|
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86
|
| Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
|---|---|
| Old | . EB Greene"Title". Journal. |
| Live | "Title". Journal. EB Greene.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
|
| Wikitext | {{cite book
|
|---|---|
| Old | Title. EB Greene. |
| Live | Title. EB Greene.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
|
- fixed in the sandbox:
| Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
|---|---|
| Live | "Title". Journal. EB Greene.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
|
| Sandbox | "Title". Journal. EB Greene.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
|
| Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
|---|---|
| Live | "Title". Journal. Translated by EB Greene. |
| Sandbox | "Title". Journal. Translated by EB Greene. |
| Wikitext | {{cite journal
|
|---|---|
| Live | "Title". Journal. Interviewed by EB Greene. |
| Sandbox | "Title". Journal. Interviewed by EB Greene. |
| Wikitext | {{citation
|
|---|---|
| Live | "Title", Journal, EB Greene{{citation}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
|
| Sandbox | "Title", Journal, EB Greene{{citation}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
|
| Wikitext | {{citation
|
|---|---|
| Live | "Title", Journal, translated by EB Greene |
| Sandbox | "Title", Journal, translated by EB Greene |
| Wikitext | {{citation
|
|---|---|
| Live | "Title", Journal, interviewed by EB Greene |
| Sandbox | "Title", Journal, interviewed by EB Greene |
- But, is this the right fix? Shouldn't all cs1|2 templates render
|others=in more-or-less the same position? This fix has the obvious 'new' flaw in cs2 where the first letter of the static text in the rendering is lowercase. Not quite sure how to fix that and support i18n. Is this a case where we require|translator=and|interviewer=to have a displayed value for|author=or|editor=? - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would think that it is a no-brainer for the presentation of any element in a citation (including the positioning) to be consistent throughout. Compliance with i18n is secondary. Uniformity and proper grammar in the wiki's local language should always take precedence. Making secondary roles such as "translator" dependent on the display of a primary role such as "author" or "editor" seems logical, and something that could be expected by readers (including when the author is listed as "Unknown"). I have to say that the OP's application of the templates is not as citations, but as bibliographic entries in a List of Works (in this case, a list of translations of works). Imo, CS1/2 is not a good fit for the OP's specific application. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Reuters and Business as generic last names
Could Reuters be added as a generic value of the |last= parameter in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration? There are some two thousand pages that use it (Special:Search/insource:"last=Reuters"). Kleinpecan (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Similarly, Business when used alone could also be added as a generic last name value. This seems very common with references to CNN Business (Special:Search/insource:"last=Business"). Kleinpecan (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Different searches give (of course) different results:
- And, because 'Business' is so often associated with 'CNN':
- And because 'Business' is also commonly associated with 'Inc' or 'Inc.':
- So, to the sandbox I have added 'Reuters', 'Business', and 'CNN' as plain text finds; and added
^[Ii]nc%.?$as a pattern match find. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Another generic title
Hello, can you add "Security Check Required" to the list of generic titles. There are currently 211 instances, mostly from Facebook references. Keith D (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Another one to add is "IMDB" as the full title. Ignoring case there are 244 instances. Keith D (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Another one to add is titles containing "This page has been removed", currently 34 articles. Keith D (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Use of "oclc="
OCLC numbers can be useful, and I'm happy that Cite book provides the field. My question is about when one should use it. (It may therefore be off-topic here. You're welcome to tell me where I should post this instead of here.)
Most recent editions of books have ISBNs. An edition that has an ISBN probably appears in Worldcat, and if so has one or more OCLC records. If there are two or more OCLC records (as is common), it's often not obvious which is the most informative or the most accurate, let alone the one most likely to cover libraries within readers' reach. Anyway, if an edition has an ISBN, this will normally* make it easy to find the OCLC number(s). So whether or not I use a Cite template, my own practice is to provide the ISBN of an edition where there is an ISBN, and to cite an OCLC number only where there isn't an ISBN. If provided together with an ISBN, an OCLC number is IMHO normally* mere clutter. And so I've taken to removing the OCLC numbers (example). Comments? (* Yes, there are cases where some mistake has resulted in a single ISBN being shared by two books sharing nothing but a publisher. Of course I'm in favour of OCLC numbers that disambiguate.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I provide OCLC if there is no ISBN. I don't see a reason to remove them if they lead to the source in question. It's one fewer hop for the reader to finding actual information about the book. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I add OCLC numbers even if there is an ISBN, because the OCLC number link will jump right to Worldcat, while the ISBN link jumps to the Special:BookSources page. Yes, you can get to Worldcat from Special:BookSources, but for readers in the know, it's one less step to just use the OCLC. For other source types, such as periodicals, an ISSN jumps right to Worldcat, so I don't see a need to double up. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your comments. One point, though. Imzadi1979, you talk of "the OCLC" as if a given ISBN corresponds to a single OCLC number. However, in my experience, far more often it corresponds to a bunch of OCLC numbers. Where it corresponds to a number of them, how do you choose among them: the most informative entry (regardless of spelling, etc), the entry with the most conscientious use of diacritics (regardless of a lack of a chapter listing, etc), the entry listing the most libraries? (Worse, I'd guess that many people presented with an OCLC number for an edition would wrongly assume that it is the sole, definitive OCLC number for it.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- OCLC identifiers correspond to existing works in libraries (and other repositories). As these entities have disparate cataloguing schemes, the id is a way to unify presentation of these holdings. Theoretically, any OCLC for a unique ISBN is acceptable: the work can be discovered in the related institution and perhaps be consulted for verification. Practically, it is probably better to use an OCLC from an institution with known, large resources. Such an institution may be more easily able to supply the work reviewed. But your main thrust is correct. There is a localization issue here. 71.105.141.131 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I only include
|oclc=when there is no ISBN and when other criteria apply. The main one is when it's otherwise be tricky to locate a source from the rest of the given citation information (e.g., super common titles or surnames, complicated titles where I can imagine libraries might disagree about how to enter the title, non-English titles where transliteration schemes come into play, etc.). Also, if a work (again without an ISBN) is in so few libraries where there is a single definitive OCLC number because only one or two libraries has something, I might also use an OCLC since that helps people more easily see how few libraries something is in. But since multiple OCLC numbers can exist I tend to avoid one since it might not be the right OCLC for a given user and might give them a false sense of which libraries near them have it -- when there are multiple OCLCs I'll somewhat arbitrarily pick the one with the most libraries using it. Umimmak (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC) - @Hoary: I've run into just this situation a few times. I work with some annually published sources that are indexed by some libraries as individual publications, and by other libraries as annual editions of a serial/periodical. So these sources often have two OCLC identifiers, one for the series, and one for each year. In that case, I list both. I use
|id=so that both appear. In a few rare cases, an individual edition has had three OCLCs because libraries break the series into different overlapping runs of years, but again, I just list them all so that readers can easily search in Worldcat for a library holding the source. Imzadi 1979 → 01:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC){{OCLC|1|2}}
- Thank you both for your comments. One point, though. Imzadi1979, you talk of "the OCLC" as if a given ISBN corresponds to a single OCLC number. However, in my experience, far more often it corresponds to a bunch of OCLC numbers. Where it corresponds to a number of them, how do you choose among them: the most informative entry (regardless of spelling, etc), the entry with the most conscientious use of diacritics (regardless of a lack of a chapter listing, etc), the entry listing the most libraries? (Worse, I'd guess that many people presented with an OCLC number for an edition would wrongly assume that it is the sole, definitive OCLC number for it.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jonesey95, Imzadi1979, 71.105.141.131, Umimmak. In future, I'll refrain from removing OCLC numbers (unless of course they're obviously misleading or mistaken). I'm very surprised to read of |id={{OCLC|1|2}}. I hadn't been aware of the possibility. This isn't something I'd often want to use; but |id={{ISBN|1|2}} would be. Perhaps digressing here, but can Cite book be nudged to produce a version with short descriptions, something like "ISBN 9780195381979 (hardback), 9780190621056 (paperback)"? Believing (or just lazily assuming) that it can't is one reason why I'm seldom keen to use Cite book, though I understand its benefits and don't undo others' use of it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT an individual editor is presumably only consulting one version of a book; it would be rare that someone is consulting both the paperback and hardcover versions. It's also possible hardback vs paperback would have different paginations, also often paperback editions have some kind of update, have a different year of publication, etc. It would be confusing to list multiple ISBNs for a single citation.
- An exception I guess would be in a MOS:LISTOFWORKS section of an author, but even then it's probably an unnecessary level of detail to provide information about all editions of a book.
