|
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 88
Possible invalid edits to live CS1 moduleI'm not sure why TadejM modified a live CS1 module with no discussion or apparent testing, but I believe that one or both of these edits were invalid and should be reverted. The "empty unknown parameter" message currently renders as "Cite has empty unknown parameter : |fake=", which is clearly wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
i18n date handlingAt Template talk:ISBN § is isbn restricted to english numerals there is a link to an article at the Kannada wikipedia (kn:ಚದುರಂಗದ ನಿಯಮಗಳು). At the bottom of that article there are a couple of Lua script errors. These errors occur because of —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Further to this, I have figured out how to get MediaWiki to supply non-English digits for wikis, like kn.wiki, that might write dates like —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original researchPlease see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Edit request
Please add hatnote {{for|the cleanup template|Template:Cleanup press release}} on the above template to distinguish between {{Cleanup press release}}, as noted in this RM. Thanks, The Night Watch (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Original publisherWhen a publisher purchases a work from another publisher and reprints it, should the citation show the original publisher? Does the answer depend on whether it is a reprint or a revision? Is it appropriate to use
Another generic titleHello, can you add "Detect browser settings" as a generic title. Currently, 27 instances. Keith D (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) cite AV media: Audio media - Explanation and Examples, pleaseIt would be helpful if more explanation and examples were provided on the Template:Cite AV media help page. It took a lot of trial, error, web searches, and time to use {{cite AV media}} to cite a song on the B-side of a vinyl singles album on the page Truck Drivin' Man (Lynyrd Skynyrd song). I searched for more information on using the template but did not find any. Questions I had included: (1) Should the composer and lyricist of the song be included, and if so, should their roles be placed in parentheses after their names? (2) Should the producer or others involved in creating the recording be named, and if so, should their roles be placed in parentheses after their names? (3) Should the fact that the song recording being referenced is a "single" be cited? (4) *How do I indicate the medium is a 7" vinyl record? (5a) If I were to cite a song from an album, how do I include the name of the album in the citation (and I'm assuming it should be included, right?)? (5b) And, how would I include the track number? *Type: Under Parameters-Description-Title, the "type" parameter explanation says, "Use one of the following as applicable: Motion picture, Television production, Videotape, DVD, Blu-ray, Trailer, CD, Radio broadcast, Podcast." Options for vinyl or cassette are not listed. (I discovered that using "Vinyl" worked). The first example of the parameters includes the parameter "people", then later in the article the parameter "others" as well as parameters including the term "author" are very briefly introduced. This is confusing and is related to the questions that I had. -Thank you.
Dogsgopher (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC) cite compareI've tweaked —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Hardcoded 2022Is this code correct: local name = lang_obj:formatDate('F', '2022-' .. i .. '-1'); -- get long month name for each i
long_t[name] = i; -- save it
name = lang_obj:formatDate('M', '2022-' .. i .. '-1'); -- get short month name for each i
short_t[name] = i;
Why is '2022' hardcoded in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration? --TadejM my talk 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks. --TadejM my talk 15:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Potential improvement: automatic style choiceOur citation templates are smart enough to know when an article has a {{use mdy dates}} or {{use dmy dates}} directive, and automatically fix up date formats to be consistent with that. They are also smart enough to know how to change between citation style 1 and citation style 2, using the
Calculated archive-dateGiven that there is code now (I think, as discussed above) to look for a mismatch in archive-date and the date based on the archive-url, it would seem that the next step is to allow for the archive-date to not be present *if* the archive-date is calculatable from the archive-url. What would be issues with that? Would it slow down the pages? Naraht (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
ISBN hypenation discussionInterested editors are invited to look at WT:ISBN#Hyphens in ISBNs. – S. Rich (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC) bibcode check needs update/exceptionCategory:CS1 errors: bibcode is populated exclusively by bibcodes related to Heliyon. For example
fails a test, but is nonetheless a valid bibcode. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Bump PMC limitPMCs like PMC 10100833 are perfectly valid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Help needed checking results of ReferenceExpanderUse of the ReferenceExpander bot without manually checking the results has led to problems affecting a potentially large number of articles. Help from people who like getting citations right is very much needed. XOR'easter (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Template:Citation Style documentation/url leaves a Script warningIn Tandy Warnow#Research and career, there is a citation that includes a viable archive-url, though the original url (this one, to seedmagazine.com) is now unfit / usurped due to being taken over by a website offering computer screen wallpaper. A previous editor has already followed the protocol, specifically defined at Template:Citation Style documentation/url, and set the url-status=unfit. Which, in edit preview, causes the following to appear:
Experimented a bit, found that url-status=usurped still produces the same Script warning. Also found that changing from "{{citation" to "{{cite journal" for the citation still produces a Script warning (albeit adjusted to "One or more {{cite journal}} templates..."). Also found that removing the url-status=unfit solved the Script warning issue - but it reactivated the citation's ridiculous link to the website offering computer screen wallpaper. When looking through the archives of this "Help talk:Citation Style 1" page, I found these:
