-format=afmt
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|chapter-format=cfmt
, |archive-format=afmt
:
{{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help){{cite book}}
: Check date values in: |archivedate=
(help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) (|deadurl=no
)|url=
, you can see that the archive code doesn't swap |chapter-url=
with |archive-url=
. This seems wrong to me. Shouldn't |archive-url=
be paired with the most specific url in the citation?|xxx-format=
is empty or omitted and the a url points to a pdf file, the the code sets |xxx-format=PDF
:
{{cite speech}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |event-format=
(help); Unknown parameter |event-url=
ignored (help){{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |lay-format=
(help); Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (help)|xxx-format=
is set but |xxx-url=
is not
{{cite conference}}
: |format=
requires |url=
(help){{cite conference}}
: |archive-format=
requires |archive-url=
(help){{cite conference}}
: |conference-format=
requires |conference-url=
(help){{cite book}}
: |chapter-format=
requires |chapter-url=
(help){{cite speech}}
: Unknown parameter |event-format=
ignored (help){{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-format=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (help){{cite book}}
: |chapter-format=
requires |chapter-url=
(help){{cite episode}}
: |transcript-format=
requires |transcripturl=
(help)|format=
to identify PDF documents in CS1/2 citations:
insource:/\| *format *= *PDF/
– 53,991 pagesinsource:/\| *format *= *pdf/
– 14,136 pages|format=
nor did I write Help:Citation_Style_1#External_links or Template:Citation_Style_documentation#csdoc_format. Because icons do not support the alt attribute, leaving out |format=
is a disservice to those who cannot see the icon (or the url since it is hidden in the href=
attribute of the <a>...</a>
tag). If you have a beef with |format=
parameters, the beef is not with me but with W3C, or browser makers, or MediaWiki who have either not defined a requirement for alt=
text use with images in CSS, not implemented such defined support in browsers, or who have not added alt=
text to the icon portions of MediaWiki:common.css and perhaps elsewhere. When such support is defined and supported, then there is no further 'need' for |format=pdf
when a visual icon is present. For other, non-browser supported file types (.xls, etc.) there will always be a need for |format=
.background
property and then insert the same icon using an <img />
tag with appropriate alt=
text and whatever other attributes are required. It would seem better to do that globally in the MediaWiki software. You might raise the issue at Phabricator.Hey, thanks to all of you for helping me to find an answer to my inquiry, as well as for the work you put into this template. Dustin (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Overall, I'm very pleased with the changes made with {{cite map}} to convert it over to use the Lua module and make it more consistent with the other CS1 templates and academic citation standards. One little weird thing has popped up though.
If the map is a sheet map, or a map in a journal, as in the first two examples above, then the "(Map)." appears after the name of the map. For a sheet map (#1), that title is in italics; for a map in a journal (#2), it's in quotation marks while the journal is italicized. If it's a map in a book (#3) though, "(Map)." is missing instead of appearing after the map name in quotation marks. If |type=Road map
(or some other type of map) is defined (#4), then the type shows up as expected, but the default isn't appearing as it should. If this can be fixed, it would be great. Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
{{cite map/new}}
.I created {{article style}} as an edit notice for to indicate various styles within an article. -- Gadget850 talk 12:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I want to give the date as "Christmas 2007", but |date=Christmas 2007 throws up an error. Eric Corbett 18:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
|issue=Christmas 2007
work? Do you have a specific example from a specific article? That always helps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title. Christmas 2015. |
Sandbox | Title. Christmas 2015. |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I would really like a way to insert a {{rp}} for web sites, like you can for books. Let us take a highly newsworthy murder and trial, for example. There may be dozens of articles from CNN.com, Foxnews.com along with various other news organizations, but then the ref list gets really long, really quick. Wouldn't it make more sense to line up references with RP for one single site? If there is a way to do that, would you mind sharing it with me (on my talk page, please)? While I understand that for books, the RP displays page numbers inline, but who says the web version has to do that? Why not over a hover with the webpage link for that citation? Let's say we name one that functions similarly as {{Wcp}}, (that is template:wcp). The markup would look like:
{{wcp|http://www.news.com/evil_ killer_convicted}}
Then inline text would look like article text....1.1, so when you hover over the 1.1, it provides the full citation (as any well-done citation does) with a clickable link to that particular article. Does this make sense?
MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few papers are accompanied by extra stuff (raw data, full experiment transcripts, elaborated proofs, source code, …, and for conference submissions more and more often talk slides and even recordings.) When reading a paper, having access to these is helpful.
The template currently only supports linking the main paper and a (single?) "laysummary". Adding separate citations for all of these materials isn't really an option – this would clutter the list, or may not fit the format (e.g. in the section "selected bibliography/works" of a person's page.) Leaving out these links means that everyone who's interested has to search for them. (And has to think of searching for these – if the paper doesn't mention the existence of extra materials, this may not happen.)