- {{ISBN}} allows the use of something like {{ISBN|978-1-4133-0454-1|978-1-4133-0454-1|978-1-4133-0454-1}} ISBN 978-1-4133-0454-1, 978-1-4133-0454-1, 978-1-4133-0454-1 but not with providing a parenthetical description for each ISBN. Umimmak (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- You can use
|type=medium/binding- Umimmak and IP, perhaps a problem is the vagueness of the term edition. (Book is even vaguer, but the vagueness is widely recognized.) Of course I don't have in mind basing edits to the (currently feeble) article on Call It Sleep on what I see in a Penguin copy, calling that "paperback", and adding a Library of America edition (which I haven't seen) as the "hardback", for both specifying pp 203–208 (because that's where it is in the Penguin). There are, after all, limits to my ineptitude. What I have in mind will be exemplified by Daniel White's Administering affect: Pop-culture Japan and the politics of anxiety. Unsurprisingly for an academic book, its copyright page tells us:
- Identifiers: LCCN 2021049474 (print) | LCCN 2021049475 (ebook) | ISBN 9781503630680 (cloth) | ISBN 9781503632196 (paperback) | ISBN 9781503632202 (ebook)
- Putting aside questions related to the "ebook", each page of the "cloth" edition and the paperback will be identical. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- There maybe a lot of bibliographic information in the copyright page, but not all of it is useful or necessary for citations in Wikipedia. The simple rule is that we (as readers) need to know where/how you, as the citation writer, found the info. This is the easiest way of verifying the related wikitext. If the book has several identifiers for the specific edition/binding you consulted, they may be listed, since they presumably use different catalogs: if a book cannot be found in the ISBN catalog it may be found in the LCCN catalog, etc. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's true. With luck, somebody wanting to look something up in a book of this kind (or indeed wanting to read it from cover to cover), clicking on the sole ISBN provided, and not finding a copy within reach, will think of the possibility of a differently-bound edition with its own ISBN, and use Worldcat or similar to find it. I think it would be helpful to provide (i) the ISBN of a second edition as long as this was certain to have the same pagination, and (ii) a simple explanation of which ISBN was which; but perhaps the benefit would be outweighed by the risk of well-intended misapplications. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Worldcat does have the option to find other editions of a publication. Sometimes that gets you the listings for a 2nd or 3rd edition when you searched for the 1st, and sometimes that gets you alternate bindings or sister imprints and the like. Imzadi 1979 → 23:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's true. With luck, somebody wanting to look something up in a book of this kind (or indeed wanting to read it from cover to cover), clicking on the sole ISBN provided, and not finding a copy within reach, will think of the possibility of a differently-bound edition with its own ISBN, and use Worldcat or similar to find it. I think it would be helpful to provide (i) the ISBN of a second edition as long as this was certain to have the same pagination, and (ii) a simple explanation of which ISBN was which; but perhaps the benefit would be outweighed by the risk of well-intended misapplications. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- There maybe a lot of bibliographic information in the copyright page, but not all of it is useful or necessary for citations in Wikipedia. The simple rule is that we (as readers) need to know where/how you, as the citation writer, found the info. This is the easiest way of verifying the related wikitext. If the book has several identifiers for the specific edition/binding you consulted, they may be listed, since they presumably use different catalogs: if a book cannot be found in the ISBN catalog it may be found in the LCCN catalog, etc. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Umimmak and IP, perhaps a problem is the vagueness of the term edition. (Book is even vaguer, but the vagueness is widely recognized.) Of course I don't have in mind basing edits to the (currently feeble) article on Call It Sleep on what I see in a Penguin copy, calling that "paperback", and adding a Library of America edition (which I haven't seen) as the "hardback", for both specifying pp 203–208 (because that's where it is in the Penguin). There are, after all, limits to my ineptitude. What I have in mind will be exemplified by Daniel White's Administering affect: Pop-culture Japan and the politics of anxiety. Unsurprisingly for an academic book, its copyright page tells us:
Protected edit request on 25 October 2022
 | This edit request to Template:Cite web has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I often like to copy the vertical format from the template page when writing a new reference. I think it would improve readability to editors if the "="-signs were directly below each other, like some other citation templates.
The length that appears in other templates, appears to have been chosen in order to have a space before and after " archive-date = ". (And a space after the "="-sign).
I think this should be fairly uncontroversial as it only improves readability.
(Please look at the source-text for this edit-request as I'm unable to display it as plain text due to all the pipes. And I can't see the source-text of the existing templates to inform me of how it should be entered. I have tried "tlx" and "code". They either don't work or they ignore spaces.)
This should be the result of changing the existing vertical format boxes:
Under "Template:Cite web#Usage#Most commonly used parameters in vertical format":
{{cite web
| url =
| title =
| last =
| first =
| date =
| website =
| publisher =
| access-date =
| quote = }}
And under "Template:Cite web#Usage#Full parameter set in vertical format":
{{cite web
| url =
| url-access =
| title =
| last =
| first =
| author-link =
| last2 =
| first2 =
| author-link2 =
| date =
| year =
| orig-date =
| editor-last =
| editor-first =
| editor-link =
| editor2-last =
| editor2-first=
| editor2-link =
| department =
| website =
| series =
| publisher =
| agency =
| location =
| page =
| pages =
| at =
| language =
| script-title =
| trans-title =
| type =
| format =
| arxiv =
| asin =
| bibcode =
| doi =
| doi-broken-date=
| isbn =
| issn =
| jfm =
| jstor =
| lccn =
| mr =
| oclc =
| ol =
| osti =
| pmc =
| pmid =
| rfc =
| ssrn =
| zbl =
| id =
| access-date =
| url-status =
| archive-url =
| archive-date =
| via =
| quote =
| ref =
| postscript = }}
BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Not done the page your requested an edit to doesn't contain that wikitext. If you want to change the documentation, you can do so here: Template:Cite web/doc. — xaosflux Talk 20:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Outdated example
Under Publisher, it gives the example "Example: [ [CBS Interactive] ] (which owns 'Metacritic.com')". This is outdated, as CBS Interactive no longer owns Metacritic. spongeworthy93 talk 15:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you are referring to a documentation page, those pages are not protected and may be edited by anyone. You are free to fix it.
- In future, because this talk page is the target of a lot of redirects from template, module, ~/doc, ~/sandbox, ~/testcases talk pages, please say where you find the problem.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Physical address of Republic of Molossia
I noticed that some user put the physical address in Republic of Molossia in {{cite web}}: |location= 226 Mary Lane, Dayton, Nevada 89403. Nevertheless, this caused CS1 to output a maintenance error. I tried to fix it writing |location=Mary Lane|publication-place=Dayton, Nevada but there's no way to insert the numbers. Is there a way to fix it? Thanks in advance.- Carnby (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- There are several issues with the article, including lack of clarity over the use of primary sources, but to narrowly answer your question,
|location=locality where publisher is based. The full or partial address is not required, and it actually generates clutter. 65.88.88.68 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC) - The very reason the error exists is because of the numbers. We have no need for the street-level location.
|location=Dayton, Nevadais sufficient. Izno (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
access-date in the TOC
At {{Cite web}}, I cannot find |access-date= in the /documentation TOC, nor anything like it. Is that by design? (if so, what can I learn?). Otherwise, please add it. DePiep (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's under URL, since
|access-date=requires|url=to be present. I recommend using the Find feature of your browser. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)- Well, a Do Find is saying TOC is not working. Anyway § url may be the logical place by the module code designers, but not for /doc functioning. The dependency-placement is a surprise. (/doc-wise, such a dependency can/should be mentioned with the (proposed) access-date entry, not overtaking it). DePiep (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Added to TOC, referencing to § url. [1]. Unlike in e.g. the
last2, first2relationship, this does not unastonishingly follow from url (non-intuitive relationship). Being prerequisited does not answer documentation requirementsd. {{csdoc}} to be adjusted? -DePiep (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
doi accept-this-as-written markup is being removed by WPCleaner
Help:Citation_Style_1#Accept-this-as-written_markup (double parentheses) on |doi= gets removed by Wikipedia:WPCleaner, as in Special:Diff/1119553213. I filed phab:T322177 about it, but in case it takes a while to fix, is there some way to suppress this that could be documented? Micler (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- And it's already fixed. Cool! Micler (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Change to use #invoke?
Hi, an editor went through COVID-19 and changed all the cites and changed cite
with a single pipe to #invoke:Cite
with a double pipe. Is this considered standard now? X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 20:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- For pages with a HUGE number of templates, this is necessary. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi AManWithNoPlan, sorry to bother, but I've got another question. I am giving an article a rewrite, and it's becoming fairly large. As it stands, the amount of citation templates is about 150, and I expect it to reach 250. Should I change to invoke as well? Thanks. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 19:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you get error messages, and only if you get error messages. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi AManWithNoPlan, sorry to bother, but I've got another question. I am giving an article a rewrite, and it's becoming fairly large. As it stands, the amount of citation templates is about 150, and I expect it to reach 250. Should I change to invoke as well? Thanks. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 19:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- It a mechanism that allows editors to hold-off tough editorial control decisions because it helps to keep post-expand include size within limits. But, it is only a stop-gap. This version of COVID-19 (the current version as I write this) has a post‐expand include size of 1,993,186/2,097,152 bytes; 103,966 bytes shy of the limit. Eventually, post‐expand include size will exceed the 2MB limit and editors who have been putting it off and putting it off will have to pare-down the article or split it.