Not really sure any of these explain why there should be a Script warning – of any type – when using url-status=unfit in the way explicitly defined by the documentation. Perhaps there is another discussion which explains it (lots of pages in Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive). I have no doubt there is a logical explanation why the proper use of url-status=unfit produces a Script warning implying that it is not being used properly. Perhaps this is not the correct way to use it? If so, I can adjust the citation entry once I know what has been entered incorrectly. Thanks, in advance, for the answers and guidance. Jmg38 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Season links in Template:Cite episodeThe template currently supports
|subject-first= and |subject-last=For who knows what reason, we do not have
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) abbreviated date rangeWe have a properties category. Category:CS1: abbreviated year range tracks articles with cs1|2 templates using Something, ve? citoid? renders many journal dates in YYYY-MM format (with a hyphen). That date format can be ambiguous so we test for abbreviated year greater than the unabbreviated year (in the same century), abbreviated year may not be farther into the future than next year. The live version of the module adds the properties category before the date is validated. That seems wrong to me so I have moved the property cat addition to after the validation; if the date isn't valid, no point in adding the article to the category. This example, adds the category:
you can tell that it did by the The sandbox for the same template does not:
Both correctly emit an error message because en.wiki does not support YYYY-MM date formats. Rewriting the sandbox template to use a 'valid' abbreviated date range does add the properties category:
Of course, there is the other question: do we need this category? Is anyone using it? I don't have the time right now to research the whys and wherefores of that category but may do so tomorrow. —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The Category:CS1: abbreviated year range whys-and-wherefores apparently rise from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 71 § Request for new maintenance category for abbreviated year ranges in the date= parameter. @Editor Matthiaspaul: are you using this category? —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Unsuppress orig-year when date/year unspecified?Hi! My content work often involves citing old secondary sources where there's only an estimated year of original completion (usually the Shiji), and online sources are not tied to a specific modern republication.
Another generic titleHello, can you add "Register | British Newspaper Archive" as a generic title. Currently, 26 instances. Keith D (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Author name suggestionHello! I admit this issue has come up rarely, but I thought it was worth flagging. Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, I've never made a suggestion like this before, and I probably rarely will in the future. I've had two instances in recent months in which I couldn't tell what part of an author's name was the last name. Before you all think I'm an idiot, allow me to explain (at which point feel free to think I'm an idiot). I'm aware of a few authors who use multi-word last names; sometimes, those names are hyphenated, but, sometimes, they aren't. So, when I see three names listed by an author, I have a moment of hesitation: Is this "Smith, John David" or "David Smith, John". (Is it "Ali, Safia Samee" or "Samee Ali, Safia"?) The manual of style 99% of legal writers use, the Bluebook, says to, on first reference, use a "longform" citation that states the authors name as one usually would: First Middle Last. Something like: "John David Smith and Jane Ellen Cary, Article Title, Journal (date)." Granted, on second references, you're supposed to use a short form citation with only the last name (Bluebook uses supra for footnotes), so the issue comes up. But it's occurred to me that, on Wikipedia, it doesn't have to. From what I've seen, most (not all) Wikipedia articles don't use shortform citations. They just use ref "names" in order to link to the original longform citation. So, why not just list author names in normal order rather than prioritizing last names? (Personally, I think prioritizing last names makes sense in a bibliography, that lists authors in alphabetical order and aligns with in-text citations that only refer to an author's last name ... but I don't see what the benefit is in an article that chiefly uses footnotes that aren't (generally) connected to an end-of-text bibliography.) So, I'd just like to ask if using the Bluebook's longorm approach to names would make sense?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Citations of manuals from online collections?I frequently cite IBM publications that are organized into bookshelves or other collections. I would like to include a link to the web page for the collection, but
References
Cite AV media and the use of |others=A comment above made me think of something I come across a lot, that is the maintenance message
Unintentional double spaces in rendered outputCS1/2 templates produce double spaces that are rendered (you can locate them in the rendered output by ctrl+f, depending on your browser, but they appear as single spaces, not wide). It happens in the following scenarios: every time an editor + author/contributor is defined, and every time etal is used. It does not depend on whether the code has spaces or not, the spaces are always there. See for example:
Surely this is unintentional? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Periodical title parameter in cite bookI just stumbled across this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Statistics. Apparently these statistics are based on the presence of This crude search finds about 2000 articles that have from Early modern period:
from Clovis culture:
The first example should be rewritten to either cite a single source (the book or the journal) or split into two citations. In the latter two examples, the rendered result is wrong: chapter titles should be quoted in an upright font and book titles should be italicized. It seems to me that we should prevent Opinions? —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