How should these supplementary materials be handled? (Just ignore that they exist, or include them in some way?)
If they should be included, should the template(s) be extended with extra fields (or a single, free-form-ish one) to accommodate these? (Or is there a better way?)
—80.153.23.35 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
tags.
<ref>{{cite journal ...}} [http://example.org/important-paper/raw-data.html Raw data]. [http://example.org/important-paper/talk-slides.html Talk slides].</ref>
One of the biggest contributors to Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language is multiple languages in the |language=
parameter. I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that |language=
now accepts a comma-delimited list of language names – either as ISO639-1 code or spelled-out (or a mix of both) – and renders a properly formatted language list:
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Norwegian Bokmål, French, German, and Lithuanian). |
Sandbox | Title (in Norwegian Bokmål, French, German, and Lithuanian). |
Names or codes that aren't recognized are rendered as presented:
Wikitext | {{cite book |
---|---|
Live | Title (in Norwegian Bokmål, Basilisk, German, Lithuanian, and xt).{{cite book}} : CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) |
Sandbox | Title (in Norwegian Bokmål, Basilisk, German, Lithuanian, and xt).{{cite book}} : CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
|language=German, French
|language=German and French
|language=German, Swedish, French
|language=German, Swedish, and French
|language=German, Swedish and French
|language=German, and French
{{cite book |title=Title |language=nb, Basilisk, de,lt, xt}}
<span class="citation-comment" style="display:none; color:#33aa33">CS1 maint: Unrecognized language ([[:Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language|link]])</span>[[Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language]][[Category:CS1 Norwegian Bokmål-language sources (nb)]][[Category:CS1 German-language sources (de)]][[Category:CS1 Lithuanian-language sources (lt)]]
|author=Editorial board
(for an unsigned editorial in an academic journal). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)|vauthors=
parameter which puts multiple authors in a single parameter and produces clean metadata. The citation-template-filling tool produces citations formatted in this style. If the author list is comma limited, why do we need to split authors into separate parameters? Lua scripts such as Module:ParseVauthors can easily parse a comma limited author list. Boghog (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)These two parameters nave never made sense to me, were not part of the {{citation/core}}
versions of the various CS1/2 templates so I propose to deprecate them at the next update.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |authors1=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors2=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editors1=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editors2=
ignored (help)—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
|authorsn=
:
insource:/\| *authors1/
finds 4 instancesinsource:/\| *authors2/
finds 12 instancesinsource:/\| *authors3/
finds 2 instancesinsource:/\| *authors4/
finds 3 instancesinsource:/\| *authors5/
finds 2 instancesinsource:/\| *authors6/
finds 1 instance|authors6=
–|authors9=
:
{{cite journal |authors=Davies|title=Xlr3b is a new imprinted candidate for X-linked parent-of-origin effects on cognitive function in mice|journal=Nature Genetics |volume=37|pages=625–629|year=2005|authors2=W.|authors3=Isles|authors4=A.|authors5=Smith|authors6=R.|authors7=Karunadasa|authors8=D.|authors9=Burrmann|display-authors=20|doi=10.1038/ng1577|pmid=15908950|issue=6}}
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid |display-authors=20
(help); Unknown parameter |authors2=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors3=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors4=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors5=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors6=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors7=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors8=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors9=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |authors=
ignored (help)|authorsn=
to |authorn=
reveals that the module doesn't understand something about |authorsn=
:
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid |display-authors=20
(help)insource:/\| *authors10/
finds noneinsource:/\| *editors1/
finds 1 instanceinsource:/\| *editors2/
finds 1 instanceinsource:/\| *editors3/
finds none in useinsource:/\| *authors\d/
insource:/\| *editors\d/
It looks like all instances of |authorsn=
and |editorsn=
have been cleaned up, according to an insource search. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
|authors10=
and |editors3=
. |authorsn/editorsn=
should still be made to emit errors, or at least aliased, in case they appear in the future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Following up on this feature request, I have added code to Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox that constrains valid accessdates to the dates that fall between 15 January 2001 UTC and tomorrow's date UTC.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help){{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help) – day-after-tomorrow's date—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
{{cite web/new |title=Title |url=//example.com |accessdate=2015-04-03}}
@Trappist the monk: please rephrase your reply to not use the word between. Please choose among the phrases less than, less than or equal to, greater tha, and greater than or equal to. I agree with Dragons flight that since time zone designations are not normally included with accessdate, an access date should be considered valid if 15 January 2001 <= accessdate <= the least date in progress anywhere in the world at the time the check is made. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2015 (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.