- An article's Post‐expand include size is available two ways: Edit → Show preview → Parser profiling data or Right-click → View page source → Ctrl-F search for
NewPP. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- I see, thank you Trappist the monk. I did not realise the article was so close to the post-expand limit. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 21:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Proper use of the |via= parameter in {{cite book}}
Per the documentation for Template:Cite book, this should be used when the content deliverer (e.g. NewsBank) presents the source in a format different from the original,. I was using this to indicate that I'd accessed a work through Project MUSE (ebook format rather than print copy), but it's being removed by Citation bot. Am I misunderstanding the purpose of this parameter, or is Citation bot just being a bit hyper? Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- If there's no URL given,
|via=is pointless. WP:SAYWHERE "Note: The advice to "say where you read it" does not mean that you have to give credit to any search engines, websites, libraries, library catalogs, archives, subscription services, bibliographies, or other sources that led you to Smith's book. If you have read a book or article yourself, that's all you have to cite. You do not have to specify how you obtained and read it. " Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)- If there is a URL given (external URL), then Template:Cite book complains:
{{cite book |title=Foo |author=Beeblebrox |via=https://example.com}}
- produces:
- Beeblebrox. Foo – via https://example.com.
{{cite book}}: External link in|via=
- Beeblebrox. Foo – via https://example.com.
- i.e. red error "External link in |via=". —Micler (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- That's because via is not meant for urls. use
|url=for urls. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)- Ah, so the OP's situation happened because they used
|via=without|url=? I evidently misunderstood. Micler (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, so the OP's situation happened because they used
- (edit conflict)
- cs1|2 should complain. URLs go in url-holding parameters. Rewriting one of OP's example templates:
{{cite book |chapter=Mosby Monroe Parsons: Missouri's Forgotten Brigadier |chapter-url=https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/861130 |chapter-url-access=subscription |last=Gurley |first=Bill |editor-last1=Schott |editor-first1=Thomas E. |editor-last2=Bergeron |editor-first2=Arthur W. |editor-last3=Hewitt |editor-first3=Lawrence L. |title=Confederate Generals in the Trans-Mississippi |volume=1 |publisher=University of Tennessee Press |location=Knoxville, Tennessee |date=2013 |isbn=978-1-57233-985-9 |via=Project MUSE}}- Gurley, Bill (2013). "Mosby Monroe Parsons: Missouri's Forgotten Brigadier". In Schott, Thomas E.; Bergeron, Arthur W.; Hewitt, Lawrence L. (eds.). Confederate Generals in the Trans-Mississippi. Vol. 1. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 978-1-57233-985-9 – via Project MUSE.
- The URL-holding parameters are:
|archive-url=,|article-url=,|chapter-url=,|conference-url=,|contribution-url=,|entry-url=,|lay-url=(deprecated),|map-url=,|section-url=,|transcript-url=,|url=. There are a few insource parameters that accept urls:|at=,|page=,|pages=,|quote-page=,|quote-pages=. URLs also allowed in|id=. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- What's the benefit to even having
|via=if a reader can just click on the URL to see it comes from Project MUSE? It's purely redundant information, then, no? I perhaps have misunderstood this parameter because the few times I have used it have been when there is no permanent URL or identifier, but I wish to signal to readers and editors that a resource is available online in some database. Umimmak (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)- Not very much actually. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought that I would hunt through the templates to see when
|via=was added. From there I thought I might be able to find discussion on a related talk page. Amazingly,|via=has never been supported by the wikitext versions of the cs1|2 templates. I checked the obvious candidates{{citation}},{{cite book}},{{cite journal}},{{cite news}}, and{{cite web}}. I also checked{{citation/core}}(the engine that renders the ~/old versions of those wikitext cs1|2 templates);|via=is not a supported parameter. - But,
|via=is supported by Module:Citation/CS1 so I looked at its history.|via=was added to Module:Citation (a now-defunct predecessor to Module:Citation/CS1) at this edit; no discussion at Module talk:Citation which was created about six months after support for|via=was added to the module. But, at this discussion, a clue:{{Subscription required}}(the linked preceding discussion is archived here). There is some discussion about|via=at Template talk:Subscription required. That discussion links to User talk:Plastikspork/Archive 9 § Template:HighBeam and to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 1 § Template:HighBeam. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- What's the benefit to even having
- That's because via is not meant for urls. use
- If there is a URL given (external URL), then Template:Cite book complains:
- No templates in section headings.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Why suddenly change "Spanish" to "European Spanish"?
All references with the parameter |language=Spanish now show "in European Spanish" when, in fact, many of them are from places other than Europe. Colombiaball (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that is true:
{{cite book |title=Title |language=Spanish}}- Title (in Spanish).
- Can you provide an example that shows
|language=Spanishrendering as '(in European Spanish)'? - It is true that
|language=es-esrenders as '(in European Spanish)' but that is not your complaint:{{cite book |title=Title |language=es-es}}- Title (in European Spanish).
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Colombiaball (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Question
When I write out the reference like this: <ref>{{cite AV media notes|title=Moment |others=Shiga Lin |year=2010 |publisher=Warner Music Hong Kong |type=booklet}}</ref>
It gives me this error: Script warning: One or more {{cite AV media notes}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help). {{cite AV media notes}}: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link)
Can someone help to fix?
Thanks! --TerryAlex (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
-- add maint cat when |others= has value and used without |author=, |editor=- – Archer1234 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Still confused. Can you give an example? Thanks!--TerryAlex (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you use
|others=without using|author=or|editor=, you will get that maintenance message. The only way to address is to add an author or editor and then the message will not appear. – Archer1234 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)- Got it. Thanks!--TerryAlex (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you use
- Still confused. Can you give an example? Thanks!--TerryAlex (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would not worry about this one for now. We've discussed it some but no-one has put forth a proposal on how to deal with it. The last discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 84#CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes). --Izno (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not true, a proposal has been suggested at the discussion you linked. Replace the AV media notes templates with parameters
|contribution=and|contributor=as shown in that discussion. A special template for AV media notes makes no sense to begin with. Notes are in-source locations of the published AV media product as a whole, and they and their authors are not ever indexed afaik. This is another CS1 design flaw. 4.30.91.142 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not true, a proposal has been suggested at the discussion you linked. Replace the AV media notes templates with parameters
Book published by two separate publishers in two separate locations
I'm trying to use the template for a book that has been published by two separate publishers, each having their own separate location. But in the template, there is only the possibility for one publisher and one location. How to solve this? Thanks in advance. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If you consulted both, cite both, but cite them independently (two
{{cite book}}templates). If you consulted only one, cite that one, and don't bother with the other. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand what I meant. It are not two publications, it's one publication, published by two separate publishers. For example: Vorsterman van Oyen, A.A. (1882). Het vorstenhuis Oranje-Nassau. Van de vroegste tijden tot heden (in Dutch). Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff/Utrecht: J.L. Beijers. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I did a google search for the book title. Amazon uses: Leiden/Utrecht: Sijthoff & Beijers; WorldCat lists a variety of forms reflective of Leiden en Utrecht: A.W. Sijthoff en J.L. Beijers. This source appears to have been used at Henry I, Count of Nassau.
- The real question is which location belongs to which publisher? Do both publishers have branch offices in both cities? Are they separate? Are Sijthoff and Beijers partners somehow? How are these names and locations presented in the book's front matter?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- The front page reads Leiden en Utrecht, A.W. Sijthoff en J.L. Beijers. A.W. Sijthoff was located in Leiden, and J.L. Beijers in Utrecht. They were not partners, but separate publishers. Both publishers do not excist anymore. This source is used in several articles about the counts of Nassau. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think you don't understand what I meant. It are not two publications, it's one publication, published by two separate publishers. For example: Vorsterman van Oyen, A.A. (1882). Het vorstenhuis Oranje-Nassau. Van de vroegste tijden tot heden (in Dutch). Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff/Utrecht: J.L. Beijers. Regards, Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Here's what CMoS 17 says:
When books are published simultaneously (or almost so) by two publishers, usually in different countries, only one publisher need be listed—the one that is more relevant to the users of the citation. For example, if a book copublished by a British and an American publisher is listed in the bibliography of an American publication, only the American publication details need be given. If for some reason (e.g., as a matter of historical interest) information is included for both publishers, a semicolon should be used as a separator. [...] Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962.