"Others" parameter in Cite episode?The documentation for {{Cite episode}} provides the following example, where "(host)" gets appended into
I think it might be good if there were a
Detect placeholder volume/issue/pagesIf
|location= without |publisher= (2)A while ago I started a discussion Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 83 § |location= without |publisher= which, like many discussions, wandered off into the weeds. That discussion was brought to mind when I recently encountered a handful of citoid-created cs1|2 templates ( I have hacked the module sandboxen to add a maintenance category when book citations:
encyclopedia citations:
other citation types:
Keep? Discard? Other? —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Side discussion about templates other than cite book or cite encyclopediaIn terms of books, the above makes sense. But I have often cited magazine and news websites in the form of
access-urlThe documentation for Issue number could be less ambiguousFor the periodical citation style, it's possible to specify issue number. This rather confused me today, as the issue number looked like a year of publication. I think it would be preferable to prepend 'issue' to disambiguate this; e.g. "(issue 1708)" rather than "(1708)". What do others think of this proposal? Seabass-labrax (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
ISSN parameter use and documentationFor the |issn= parameter, should the ISSN or ISSN-L be used? And whichever one should be used or is preferred, it should be reflected in the template documentation. Obviously not making a hard and fast rule against using one or the other, but more of a 'should' or 'when possible' thing. OfTheUsername (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 2 May 2023
Please make this module be accessable from other modules without need for use of
websiteThe current description of the parameter website = is: Title of website (when the website has a clear name, use that rather than the domain name)... Can we strengthen this to say something like: Title of website (Use the domain name only when there is no clear title)... I ask this because I see many instances where they value of the parameter is the URL of the website, even when there is an obvious name. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Unexpected CS1 maint from cite thesis location=The citation
Trial registrationSeems we should add support for trial registration for those articles with registration. Adding a parameter for trial registrations would be easier on authors than asking them to add a second template such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ClinicalTrialsGov Badgettrg (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Mystery errorHi, Jan and Herb Conn has a strange error reported by this template: "
Wikidata IDIt wound be nice to be able to tie a citation of a work to its Wikidata ID. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Looking for tools to fix harv, sfn, and bibliography citationsHi, this may be an odd place to ask this question but I feel like the people who watch this page are likely to have the answer. I recently did a large update to the Piri Reis map article which previously cited Atlantis books as sources. I now need to check which sources in the Bibliography are no longer used. Is there a tool to check a bibliography for unused sources? And also is there a tool to check for shortened footnotes pointed at nonexistent sources? I feel certain that I have seen other editor use something like that before, but I don't know where to look. Thanks in advance, Rjjiii (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
multiple names in |first=I have tweaked the module sandbox to detect commas and semicolons in I know of no reason why commas should be allowed in This search finds 2500+ articles where Examples:
This test also applies to the other name lists ( —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
what to do with |
Some data
|
|---|
Of the ~6900 articles that use {{cite document}}:
|
Since editors objected to showing the error messages while {{cite document}} exists as a redirect to {{cite journal}}, we must create a real {{cite document}} template. Before we do that, we should attend to the instances of the redirect that exist in article space. The obvious first steps (to me) are:
- create a placeholder template
{{cite document temp}}or some such that is a real cs1 template that renders like a periodical template (value from|title=is rendered upright quoted); requires|publisher=; does not support|url=(if a url is available use{{cite web}}or other appropriate template); perhaps the template accepts a subset of the usual cs1 parameters (we might start with the limited lists used by the preprint templates ({{cite arxiv}}etc) augmented by certain identifier and other appropriate parameters) - convert the 600ish templates with periodical parameters to the appropriate periodical template or to
{{cite document temp}} - convert the templates that use identifier parameters to an appropriate template or to
{{cite document temp}} - convert the templates that use
|url=to{{cite web}}or other appropriate template (not to{{cite document temp}})
That being done, the only remaining {{cite document}} templates should be those without |url=, identifier parameters, or periodical parameters. We can then replace the innards of {{cite document}} with the innards from {{cite document temp}} (which temporarily becomes a redirect to {{cite document}}). Once all instances of {{cite document temp}} in article space have been replaced with {{cite document}}, {{cite document temp}} will be deleted.
Will this work? I'm sure that there are things that I have not considered. What are those things? And, I guess finally, should we bother? Or, are we content to repeat the discussions listed at the top of this post ad nauseum?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Cite document/paper should just be it's own thing. No different than a cite journal/magazine, but without the requirement that a 'work' parameter needs to be set. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- My feeling is that {{cite document}} should be a generic template for citing anything, depending on what parameters are given to it, exactly the same as for {{citation}} but Citation Style 1 instead of Citation Style 2. It should not assume that the document is of some specific subtype. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Cite document/paper should just be it's own thing.