- So just pick one, I tend to just go with the first one. Umimmak (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- This book was published in the Netherlands only, not in two countries. It was quite common for Dutch publishers to cooperate and publish a book both. It still happens today. In Dutch lists of literature or sources, it has always been customary to mention both publishers. But the main question is, how can I get your example Chicago: University of Chicago Press; London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson in the template cite book. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- You wouldn’t be able to use the citation templates for that sort of example. If it’s that important for you to include both in that format, which again, is generally not required or expected, then you’d have to eschew the citation templates and write it out yourself. Umimmak (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that I cannot use the cite book template for it. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- You wouldn’t be able to use the citation templates for that sort of example. If it’s that important for you to include both in that format, which again, is generally not required or expected, then you’d have to eschew the citation templates and write it out yourself. Umimmak (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- This book was published in the Netherlands only, not in two countries. It was quite common for Dutch publishers to cooperate and publish a book both. It still happens today. In Dutch lists of literature or sources, it has always been customary to mention both publishers. But the main question is, how can I get your example Chicago: University of Chicago Press; London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson in the template cite book. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have seen people cite both. I assume I've seen people cite only one. I don't think Chicago is unreasonable here and fundamentally don't think citing both is unreasonable here. Izno (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Can a reader find the work if only one of the publishers is cited? That is the only pertinent question. Depending on the answer you have several correct options, almost all of them ugly:
- AuthorName. Title. Location1; Location2: Publisher1; Publisher2.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) [the actual location/publisher pairs are easily discovered] - AuthorName. Title. Location1, Location2: Publisher1, Publisher2.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) [alternate list separator] - AuthorName. Title. Location1 and elsewhere: Publisher1 et al.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) [alternate list rendering] - AuthorName. Title. Publisher1; Publisher2. [no location]
- AuthorName. Title. Location1: Publisher1.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) (Published by consortium of publishers based in multiple locations.) [with external note]
- AuthorName. Title. Location1; Location2: Publisher1; Publisher2.
- 65.88.88.237 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely necessary perhaps not, but leaving one publisher out is not what I prefer to do. I think the options Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff/Utrecht: J.L. Beijers or Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff; Utrecht: J.L. Beijers make it clear. Even if I cannot use the template. Thanks anyway for thinking with me for a solution. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Roelof Hendrickx: I was curious what the MLA Handbook said; in general it doesn't require the city of publication for modern (post-1900) books and separates publishing houses with slashes which you could do with CS1 templates (
|publisher=Iberoamericana / Vervuert / Librería Sur). For pre-1900 books it recommends only listing the city of publication and not a publishing house; it doesn't explicitly mention how to cite copublished works when it's deemed important to cite cities of publication but you could I imagine just have either|location=Leiden / Utrechtor|publisher=A.W. Stijthoff / J.L. Beijersif you wished to go a more MLA style route -- and that you could do in CS1. - Again, I think I'd defer to Chicago style and just picking one publishing house myself though. Umimmak (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I go check it. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- You could leave out the locations entirely and just list the two publisher names separated by a comma or a semicolon –jacobolus (t) 02:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I go check it. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Roelof Hendrickx: I was curious what the MLA Handbook said; in general it doesn't require the city of publication for modern (post-1900) books and separates publishing houses with slashes which you could do with CS1 templates (
- Absolutely necessary perhaps not, but leaving one publisher out is not what I prefer to do. I think the options Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff/Utrecht: J.L. Beijers or Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff; Utrecht: J.L. Beijers make it clear. Even if I cannot use the template. Thanks anyway for thinking with me for a solution. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
PDF link in cite book failing
Could anyone please explain to me why the following citation [1] is failing to bring up the linked pdf. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alex-Kutt/publication/268151067_Northern_Freetail-bat_Chaerephon_jobensis/links/5473d3d10cf245eb436dba99/Northern-Freetail-bat-Chaerephon-jobensis.pdf also fails, whereas pasting the link into a browser works Jameel the Saluki (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Kutt, A. S.; Milne, D. J.; Richards, G. C. (2008). "Northern Freetail-bat Chaerephon jobensis" (PDF). In Van Dyck, S.; Strahan, R. (eds.). The Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland. pp. 485–486.
- It works for me (latest Firefox on a Windows 10 computer) by clicking on the link above, by clicking on the link through the cite book template and by pasting into a browser. Not sure why it's not working for you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- What I am getting when I click on the link is the page on ResearchGate "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268151067_Northern_Freetail-bat_Chaerephon_jobensis", which does allow the pdf to be downloaded by pressing a further button, whereas the link I am putting in the citation should bring up the pdf directly. I am using Chrome, but tried with Firefox as well (not the latest version). Am I expecting too much? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Because this problem is experienced outside of
{{cite book}}, this is not something that can be fixed here. I'm guessing that something in the information exchanged between your browser and the ResearchGate server when you attempt to link to the pdf source via a link on a Wikipedia page is telling ResearchGate to choose the landing page instead of the pdf. Nothing that we can do about that here. If you don't get a satisfactory explanation, you might try asking at WP:VPT. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll give that a go, thanks. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
|people= parenthetical roles
Prompted by Editor Izno's comment in this discussion, and these older discussions:
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 73 § CS1 maint: others
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 82 § "cite AV media notes" disallows "others="?
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 59 § Should we exclude Template:Cite AV media notes from CS1 maint: others category?
I hacked a couple of awb scripts to troll through {{cite av media}} and {{cite episode}} templates and extract the parenthetical 'role' so often included in |people=. The tabulated results are in my sandbox (permalink).
The roles are normalized to lowercase. Roles with 10 or more uses account for ~79% of the use. Of the 508 unique roles, 337 are single use. Here are the roles with ten or more uses:
| role | count |
|---|---|
| director | 1259 |
| producer | 210 |
| host | 138 |
| directors | 99 |
| presenter | 98 |
| interviewee | 95 |
| interviewer | 87 |
| writer | 75 |
| guest | 73 |
| narrator | 62 |
| actor | 46 |
| performer | 46 |
| writer/director | 46 |
| producers | 40 |
| reporter | 39 |
| writers | 33 |
| editor | 24 |
| dir. | 22 |
| executive producer | 21 |
| conductor | 19 |
| speaker | 19 |
| composer | 18 |
| guests | 15 |
| 1961 | 13 |
| director/co-writer | 13 |
| interviewees | 13 |
| subject | 13 |
| director, producer | 12 |
| artist | 11 |
| hosts | 11 |
| interview | 11 |
| narrators | 11 |
| author | 10 |
If we were to create a curated list of roles for {{cite av media}} and {{cite episode}}, it seems that that list should be taken from these most-commonly used roles. If we create a curated list, we can then deprecate |people=.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oh goddie! Whenever you limit the possible information that can be included in a citation template, it gives me an excuse to rewrite the citation as plain text. If there's enough of these problems in an article, I'd be justified in completely eliminating citation templates from the article. Oh by the way, movies and TV seem particularly prone to describing roles in strange ways. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
|people=is an equal alias of|authors=. We discourage the use of|authors=because it does not contribute to the citation's metadata so users who consume en.wiki citations via their metadata don't know who the 'people' are. This has been a long-ongoing issue that we should someday resolve. I have suggested more than once that we could create a curated list of roles for use in{{cite av media}}and{{cite episode}}so that editors who use those templates can use these parameters and the module would add the appropriate parenthetical annotation. Assembling the curated list is step one in that process.- —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Did you count only the first instance of a parenthetical appearing? Or all parentheticals?
- Did you look into what is happening with {{cite av media notes}}?
- Izno (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Everything in parentheses in
|people=except for parenthetical wikilink dabs – nested parentheses are not well handled but there aren't many of those ... I did not look at{{cite av media notes}}. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Everything in parentheses in
- This is not the right approach. If such roles are to be codified, the role choices should be either instrumental or auxiliary in discovering the cited work. It makes no sense to include random roles just because Wikipedia editors are using them in citations 10 times or 10000 times, when they do not help in verification. Agreed-upon international cataloguing and metadata standards list a variety of usable roles (usable in the sense that catalogued works include the role nomenclature and its related person/entity in the item's description). These roles are used by all kinds of participating information repositories (trade organizations, publishers, libraries, accessible online databases etc) to list their works. Using these same roles works can be easily discovered.
- It is also a good idea to keep
|people=regardless. There may always be unforeseen exceptions and special cases. Assuming roles are properly codified, accepted bibliographic items such as "director" could be part of a|people=exclusion list, i.e. CS1/2 defined roles should generate an error when input in|people=. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)- If it is unacceptable to use the roles that en.wiki editors have been using for however many years, and there is a standard list of roles, produce that list here.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- When it comes to technical matters, such as deciding which bibliographic elements to use in citations, and their nomenclature, nothing that en.wiki editors have been using in an ad hoc manner is acceptable.
- The evolving international standards, that basically all major knowledge purveyors are implementing or have agreed to implement:
- ISO: ISO 2709-2008. The overarching standard (paywalled)
- ISBD: "Statement of responsibility" pp. 91-92 (2011 Consolidated Standard). Role descriptions and roles
- ONIX: Codelist 59, List 17 (role codes). Eg "director" is D02. Most roles have accompanying description.
- UNIMARC: Data elements for printed music (see "Responsibilities"). Example for music records.
- Another UNIMARC example related to Title: Title-index structure (see "Subfields" for allowable sub-indices). Any subindexed fields can be used in queries.
- The above are interoperable, and e.g. ONIX (metadata) can be easily derived from ISBD, which has direct mappings with UNIMARC. Also, all this information can be easily discovered online. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Problem with "Issue" parameter and request for addition of a "Subtitle" parameter
The issue parameter does not render in the articles when used. For example, when I add |volume=3 |issue=2 to a cite book template in an entry, only the volume number appears on the page, but not the issue number.
I would also request for the addition of a subtitle parameter so the subtitles of certain book names can be added to the cite book template, because the lack of one presently makes it difficult to add the proper names of certain books that are part of multiple-volume series, such as for example "The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume III: Part 2: The Prehistory of the Balkans; the Middle East and the Aegean World, tenth to eighth Centuries B.C.," "The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume III: Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C.," and "The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume III: Part 3: The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C.," among other publications with similarly complex naming formats.
Can these please be addressed? Antiquistik (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Issue" is properly used in citations of serials and continuing resources. It is not normally used (or expected) elsewhere, including book citations. The request for a subtitle is not applicable in the cases you indicated. "The Cambridge Ancient History" is a curated series. Cite it as a collection, this way (print version example):
{{cite encyclopedia|title=The prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries BC|year=1982|editor1-last=Boardman|editor1-first=John|editor2-last=Edwards|editor2-first=I. E. S.|editor3-last=Hammond|editor3-first=N. G. L.|editor4-last=Solberger|editor4-first=E.|series=The Cambridge Ancient History|volume=3, Part 1|edition=2nd|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|name-list-style=amp|doi=10.1017/CHOL9780521224963.001|isbn=9780521224963}}
- Boardman, John; Edwards, I. E. S.; Hammond, N. G. L. & Solberger, E., eds. (1982). The prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries BC. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 3, Part 1 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521224963.001. ISBN 9780521224963.
- 65.88.88.69 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- As designed. Compare:
- {{cite book|title=The Universe|author=John Doe|volume=3|issue=2}} → John Doe. The Universe. Vol. 3.
- {{cite journal|title=The Universe|author=John Doe|volume=3|issue=2|journal=Cosmology}} → John Doe. "The Universe". Cosmology. 3 (2).
- Note that
|issue=is not rendered in the first one, as it's not a periodical. Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Volume URL
Is there a means to provide a URL for a multi-volume book and also a URL for a specific volume? E.g., for the citation
Koren Talmud Bavli, Noé Edition תלמוד בבלי. Vol. 3: Tractate Shabbat. Translated by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz. Koren Publishers Jerusalem.
how do I provide a URL for both Koren Talmud Bavli and Tractate Shabbat? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble understanding what a URL for a multi-volume book looks like vs. a URL for a single volume? Is there example URLs? Generally, the purpose of a citation is to allow readers to find and verify the work, so one might only link the specific volume, since it contains the fact being cited. -- GreenC 19:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, in this case https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1 has a description of the entire 42 volume Koren Talmud Bavli, Noé Edition collection, of which volumes 2 and 3 are Tractate Shabbath. Should I only give a URL for the specific volume?
Koren Talmud Bavli, Noé Edition תלמוד בבלי. Vol. 2: Tractate Shabbat Part 1. Translated by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz. Koren Publishers Jerusalem. ISBN 9789653016095.
Koren Talmud Bavli, Noé Edition תלמוד בבלי. Vol. 3: Tractate Shabbat Part 2. Translated by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz. Koren Publishers Jerusalem. ISBN 9789653016101.
- Should I give the URL for the collection and the ISBN for the specific volume? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- cs1|2 templates are designed to support one source per template, so, for citing something in these two volumes, two templates, one for each volume.
- I'm inclined to say that you shouldn't link to that site because it is really nothing more that a bookseller. I seem to recall that somewhere in the MOS there is an instruction to avoid links to pages that are merely book sellers; WP:LINKSTOAVOID #5?). Because externally linked
|title=is presumed to be free-to-read, which this url is not, perhaps|title-link=Talmud#Steinsaltzis a better choice. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- The page at https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1 is the publisher's description of the collection. Even if it is a poor example, it illustrates the general question, which still applies if I replace
|url=with|title-link=Talmud#Steinsaltzor|title-link=The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition#Koren Talmud Bavli.
- The page at https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1 is the publisher's description of the collection. Even if it is a poor example, it illustrates the general question, which still applies if I replace
- Should I give the URL for the collection and the ISBN for the specific volume? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Koren Talmud Bavli, Noé Edition תלמוד בבלי. Vol. 2: Tractate Shabbat Part 1. Translated by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz. Koren Publishers Jerusalem. ISBN 9789653016095.
Koren Talmud Bavli, Noé Edition תלמוד בבלי. Vol. 3: Tractate Shabbat Part 2. Translated by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz. Koren Publishers Jerusalem. ISBN 9789653016101.
- Should I specify
|volume=as an external link in cases like that? - A secondary issue is what parameter to use for volumes that the publisher doesn't number.
|volume=has the right semantics but adds the string Vol.; neither|series=nor|version=appear to have the correct semantics. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Should I specify
- Any unnumbered item that is: 1) normally expected to be numbered, or 2) may be numbered for clarity, may be so implemented by the citation writer. Use something like
|volume={{interp|n}}which renders|volume=Vol. [n]. One should signal the citation interpolation in code. Because, occasionally book editors may number parts of books that the author (or sometimes proofreader) may have left unnumbered. In these cases the published book will normally distinguish such later numbering in brackets. Enter those as they appear, without the {{interp}} template:|page=[n]. - Trappist is correct regarding the series URL. Readers should be directed to the specific volume cited. It is rather unusual for a whole series to be cited, and in such cases the volume URLs would not be needed. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Any unnumbered item that is: 1) normally expected to be numbered, or 2) may be numbered for clarity, may be so implemented by the citation writer. Use something like
Order of series, volume and language
Is there a reason that language is compiled between series and volume?
For example: Max Mustermann. Horses. Animals (in German). Vol. 3.
Wouldn't it be better to put it directly behind the title? (or behind the volume but a series could contain diffent language objects so maybe not the best solution)
LockaPicker (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree the statement of language should come after the most specific title being cited. For example, cite magazine currently formats like this[1] but really we want to say that the article being cited is in French, not the larger work/magazine (the larger work/magazine/series/... might be multilingual). Another reason is that it makes sense to put the "(in French)" soon after first the non-English text. —Micler (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Daniez, Clément (6 November 2022). "Entre l'Ukraine et la Russie, l'impitoyable guerre des drones" [Between Ukraine and Russia, the ruthless drone war]. L'Hebdo (in French). Paris: Groupe L'Express. Retrieved 15 November 2022.
CS1 maint categories should probably contain the note about excluded namespaces
CS1 error categories automatically contain a note that begins Pages in the Book talk, Category talk, Draft talk, File talk, Help talk, MediaWiki talk, Module talk, Portal talk, Talk, Template talk, User, User talk, and Wikipedia talk namespaces are not included in the tracking categories.
The good reasons for this are somewhere deep in the archives of this talk page.
It appears to me that CS1 maint categories also obey these namespace exclusions, but the explanatory note does not appear on CS1 maint category pages like Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list. I think that this note should appear on those pages.
As always, it is possible that I am misunderstanding or misremembering how these namespace exclusions work or are supposed to work. Corrections are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Something like this edit at Category:CS1 maint: url-status?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Perfect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Correct value for "via" when the deliverer is a publication too?
Looked through the archives and couldn't find a past discussion on this; apologies if I missed it.
In the following citation (most params removed for simplicity), to a Pahrump Valley Times piece republished in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which approach(es) is/are correct?
- "Nye County commissioner, facing charges, proclaims innocence". Pahrump Valley Times – via Las Vegas Review-Journal.
- "Nye County commissioner, facing charges, proclaims innocence". Pahrump Valley Times – via Las Vegas Review-Journal.
- "Nye County commissioner, facing charges, proclaims innocence". Pahrump Valley Times – via reviewjournal.com.
- Some other
|via=value. - No
|via=value.