Yep, that is what I'm suggesting. By[its] own thing
I mean that it should fill the gap between something that can be cited using{{cite web}}(requires a url) and a periodical (requires a work parameter) or a book or an encyclopedia... The purpose of the new{{cite document}}template is to cite published stand-alone sources that are not available through a url and are not published as part of a larger work (periodical, book, encyclopedia, proceedings, etc). These stand-alone sources may be available online via a persistent identifier (|doi=in particular) so the new{{cite document}}must support a subset of our identifier list.- I cannot support the idea of the new
{{cite document}}being a{{citation}}-like template. cs1 templates are specific to things: books, magazines, theses, conferences, signs, etc. All of these templates are named accordingly; a{{citation}}-like{{cite document}}would violate that convention. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- There is no necessary reason for cs1 templates to be specific to things. It is merely unnecessary work for people who edit references, and very frequently incorrectly classified. It is entirely possible now to write in cs1 using unspecific templates (citation with mode=cs1) and making cite document do the same thing would ease that. The difficulty with defining what kind of specific thing cite document should be should be a sign to you that it is not actually significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is no necessary
reason for cs1 templates to be specific to things
but, interestingly enough, they are specific to 'things':{{cite book}}for books,{{cite arxiv}}for ArXiv preprints,{{cite journal}}for scholarly and academic journals,{{cite AV media}}for audio and visual works,{{cite conference}}for conference proceedings,{{cite sign}}for signs, plaques, gravestones, and other non-video visuals, etc. So,{{cite document}}is created for published standalone papers and other documents that are not published in a book or a periodical or an encyclopedia or online (as written the proposed template is a bit gray on that last point because it will accept certain named identifiers: doi, etc). It is entirely possible now to write in cs1 using unspecific templates (citation with mode=cs1)
Well, sort of. What you get is a rendering suitable for books but not correct for a standalone document:{{citation |mode=cs1 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |type=Document}}- Title (Document). Publisher.
- cf
{{cite document/new}}:{{cite document/new |title=Title |publisher=Publisher}}- "Title" (Document). Publisher.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- In what sense is it "correct for a standalone document" to use the article-within-larger-work double-quoted-upright style for its title rather than the unquoted-italic style that we use for other standalone documents, like books? These are made-up conventions with no justification for such dogmatism. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:MINORWORK. I did not make that up. My experience with existing
{{cite document}}templates, when another template would have been the better choice, is that the cited source is short. There have been the rare occasions where{{cite document}}has been used to cite an entire book, of course such a source is better served with{{cite book}}. From that experience, and the lack of complaints that the current{{cite document}}isn't rendering the title in italic font suggested to me that the MOS:MINORWORK style is appropriate. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:MINORWORK. I did not make that up. My experience with existing
- In what sense is it "correct for a standalone document" to use the article-within-larger-work double-quoted-upright style for its title rather than the unquoted-italic style that we use for other standalone documents, like books? These are made-up conventions with no justification for such dogmatism. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is no necessary
- There is no necessary reason for cs1 templates to be specific to things. It is merely unnecessary work for people who edit references, and very frequently incorrectly classified. It is entirely possible now to write in cs1 using unspecific templates (citation with mode=cs1) and making cite document do the same thing would ease that. The difficulty with defining what kind of specific thing cite document should be should be a sign to you that it is not actually significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Trappist the monk: I like your proposal, but suggest using
{{cite document new}}instead of{{cite document temp}}, and suggest we could agree on an edit summary that would explain why we're changing from{{cite document}}to{{cite document new}}. Would there be a benefit in seeing if Citation bot could convert some of the existing{{cite document}}templates with|url=to{{cite document new}}with the appropriate identifier instead of a URL? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC) - @Trappist the monk ...or convert them to
{{cite journal}}with the appropriate parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)- Yeah, but... cs1|2 uses, for example,
{{cite book/new}}for rendering a reference using the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox suite. I think that{{cite document new}}is too close to that. We could use{{cite document in transition}}or some such. - If Citation bot can correctly change an existing
{{cite document}}to another cs1 template, great. I emphasized correctly because I know that I've had to think about how best to convert{{cite document}}to some other template and it often requires adding to the chosen template. A common edit summary is a good idea. - And, you really don't need to ping me here...
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, but... cs1|2 uses, for example,
- Here are examples of the first hack to make
{{cite document}}a real cs1 template:{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |title=Title |publisher=Publisher}}- EB Green. "Title" (Document). Publisher.
{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |title=Title |website=Website |url=//example.com |access-date=2023-05-28}}– should be{{cite web}}{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |chapter=Chapter |title=Title |location=Location |publisher=Publisher |isbn=123456789X}}– should be{{cite book}}- EB Green. "Chapter". "Title" (Document). Location: Publisher. ISBN 123456789X.
{{cite document}}: Unknown parameter|chapter=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|isbn=ignored (help)
- EB Green. "Chapter". "Title" (Document). Location: Publisher. ISBN 123456789X.
{{cite document/new |author=EB Green |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi=10.1234/sommat}}– should be{{cite journal}}- EB Green. "Title". Journal (Document). doi:10.1234/sommat.
{{cite document}}: Cite document requires|publisher=(help); Unknown parameter|journal=ignored (help)
- EB Green. "Title". Journal (Document). doi:10.1234/sommat.
{{cite document}}emits 'book'-type metadata format (the default for those references that don't have a specifically defined metadata format):{{cite document/new |title=Title |author=EB Green |publisher=Publisher}}'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-000000F3-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFEB_Green" class="citation document cs1">EB Green. "Title" (Document). Publisher.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Title&rft.pub=Publisher&rft.au=EB+Green&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+88" class="Z3988"></span>
- The template accepts parameters from these parameter lists in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox:
- Because this will be the only cs1 template that requires
|publisher=there is a new error message and category: Category:CS1 errors: missing publisher - Comments invited.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if identifiers actually should be supported, as we can transform an identifier into a URL trivially, thus making it possible to use {{cite web}}. Izno (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- You both seem determined to make this template as useless as possible for those catch-all cases that don't fit into any of the other cite X templates. I don't understand why, but as long as you keep doing this I'm going to keep using {{citation}}. If you get started on making that one equally useless, I may have to fall back to manually-formatted html templates and an exclusion from all citation bot edits. These templates should be for the purpose of making it easy to get consistently-formatted citations, not for the purpose of fitting citations into some crazy Procrustean bed that exists in your imaginations of what an ideal citation must be. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Then for a generic print source template, why not just make a {{cite text}} template that wraps {{citation}} with the "mode" parameter preset? Rjjiii (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- You both seem determined to make this template as useless as possible for those catch-all cases that don't fit into any of the other cite X templates. I don't understand why, but as long as you keep doing this I'm going to keep using {{citation}}. If you get started on making that one equally useless, I may have to fall back to manually-formatted html templates and an exclusion from all citation bot edits. These templates should be for the purpose of making it easy to get consistently-formatted citations, not for the purpose of fitting citations into some crazy Procrustean bed that exists in your imaginations of what an ideal citation must be. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if identifiers actually should be supported, as we can transform an identifier into a URL trivially, thus making it possible to use {{cite web}}. Izno (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Basic error checking for name fields?
There's a pretty big ongoing cleanup effort related to script assisted reference filling. There's an active AN thread and a related MfD. The takeaway is that script-assisted referencing has been producing a lot of garbage citations that users fail to double check, and there's pieces of the problem scattered in user scripts, in Citoid, and possibly all the way up to Zotero, although their processing of DOIs, PMIDs, etc is extremely reliable.
I know that the citation templates do some basic error checking. For example, they hate it when I try to cite a work written in the BCE era, telling me to check the values in my date= field. Can some of this error checking be extended to the name fields? (By which I mean last, editorn-first, etc). Like, the reference filling tools will put stupid stuff there like addresses, phone numbers, "a ranger may not answer if they are already speaking with someone else" (see linked discussions for more examples).
How difficult would it be to have the template throw an error if a name field contains, say, more than five whitespace characters (which should handle most corporate authors)? Or more than zero digits? It seems big improvements need to be made to a lot of code libraries, but warning users when parameters contain information they very obviously shouldn't seems like a reasonable first step towards reducing citation damage. Folly Mox (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Names are difficult. cs1|2 does have these categories that are related to the name lists:
- Category:CS1 errors: generic name (30,637)
- Category:CS1 errors: missing name (111)
- Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (0)
- Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (73,765)
- Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: contributors list (0)
- Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (163)
- Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: interviewers list (0)
- Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: translators list (0)
- Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (56,035)
- Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: contributors list (0)
- Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (35)
- Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: interviewers list (0)
- Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: translators list (0)
- Category:CS1 maint: others (12,600)
- Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (20,100)
- We could promote some or all of the maintenance categories to errors (at the risk of torches and pitchforks)...
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I just spot-checked about twenty articles from Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list and all seemed to be unambiguously erroneous (with the exception of the author listed by their twitter handle, a series of ✖️s, which I could make no sense of). Most of the articles in that category seem to be in the
Draft:namespace as well.Maybe determining whether something is a complete sentence versus a concatenation of several names is difficult in the general case, but is there any way to separate out when this pattern shows up inauthor=andauthors=(where it could be a list) and fields likefirst3=, where it is more likely an error? Folly Mox (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- I think that if you look closer at Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list that you will find that most of the articles listed in that category are not in the
Draft:namespace. Looks to me like someone has been slowly picking away at that category and has got as far as 'T'. - At the next update to the module suite, there will be support for multiple name detection in the various
firstparameters. See Help talk:Citation Style 1 § multiple names in |first=. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I stand corrected: most of the articles are in namespace 1. Spot-checking another sixteen or twenty, I found without exception every numeric author to be a genuine error, and in that sample each article had the date or part thereof duplicated in an author field. I think this category is safe to elevate from maintenance status to error status. Folly Mox (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that if you look closer at Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list that you will find that most of the articles listed in that category are not in the
- @Trappist the monk: I'd support changing Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list to an error, and asking Qwerfjkl to have their bot send out notifications for the errors. Of course, fixing the tool(s) that are creating the bad data in the first place would be great! GoingBatty (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I just spot-checked about twenty articles from Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list and all seemed to be unambiguously erroneous (with the exception of the author listed by their twitter handle, a series of ✖️s, which I could make no sense of). Most of the articles in that category seem to be in the
Archiving hundreds of healthy (live) sources