I assume that the last is allowed, but personally I always like to note if the deliverer is someone other than the reader might expect; clicking on a link ostensibly to the Pahrump Valley Times, and winding up on review-journal.com, can make someone think they've misclicked or that there's an error in the citation, and implicitly acknowledges the possibility that the republishing newspaper may have made changes to the original content. So assuming that this is an acceptable case to use via (and if it isn't, the documentation should be clearer, since it's a pretty common use case IME), how should it be presented? My instinct is to use the second, but the one time I did so in an article, Citation bot removed the italics. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- When faced with that situation myself, I cite the publishing newspaper without any reference to the original paper, no via. Imzadi 1979 → 18:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- If you saw it in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, cite that as your source. Unless you do a lot of research, you don't know if they left out or modified part of the original article for some reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm but like, if they see it as worth noting that they're republishing from a different paper, surely this should be noted in some way? The alternative makes things rather confusing reliability-wise. Like, Yahoo! News republishing a paper of record is marginally less reliable than a direct citation to that paper of record, but definitely much more reliable than Yahoo! News republishing a random gossip blog. Doesn't seem very helpful to the reader to cite both of those just as "Yahoo! News". Could the
|agency=parameter be used here? It's essentially the same business arrangement, and seems just as relevant if not more to note. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)- This is tricky. First, the two news outlets are affiliates. Secondly it is not clear from the LVRJ article that this is a reprint/republication. The byline only identifies the reporter as being in the Pahrump Valley Times staff. Finally, Jonesey95's reservations are valid, as the Valley Times is published less frequently (bi-weekly) and the LVRJ article has been updated at least once. Taking into account all this, I would likely consider LVRJ as the (sole) source, unless you care to dig up additional info to the contrary. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- That's a good point for this specific case, but what about, say, this? That's an Evening Standard article that, for whatever reason, is available through Yahoo! Sport UK. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is a straight reprint. Use
|via=Yahoo! Sport UK, to let readers know that their browser won't land on the source's website. On the other hand, the original is available, so why not use that URL? 65.254.10.26 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is a straight reprint. Use
- That's a good point for this specific case, but what about, say, this? That's an Evening Standard article that, for whatever reason, is available through Yahoo! Sport UK. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is tricky. First, the two news outlets are affiliates. Secondly it is not clear from the LVRJ article that this is a reprint/republication. The byline only identifies the reporter as being in the Pahrump Valley Times staff. Finally, Jonesey95's reservations are valid, as the Valley Times is published less frequently (bi-weekly) and the LVRJ article has been updated at least once. Taking into account all this, I would likely consider LVRJ as the (sole) source, unless you care to dig up additional info to the contrary. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm but like, if they see it as worth noting that they're republishing from a different paper, surely this should be noted in some way? The alternative makes things rather confusing reliability-wise. Like, Yahoo! News republishing a paper of record is marginally less reliable than a direct citation to that paper of record, but definitely much more reliable than Yahoo! News republishing a random gossip blog. Doesn't seem very helpful to the reader to cite both of those just as "Yahoo! News". Could the
- If you saw it in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, cite that as your source. Unless you do a lot of research, you don't know if they left out or modified part of the original article for some reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Spurious display-authors error
- Puntoriero, G. (1998). "Towards a solution for hepatitis C virus hypervariability: mimotopes of the hypervariable region 1 can induce antibodies cross-reacting with a large number of viral variants". The EMBO Journal. 17 (13): 3521–3533. doi:10.1093/emboj/17.13.3521. PMC 1170689. PMID 9649423.
{{cite journal}}: Invalid|display-authors=1(help) {{Cite journal |last1=Puntoriero |first1=G. |display-authors=1 |date=1998 |title=Towards a solution for hepatitis C virus hypervariability: mimotopes of the hypervariable region 1 can induce antibodies cross-reacting with a large number of viral variants |journal=The EMBO Journal |volume=17 |issue=13 |pages=3521–3533 |doi=10.1093/emboj/17.13.3521 |pmid=9649423 |pmc=1170689 }}
When there's only one author specified, you get an "Invalid |display-authors=1" message. I feel this case should be converted to a silent maintenance message category. Thoughts? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- The last of the three provided solutions in the help link will correct this issue. And no, as I was the one who implemented the relevant change, this should remain an error. Izno (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Izno. The help text does a pretty good job of explaining the possible problems. The citation above contains confusing ambiguity, which is an error that should be fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Nested quotations in the quote parameter
The templates handle {{' "}} situations with the minor work parameters (|title= and |chapter=), but not with the |quote= parameter:
- Last, First (2022). "Titles Sometimes End with a 'Quote'".
She said, 'Some quotations also end with a quote.'
I see this quite often and have to manually fix it with <span style="padding-right:.15em;">'</span> (from {{' "}} ). Can this be fixed? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Fixed in sandbox:
| Wikitext | {{cite web
|
|---|---|
| Live | Last, First (2022). "Titles Sometimes End with a 'Quote'". 'Sometimes,' she said, 'quotations begin and/or end with a quote.' |
| Sandbox | Last, First (2022). "Titles Sometimes End with a 'Quote'". 'Sometimes,' she said, 'quotations begin and/or end with a quote.' |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Looks fine.
- Also, while we're on the topic of nested quotations—and this is a bit more ambitious: Would it be possible to automatically display single quotemarks instead of double quotemarks when they get nested:
- Last, First (2022). "There Are "Quotemarks" in This Title".
She told me that I need to "manually change double quotemarks to single quotes" every time I see them nested in citation templates.
- Last, First (2022). "There Are "Quotemarks" in This Title".
- Cheers – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Not a volume, so what?
Can I suggest that series-number is added to the list of accessible parameters for {{Cite book}}? On a number of occasions recently, I've come across a book which is part of a numbered series, but is described as a number, not a volume in that series (a situation often found with monographs, for instance). However, unless there's a workaround I'm not aware of, the volume parameter can't used here because it prefixes the number with "Vol." when displayed as a reference. So then, what to do? If one state the series name alone it can looks slightly odd, but ideally one doesn't want to omit that information altogether.
See here for an example of what I'm talking about.
(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC))
- In your example, this is not a numbered series, it is named ("Publications of the Association... etc."). The volumes are numbered. But even if the series was numbered (e.g. "2nd Series") semantically there would no difference between "volume 6", "number 6", or "volume number 6". These templates report the value as a volume ("Vol."), with the implicit understanding that other expressions are equivalent, even when they are disallowed for the sake of simplicity and efficiency. 23.246.74.210 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm slightly puzzled. The only example of a series given on the {{Cite book}} page is "History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series". This doesn't seem to me to be any different to "Publications of the Association...", which isn't regarded as being part of the title of the book in question on either the WorldCat or British Library website (indeed on the latter it is explicitly referred to as the series name). Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the book is the 6th in that series. It is of course correct that volume and series-number would then be semantically equivalent, but that wasn't the point I was making. For whatever reason, the publishers chose not to use the term "volume", therefore it would be preferable to have the capacity to reflect this (an alternative means of doing so would be to use the volume parameter in conjunction with a switch that could be used to suppress the "Vol." prefix).
(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC))
- Respectfully, I object. Will readers be confused by the presence of "Vol."? I don't think so. Suppressing the label would require additional logic in the module. The added routines would presumably be conditional, so this would require discussion on what exactly these conditions would be. But such conditions may introduce novel concepts to CS1/2, such as the concept of monograph. Then these concepts must be accommodated and justified within the system. This is enough to keep everybody here busy for months on end. The other option is to accept that this maybe a specialized case, and forms (templates) satisfy mostly generalized cases, as a rule. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Reference Tooltips and author-mask
The Reference Tooltips gadget displays a popup of the full reference when one mouses over a short reference (from {{harv}}, {{sfn}}, etc). When the full reference contains |author-mask=, typically used in the full reference list for subsequent works by the same author, it is displayed with dashes for the author name. That is easy to interpret in the context of the full reference list, but because the gadget presents the full reference in isolation, the gadget user does not get the author's name (though the short citation will have the surname).
This is the best the gadget can do at present, because the dashes are all there is in the rendering of the full reference. Might it be possible to include both, with varying display? Kanguole 18:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- If this is possible, I don't know if it is, I suspect that changes to both Module:Citation/CS1 and MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js will be required. Perhaps cs1|2 could render masked names and their masks in
<span>...</span>tags with appropriate class names where both the mask and the name are rendered in the html. Only the mask displays on the page and only the name displays in the tooltip:{{cite book |title=Title |author=EB Green |author-mask=2}}<cite id="CITEREFEB_Green" class="citation book cs1"><span class="mask">——</span><span class="masked">EB Green</span>. ''Title''.</cite>
- where:
.mask {}
- is empty (or non-existent) and where
.masked {display:none}
- hides the 'name'. Such a citation would render like this on the page:
- ——. Title. – mockup
- Presumably – I know squat about what .js can do – the gadget might then rename the classes in the html when it renders a tool tip so that the mask is hidden and the name is displayed:
- EB Green. Title. – mockup
- I would not be surprised to learn that there is a better way of doing this.
- Obviously, it will be necessary to get a buy-in from whomever it is who maintains mw:Reference Tooltips.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- The other thing that could be done that requires no change on our part on our wiki at least is to pull the information from the Coins. Izno (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought that at first but for the .js coder, would be more work, and for the cases where the name is an editor's name, the name is not available in the metadata because COinS doesn't support editor names. For contributor/author names, the first author name if written in the template using
|first=/|last=is put into&rft.aufirstand&rft.aulast. Subsequent enumerated|first=/|last=pairs are put into the metadata as&rft.au=Last, First;|author=also goes into the metadata as&rft.au=Author. The .js would have to assemble the first author name and maintain some sort of internal counting to get the other masked names from the metadata. So, I thought it would be simpler for the .js coder to simply rename themaskandmaskedclasses and be done. This (I think) is relatively easily done with a simple regex replace... - —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought that at first but for the .js coder, would be more work, and for the cases where the name is an editor's name, the name is not available in the metadata because COinS doesn't support editor names. For contributor/author names, the first author name if written in the template using
- The other thing that could be done that requires no change on our part on our wiki at least is to pull the information from the Coins. Izno (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- This has been requested before. Probably using html spans is a good starting point of discussion for the CS1 module edits; {{tooltip}} is based on this tag. Its use of the id tag is interesting, as there is a unique citeref id already available to short citations, and could be used to pull the masked name from the appropriate full citation. This could be doable since citerefs are hierarchical, ordered (per name) according to the second concatenated element, normally a date element. 64.18.11.71 (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
CS1 maint: ref duplicates default: wrong maintenance message?