Is there any need for this type of edit? Shouldn't we just archive dead or unfit sources? Unlike the former, this edit actually makes sense because it did rescue sources. SLBedit (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- My thought was that the archiving process isn't automatic, so pre-empting the links becoming dead means there is always a viable link in the article. But this might be a question better suited to WT:Link rot -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is the wrong venue for asking about an approved bot performing link-rot prevention. See Wikipedia:Link rot and User:InternetArchiveBot for an explanation of why this is being done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on connecting reference properties to CS1 in the Wikidata template
You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Wd § References mapping. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect language display for ISO 639 code
The ISO 639 code fkv (Kven language) displays as "in Kvensk" rather than the expected English-language text "in Kven". For reference "kvensk" is the Norwegian term for the language. I'm not familiar with where this data is collected from, so I have no clue how to fix this. I'd appreciate some help with this issue. ArcticSeeress (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @ArcticSeeress: Using the MediaWiki feature
{{#language:}}at mw:Help:Magic words#Miscellaneous,{{#language:fkv|en}}produces Kvensk which says "Kvensk" when I write this. fkv says "Kvensk" in all languages I have tried, also in other scripts. For example,{{#language:fkv|ar}}gives Kvensk. For comparison with a translated language name,{{#language:fr|en}}gives French while{{#language:fr|ar}}gives الفرنسية. I don't think we should try to make overrides of{{#language:}}here at the English Wikipedia so it would have to be fixed at Phabricator or maybe the CLDR database. I found an old 2016 request at phab:T151269 which asked for English names for some languages including fkv: "Kven". But the alleged fix gerrit:424556 (click "LocalNames/LocalNamesEn.php") says'fkv' => 'Kvensk'. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) - At the cldr ticket linked from phab:T151269 is this:
there is no intent for CLDR to have the English names of all languages ... and point to http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry as a source for any extra ones that people need
. Module:Lang uses data from the IANA registry so:{{lang|fn=name_from_tag|fkv}}→ Kven ('Kven Finnish' is overridden to 'Kven' in Module:Lang/data)
- We can, and have in the past, overridden the MediaWiki language names in cs1|2 and can probably do that for this language. The preferred name for
fkvis 'Kven'? - —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the English-language name for fkv is Kven. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed in the sandbox:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=fkv}}- Title (in Kven).
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=kven}}- Title (in Kven).
{{cite book/new |title=Title |language=Kvensk}}- Title (in Kven).
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Check |oclc= value
The use of https://worldcat.org/title/1127958624 raises an error:
- Lewis, Sophie (2019). Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family. Verso Books. ISBN 978-1-78663-731-4. OCLC 1127958624.
{{cite book}}: Check|oclc=value (help)
Why? How to fix it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Michael Bednarek: There's an invisible right-to-left mark (\u200f) at the end of the example you gave, which the module is seeing and getting confused by. Removing that should fix it. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Double quotes in titles and quotes
(continuing conversation from Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 87#Double quotes in titles and quotes)
@Jonesey95: It's not too hard to write code that does what a human editor would do in the vast majority of cases. (I already have code that checks for balanced quote marks for spell-check purposes.) For example, both Song Review: 'They Call Me "Buddy" and I Like It' and Song Review: "They Call Me 'Buddy' and I Like It" should display as "Song Review: 'They Call Me "Buddy" and I Like It'". The algorithm would have to ignore apostrophes inside of words (so words like Don't and J'Accuse don't break it) and before flipping " and ' all the way down make sure that the quote marks are balanced and nested cleanly and don't do weird things like "-inside-". (Otherwise it could display an error and make no changes.)
A more manual solution would be to detect outer double quotes and show a warning on preview. That would probably cut down a lot on people introducing these errors and encourage them to be fixed slowly over time, especially if these landed in a hidden tracking category.
Since there hasn't been any activity in several months, I'll start writing code to slow repair the wikitext based on my best guess of affected templates. -- Beland (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I already have code that checks for balanced quote marks for spell-check purposes.
Share it?- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- For outer double quotes, all I do is substitute the regex /"\S[^"]{0,1000}?\S"|"\S"|""/ to the empty string. If the remainder contains a double quote mark, there is an imbalance. I could whip up some Python to handle more layers if that would be helpful; it looks like there are hundreds of thousands of instances where outer double quotes are used, and I'm not looking forward to trawling through that. -- Beland (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- The proposed automatic code would also have to account for apostrophes outside of words, like "Review of 'In My Parents' House', now in theaters". – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- It might be difficult to do that reliably; I think it would be fine to in those cases ask for manual review. Unless that happens an awful lot, in which case, yeah, we could code in some intelligence regarding English plural possessives. -- Beland (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- You mean they should both display as
"Song Review: 'They Call Me "Buddy" and I Like It'"? — Qwerfjkltalk 14:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)- Whoops, yes, fixed. -- Beland (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Edge cases, off the top of my head:
cruisin' for a bruisin'
,down 'n dirty
,rock 'n roll
(which can also berock 'n' roll
orrock n' roll
),git'r'dun
,kickin' ass 'n takin' names
. jp×g 09:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Another generic title
Hello, can you add "Archived" as a generic title. Currently, around 61 instances. Keith D (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Another generic title is "Error" currently 475 instances. Keith D (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Genre parameter for reviews and press releases
I'm wondering about the best parameter to use for genre of a work. I realize the genre is not usually necessary to be included, but I find it helpful specifically in the cases of reviews and press releases. In the past, I have sometimes used the |format= parameter, and I have recently sometimes used the |department= parameter. Neither of these seems correct. Is it best just to put the genre in brackets at the end of the |title= parameter? I am interested in following best practices. Daask (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Why do you need to put the 'genre' in the first place? What is 'genre' anyway? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
{{cite press release}}exists. It presets|type=. To cite a review you can|type=Review. Do not add stuff that is not part of the source's title to|title=. Do not use|format=for anything other than the source's electronic file format: |format=PDF ok; |format=Review not ok.- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I had forgotten about Help:Citation Style 1#Type and somehow missed it when I went looking today. Thanks again! Daask (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
deprecated parameters
This to note that sometime within the past 24 hours, Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters went empty for the first time since 2021-01-03. It wasn't me who did that. There were some objection to the deprecation of |lay-date=, |lay-format=, |lay-source= and |lay-url=, especially from WP:MED, so I stopped cleaning that category. Still, slowly over time, other editors have removed articles from the category. I intend to wait a while to see what happens, but I anticipate that the category will remain empty. If it does remain empty until say, this time next month, I'll remove support for the |lay-*= parameters.
Since it was deprecated, I have not seen |transcripturl= appear in Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters so I have removed support for that alias of |transcript-url= from the sandboxen.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- The category has remained empty so I have removed support for
|lay-date=,|lay-format=,|lay-source=and|lay-url=from the sandboxen. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was going to add a transcipt url to a citation today but it was missing. Can it be undeprecated and brought back? I think it would be more useful than most things if a transcript was available. I don't know coding so I could be all wrong about what I'm talking about, but I thought it was important to say something somewhere on the talk page. Let me know. Kire1975 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
|transcripturl=is deprecated;|transcript-url=is not.- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was going to add a transcipt url to a citation today but it was missing. Can it be undeprecated and brought back? I think it would be more useful than most things if a transcript was available. I don't know coding so I could be all wrong about what I'm talking about, but I thought it was important to say something somewhere on the talk page. Let me know. Kire1975 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
ProQuest (or similar) as merely an alternative
I don't have a subscription to the NYT; thanks to the Wikipedia Library, I can read the NYT via ProQuest. Therefore in this edit, I changed | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/arts/jill-freedman-dead.html | to | url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/2302935851 | via=ProQuest |Readers with access to ProQuest but not otherwise to the NYT (and surely there are many such readers) will thank me.
Readers with access to the NYT but not to ProQuest (and surely there are many of these too) will not thank me.
Various other approaches come to mind. I could have left the reference untouched, and let readers figure out for themselves that this article is somewhere at ProQuest. Or I could have left just the content of the "cite news" template untouched but added immediately after it (and within the reference) "Also available at ProQuest 2302935851.", or similar. However, I suspect that this matter has already been exhaustively discussed somewhere. Perhaps somebody could point me to such a page (or of course make a suggestion here). -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would suggest leaving the reference as it was, as the reference was for the NYT. Simply add "Also available via [https://www.proquest.com/docview/2302935851 proquest]" after the cite, but before the ending ref tag, or use {{proquest}} in the |id= field (as |id={{proquest|2302935851}}). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- "id=": Yes, that does it. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Can you add "remap" support for Urum language [uum]
There are citations referencing the Urum language [ISO 639-3: uum], but they don't work either as the name or the code. Is it possible to add entries for it in the language "remapping" tables (to make it work for the time that MediaWiki still does not offer any localization support for it)? That language is not dead, it originates from Crimea (from Pontic/Greek orthodox Christians that lived there all around the Black Sea before islamisation of the Ottoman Empire, written there in Cyrillic, also traditionally in Greek) and remains used in Turkey, southern Ukraine (Donetsk/Azov region), Russia and parts of Georgia. verdy_p (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- The purpose of the remapping is to override MediaWiki language tag definitions so that the rendered language names are in line with en.wiki expectations.
but they don't work either as the name or the code.
I dispute that:- A couple of quick cirrus searches did not find any cs1|2 templates using
|language=uumor|language=Urum: - —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- The above shows
CS1 maint: unrecognized language
. Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)- Of course, because cs1|2 can't tell the difference between an unknown language name and a misspelled language name:
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- The above shows
Multiple OCLCs in one reference
Probably sounds daft. But what if you want to use {{Cite book}} to refence a range of books, with multiple volumes; for example 2 volumes, 1936–1937. But each volume would have its own identifier (there being no overarcing ID for the series as a set). See whaty I mean? Thanmks for any help! SN54129 14:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- When I've had this come up I've just referenced each volume separately, with its own template. Does that work in your use case? Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers Mackensen :) I had a nasty feeling someone would say that! Thanks for confirming though, at least I won't have to waste time experimenting. Have a good weekend! SN54129 16:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
create a |department= alias |title-note=?