In my current sandbox, I am trying to use the {{cite NDB}} template that calls {{citation}}. If I use
*{{cite NDB|20|502|504|Planta||last1=Deplazes-Haefliger|first1=Anna-Maria|last2=Brunold|first2=Ursus|121979652|mode=cs1|ref={{sfnref|Deplazes-Haefliger|Brunold|2001}}}} I get a "CS1 maint: ref duplicates default" maintenance message but {{sfn|Deplazes-Haefliger|Brunold|2001}} works correctly. If I remove the ref= bit, the {{sfn}} no longer works (although the maintenance message says that my handwritten ref is the same as the default). Apparently the maintenance message is wrong in this case? Or am I doing something else wrong? Or does the {{cite NDB}} template need to be changed? —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is being discussed at Template talk:NDB § "CS1 maint: ref duplicates default" warning.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Magazine with volume, number and issue
The magazine Commodore Microcomputers has a volume number, a number and an issue number (Vol. 5, No. 5, no. 32.) Currently this shows as an error, but the issue does have these numbers. Usually, the number and issue are the same, but not here. Not sure what to do. [from Cite magazine] Auric talk 14:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- The magazine numbered issues two ways: per volume (vol. 5, number 5) and serially, per issue (overall number 32). A confusing but not rare practice. It was a bi-monthly. I assume that one or more volumes had more than 6 issues (specials? double issues?), so the serial number is 32 rather than 29. In the contents page the listing uses 3 variants: "Volume 5, Number 5, Issue 32 November/December 1984". The date variant for the issue is also used on the front page. I would use the first scheme, as ordered: Volume 5, Number/Issue 5. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
i18n editor-name / editor-annotation separator
Editor حبيشان has (correctly) tweaked the sandbox. When the citation has an editor name list and a publication date but does not have an author name list, the separator used to separate the last editor name from the editor annotation is a hard-coded <comma><space> pair. After the tweak, the module uses the value specified by name_sep in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox (for en.wiki this is also a <comma><space> pair).
| Wikitext | {{cite book
|
|---|---|
| Live | Bob, ed. (2022). Title. |
| Sandbox | Bob, ed. (2022). Title. |
| Wikitext | {{cite book
|
|---|---|
| Live | Bob; Cat, eds. (2022). Title. |
| Sandbox | Bob; Cat, eds. (2022). Title. |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
S2CID limit reached
Per Category:CS1 errors: S2CID, I would like to raise the currently configured limit of 254000000 due to new publications going beyond that number. For example, [2]https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Taxonomic-study-of-the-genus-Cyprideis-JONES%2C-1857-Sousa-Ramos/070b5685c32091ba9625901a4115943b5ca94548 Aithus (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
citeseerx links are ALL dead
It seems that the 10.***** citeseerx links seems to no longer work. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like citeseerx changed something and broke ~17,000 articles using
|citeseerx=and ~930 articles using the base url that cs1|2 uses. No doubt, there are broken links at other-language wikis as well because many other-language wikis copy articles with their citations from us... - It will not be me, but someone should tell citeseerx that they have done a bad thing...
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- And if you do a "view source" on the new pages, the 10.* number is NOT there. "I felt a great disturbance in the Wiki, as if millions of Unique IDs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have submitted an e-mail through their Contact Us page, FWIW. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- API worked on 2022-10-12, but failed on 2022-10-17. Very recent. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: any word? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- No response. I even checked my spam folder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is certainly a fine-how-do-you-do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Compare these URLs and what they are and you will notice something https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/30e2498e8104724e200f1f0b507cad9cfb9ddca7 and https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc_view/pid/30e2498e8104724e200f1f0b507cad9cfb9ddca7 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95:: This to me seems to point to CiteSeerX being effectively useless. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- @AManWithNoPlan:: That's a great discovery about the IDs (SHA-1, actually) of Semantic Scholar matching. I found a solution to fix the links which could be automated (bot) as long as we know the DOI (or arxiv id, or PubMed ID) from the citation template.
- Fetch
https://api.semanticscholar.org/graph/v1/paper/{paper_id}(see API doc) - The response looks like this:
{"paperId": "eb8c5efb4e4b19eeda991e473fc163905c5d8d9a", "title": "Losing Sleep at the Market: The Daylight Saving Anomaly: Reply"}
- Extract that hexadecimal ID and put it in a CiteSeerX URL. So it becomes:
- https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc_view/pid/eb8c5efb4e4b19eeda991e473fc163905c5d8d9a — web page, or
- https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=eb8c5efb4e4b19eeda991e473fc163905c5d8d9a — direct PDF link. (
doi=does not actually take a DOI.)
- Fetch
- That's annoying of course. It doesn't make use of the (former?) CiteSeerX ID at all. Moreover, in the random example I chose (from Daylight saving time) the result is wrong! 10.1257/aer.90.4.1005 is actually the paper "Losing Sleep at the Market: The Daylight Saving Anomaly", but what SS returned was "Losing Sleep at the Market:The Daylight Saving Anomaly: Reply".
- One last note, which you may have already noticed. The hexadecimal ID is actually the SHA-1 sum of the PDF. Really. I can't think of this being useful to us, though, since we generally don't already have the exact PDF to take a checksum of to build the URL. Micler (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Compare these URLs and what they are and you will notice something https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/30e2498e8104724e200f1f0b507cad9cfb9ddca7 and https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc_view/pid/30e2498e8104724e200f1f0b507cad9cfb9ddca7 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is certainly a fine-how-do-you-do. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- No response. I even checked my spam folder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: any word? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- API worked on 2022-10-12, but failed on 2022-10-17. Very recent. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have submitted an e-mail through their Contact Us page, FWIW. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- And if you do a "view source" on the new pages, the 10.* number is NOT there. "I felt a great disturbance in the Wiki, as if millions of Unique IDs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened." AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- It certainly broke. All citeseerx hits on Google are broken. I've been checking to see if anyone on the internet had noted this (or if it was just me), and so far this post is the only notice I've found. Micler (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- These folks noticed, but they had only 25 links to fix, so they looked them up and edited them manually. That's not really possible here. I tried just now to send an e-mail to the person listed as the head of the project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Their internal search results are crap, so this is a hard task. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: Would that be Lee Giles who you emailed? I notice on their People -> Team page, if you hover over each person, it gives a sentence about what they do. It seems like breaking 18,000 citations on Wikipedia pages is pretty awful, and they should be told about it emphatically, so they can reconsider if this change was intentional. If you don't get a response, I'll be happy to start emailing each of them, making the case until we get a response. Micler (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- These folks noticed, but they had only 25 links to fix, so they looked them up and edited them manually. That's not really possible here. I tried just now to send an e-mail to the person listed as the head of the project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan: I found the jackpot, of sorts. A data dump that relates the old CiteSeerX ID to the SHA1. https://archive.org/download/citeseerx-csx_citegraph.2017-03-31/citeseerx_checksums.tsv.gz (expands to 624 MB) contains over 10 million entries of simply (SHA,ID). So if I have 10.1.1.676.1062, I can search the file and I find dc6437569a8a2ddd1c22ef623f8fdd6e74a1b535. Voilà, now I can access the new CiteSeerX website: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc_view/pid/dc6437569a8a2ddd1c22ef623f8fdd6e74a1b535 . (It takes a while to ctrl-f or grep through that many lines. Loading this file into a database would probably help.) A bot could totally do this to fix citations. Unforunately, the data only covers up to early 2017. Micler (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on what to do long-term? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose that a bot or awb task might mark the ~200 articles using the base url (not necessarily in cs1|2 templates) with
{{dead link}}. Perhaps IABot or some other might be able to find archives of the now broken urls. Something is happening with those because when this discussion started, there were ~930 articles using the base url. - For the ~17,000 articles with cs1|2 templates that use
|citeseerx=, if there is another identifier (|doi=and the like) or|url=has a value, a bot or awb task can remove|citeseerx=and its assigned value on the presumption that|citeseerx=is redundant. If no other identifiers an no|url=make a url and mark the template with{{dead link}}. - For the ~50 articles that use
{{cite citeseerx}}, we might mark that template as deprecated and at the same time tweak Module:Citation/CS1 to emit a deprecated-template error message. Or, instead of the error message, a bot or awb script might convert{{cite citeseerx}}to{{cite web}}and mark the new template with{{dead link}}so that IABot or some other might be able to find archives. - I don't know what to do about the ~45 articles that use
{{CiteSeerX}}. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say
|citeseerx=is redundant, likely it is an un-paywalled link whereas the DOI is not. - Short-term I think converting using the database to hashes will fix the links and long-term the hashes will probably be fairly stable, unless they break the indexing scheme again. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Long term, could we not display the 44-character value as the link item, but maybe _link_ or whatever. Also there are only a few Cite Citeseerx article usages left. RDBrown (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say
- I suppose that a bot or awb task might mark the ~200 articles using the base url (not necessarily in cs1|2 templates) with
Dates for published editions of manuscripts.
When citing a published version of a manuscript, is there any reason to not require the |date= in the {{cite book}}, etc., to be the date published, with the date of the original manuscript relegated to the |orig-date= parameter? In particular, if the published version includes a translation, isn't the date of the translation what is importanat in the citation? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- It all depends on what the editor read. If the editor read the published version of the manuscript, the date parameter should be set to the publication date of the published version, and the orig-date parameter could be used for the date of the manuscript. Whether the translation is more important than the original words depends on what the Wikipedia editor is writing about the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I assumed that the editor read the version that he cited, and that he would have cited the original manuscript had he read it. Of course, he might have read both, but then I would expect a citation of both, as appropriate. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- The term "manuscript" may mean several different things. Can you be more specific? Is this about historical manuscripts predating print? Is it an author manuscript that was eventually published? Are they originals? Fascimiles? Tranlations that are manuscripts themselves? Normally, citation templates are not a good fit for citing stand-alone, original manuscripts, and there may also be availability issues. Perhaps a free-form citation is better for what you have in mind. Generally, formal citations cite works that are published (i.e. made more or less publicly available) and as stated above, the publication date is what is needed. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- For context, I noticed a change to
and thought that the same considerations might be more relevant to more recent manuscripts, whatever the interpretation of the word in the help page. One example that comes to mind is the Babylonian Talmud, whose compilation continued into the 6th century CE.Dates earlier than 100 not supported. Wikipedia editors seldom read ancient manuscripts directly; the specific, modern, published edition read by the editor is what goes in the source citation. Thus, the date of the source actually consulted should be provided in
|date=, and the date of the ancient source may be provided in|orig-date=; the format of the orig-date value is not checked for errors. - I would expect a citation of, e.g., Ethics of the Fathers,[1] to cite the date of publication rather than c.190 - c.230 CE. A secondary question is what to do when the publisher lists the editor as the author; in this case the original was wrottrn by Hillel the Elder, but Koren lists Rabbi Dr. Marc D. Angel as the author, presumably because he added notes and similar content, and in Judaic circles it is understood that the original text is Hillel's.. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- For context, I noticed a change to
- The term "manuscript" may mean several different things. Can you be more specific? Is this about historical manuscripts predating print? Is it an author manuscript that was eventually published? Are they originals? Fascimiles? Tranlations that are manuscripts themselves? Normally, citation templates are not a good fit for citing stand-alone, original manuscripts, and there may also be availability issues. Perhaps a free-form citation is better for what you have in mind. Generally, formal citations cite works that are published (i.e. made more or less publicly available) and as stated above, the publication date is what is needed. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I assumed that the editor read the version that he cited, and that he would have cited the original manuscript had he read it. Of course, he might have read both, but then I would expect a citation of both, as appropriate. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rabbi Dr. Marc D. Angel (May 20, 2015) [c.190 - c.230 CE]. "1:14". The Koren Pirkei Avot [Ethics of the Fathers]. Koren Publishers Jerusalem. ISBN 9653017500.
- I would suggest that as a rule, it is better to think of citations as discovery aids (of sources), not as bibliographic records or exact representations of a source's provenance. The emphasis is on finding things, and citations should be structured to represent the way sources are classified by their providers, so readers of the citation can easily discover the source. Some ready examples:
- So first, it is not a manuscript that is cited, but a later published translation with commentaries and annotations. Obviously the creators of that work are the primary contributors and the ones a reader would look for. That doesn't mean that you should not add the original date and author somewhere (perhaps in
|orig-date=, perhaps in a note after the citation). The correct edition citation-wise seems to be|edition=1st Hebrew-English, even when the title identifies it as the "Neuwirth edition". This is mentioned in bibliographic "Notes", a field not normally indexed. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Cite book - separate introduction author
I am trying to cite the Introduction to the Oxford World's Classics version of The Varieties of Religious Experience. The author is William James, but the OWC version is edited by Matthew Bradley, who also wrote the introduction. I want my citation to look something like this:
Bradley, Matthew (2012). "Introduction". In James, William; Bradley, Matthew (ed.). The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. x
My problem is that if I list James as the author, then he is listed as the author of the introduction, which I do not want. But I also do not want to list him as an editor, because that is incorrect. And if I list them both as authors, it will cite them as joint authors, which is also wrong. At present I have:
{{cite book |editor-last=Bradley |editor-first=Matthew |author-first=James |author-last=William |title=The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature |date=2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |page=x |chapter=Introduction}}
But that's not quite right because it implies that James wrote the introduction, when it was written by Bradley. Is there any way to get what I want with the cite book template? WJ94 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe
|contributor=/|contribution=may help:
Matthew Bradley (2012). Introduction. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. By William, James. Bradley, Matthew (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. x.
-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)- Perfect, thank you! WJ94 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Add "admin" to generic names
Found at Earlimart pesticide poisoning * Pppery * it has begun... 00:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Error in CS1 on clean mediawiki install; Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 2561: attempt to call field 'hyphen_to_dash' (a nil value)
Hi, the current version of CS1 causes the following error on a clean mediawiki install:
Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 2561: attempt to call field 'hyphen_to_dash' (a nil value).
Reverting this edit fixes it locally: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ACitation%2FCS1&type=revision&diff=1017669505&oldid=1017041380
This is the line in question:
if not utilities.in_array (config.CitationClass, cfg.templates_not_using_page) then
Page = A['Page'];
Pages = utilities.hyphen_to_dash (A['Pages']);
At = A['At'];
Mvolz (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly this
clean mediawiki install
(which I understand to be an installation on a MediaWiki site that has never had the cs1|2 module) did not happen at en:Module:Citation/CS1 so where did it happen? - The diff you gave fixes an issue with
utilities.has_accept_as_written(). That function returns two values (a string and a boolean).return utilities.has_accept_as_written (str)will return both which, if both are not required or handled by the calling function cause confusion. For the avoidance of confusion, the fix shown in the diff assigns the string returned byutilities.has_accept_as_written()totemp_strand then returnstemp_str. - The Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 2561: attempt to call field 'hyphen_to_dash' (a nil value) error message suggests that wherever this
clean mediawiki install
is, it doesn't have the current version of Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities. Thehas_accept_as_written()function is at line 121. If yourclean mediawiki install
does not havehas_accept_as_written()in its Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities then the ~/Utilities module is the wrong version. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Please update broken mr= link address
{{MR}} has used urls of the form https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1470715 since October 2017, and these currently work. The citation templates, for the |mr= parameter, instead currently use urls of the form https://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1470715, and these currently give a 404 error. Can we fix the links to match {{MR}}, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Policy for wikilinking
What is the policy for adding internal wikilinks to the website= parameter for example? Should only the first reference from that website be linked? Or none or alle of them? PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the answer you'll get is that there isn't a policy. Some editors will only include a wikilink on a first reference, some will include it on every reference, and some will not include one at all. Imzadi 1979 → 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979 Ah, the reason I asked is that I wanted to write a bot that will link all of them automatically. If I'm going through Wikipedia as a whole, that means I'm creating a de facto policy. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I personally would oppose such a bot, and were it to edit on an article I've been maintaining, I'd revert such an edit. I think of the reference section similar to how I think about the rest of the article. I minimize the number of extra links in that section to push readers toward clicking the important links, which in that case are the external links to the specific sources. Extra links dilute the importance of the links that are there.
- I do see some merit in wikilinking publishers and publication names, so that's why I keep to just first mentions as a balance when I do include them. Imzadi 1979 → 17:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979 So what about a bot that would wikilink the first occurrence of every publisher used in the references of an article? That sounds like what you're doing right now. If you'd oppose that, why? PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still think a bot is a bad idea, even for that. Bots follow consensus, and yours would attempt to create it as a fait accompli. I'm sure it would be considered disruptive, either because some editors think that lots of wikilinks in references are better, or that no wikilinks in references are better. So there are two camps of editors that would be potentially upset if a bot came and made changes to articles on their watchlists.
- Now some sort of user script that could do the same thing may be helpful so editors can restore such a convention after a period of expansion or editing. Imzadi 1979 → 19:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979 So what about a bot that would wikilink the first occurrence of every publisher used in the references of an article? That sounds like what you're doing right now. If you'd oppose that, why? PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Such a bot would likely not achieve consensus. There are other thing you should spend your time on. Bots don't get to make their own consensus, they implement a user-created one. Izno (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno If there currently isn't a consensus, then such a bot would not go against a consensus as well right? PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Bots need to be approved before they're allowed to operate widely. That approval requires consensus for the desired activity. This isn't a case where you'd get to ask for forgiveness instead of permission. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- ^. Please read WP:BOTPOL. Izno (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Bots need to be approved before they're allowed to operate widely. That approval requires consensus for the desired activity. This isn't a case where you'd get to ask for forgiveness instead of permission. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Izno If there currently isn't a consensus, then such a bot would not go against a consensus as well right? PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Imzadi1979 Ah, the reason I asked is that I wanted to write a bot that will link all of them automatically. If I'm going through Wikipedia as a whole, that means I'm creating a de facto policy. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