I have now been part of two recent discussions that question the correctness of |department= when used to do other than name the department of a (typically periodical) publication (Sports, Op Ed, Entertainment, etc). In both discussions, the intent was to include some sort of descriptive text that doesn't fit the 'department' mold. In the days of {{citation/core}}, |department= was assigned to the {{citation/core}} metaparameter |TitleNote=; the Module:Citation/CS1 metaparameter TitleNote continues to do that. I had thought that there was a similarly named parameter |titlenote=, |title_note=, |title-note= but apparently not. I wonder if we should create an alias that matches the metaparameter |title-note=. Of course, |type= can also be used; the differences between these two parameters are positioning and that the value assigned to |type= is wrapped in parentheses:
{{cite web |title=Title |website=Website |url=//example.com |department=TitleNote}}- "Title". TitleNote. Website.
{{cite web |title=Title |website=Website |url=//example.com |type=Type}}- "Title". Website (Type).
Neither of |type= and |department= contribute to a citation's metadata
So, should we create an alias |title-note=?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- There having been no comment: added.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Cite report issue parameter not displaying
{{Cite report}} used below does not appear to support displaying the issue number if no volume is supplied. I am not sure if 1/08 in the source below means volume 1, issue 08, so I had skipped adding the volume parameter. Any suggestions or insights on how to correctly fix the citation?
{{Cite report |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |issue=Report No. 1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |website=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}
Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 (PDF). Conservation Gateway (Report). TNC Coral Triangle Program. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Retrieved May 28, 2023. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're right,
{{cite report}}does not support|issue=because reports are not periodicals. If your source is publisher periodically, as it appears to be since the publisher has attached a 'number' to it, you might rewrite like this:{{Cite periodical |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |issue=1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |periodical=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}- Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). "Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0" (PDF). Conservation Gateway. TNC Coral Triangle Program. No. 1/08. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Retrieved May 28, 2023.
- Or, keep it as
{{cite report}}and put the report number in|id=:{{Cite report |last1=Green |first1=Alison L. |last2=Mous |first2=Peter J. |title=Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 |series=TNC Coral Triangle Program |id=Report No. 1/08 |url=https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/Green%20and%20Mous%202008%20CT%20Delineation%20v5%200.pdf |website=Conservation Gateway |publisher=[[The Nature Conservancy]] |access-date=May 28, 2023 |pages=vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7 |date=September 2008}}- Green, Alison L.; Mous, Peter J. (September 2008). Delineating the Coral Triangle, its Ecoregions and Functional Seascapes: Version 5.0 (PDF). Conservation Gateway (Report). TNC Coral Triangle Program. The Nature Conservancy. pp. vii–viii, 1, 4, 6–7. Report No. 1/08. Retrieved May 28, 2023.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's a bit confusing because {{Cite techreport}} works with
number, but {{Cite report}} usesdocket, which {{Cite thesis}} uses as a synonym forid. In a perfect world, {{Cite techreport}} and {{Cite report}} would both usenumberand place the input within the parenthetical that follows the title, so for the following input:{{cite report |title=Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics |number=TM 1-320 |date=1941-02-11 |publisher=[[United States Department of War]] |location=Washington, D.C. |url=https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/airship_aerodynamics.pdf |access-date=2023-06-19}}
- you'd get:
- Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Report TM 1-320). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. February 11, 1941. Retrieved June 19, 2023.
- instead what you get when you use
docketorid:- Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. February 11, 1941. TM 1-320. Retrieved June 19, 2023.
- The report number is getting lost at the end. Having it in the parenthetical would better match my expectations for keeping information in the proper, relevant order, and it would be more logical for the editor creating the citation. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- You can override the automatic
|type=Reportapplied by the template by writing:|type=Report TM 1-320:{{cite report |title=Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics |type=Report TM 1-320 |date=1941-02-11 |publisher=[[United States Department of War]] |location=Washington, D.C. |url=https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/airship_aerodynamics.pdf |access-date=2023-06-19}}- Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Report TM 1-320). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. 1941-02-11. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
- For this citation, perhaps it is better to use
{{cite manual}}(really just a redirect to{{cite book}}) because the source calls itself a 'manual', not a 'report':{{cite manual |title=Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics |type=Manual TM 1-320 |date=1941-02-11 |publisher=[[United States Department of War]] |location=Washington, D.C. |url=https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/airship_aerodynamics.pdf |access-date=2023-06-19}}- Technical Manual of Airship Aerodynamics (PDF) (Manual TM 1-320). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of War. 1941-02-11. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the workaround. I still think it's worth rethinking how this parameter works on {{cite report}} and {{cite technical report}}, but this helps. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- You can override the automatic
- It's a bit confusing because {{Cite techreport}} works with
What if the archive-url is an earlier version of the source that does not support the material it's attached to?
We've got a situation where a news story was published, then it was archived at IA, then later it was updated by the publisher. We use the updated story in a WP article, but the material (including a quote) isn't in the archive-url, it's only in the updated story (at the original url). Is it appropriate to use that archive-url even if it doesn't support the material? This came up at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Bogus archive url. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Now I understand what you meant. What you should do in this case is archive the new version of the URL using the Wayback Machine and then add that to the article (as I have done here). Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Cite web documentation - url-status prerequisite inconsistency
About halfway through the Template:Cite web documentation it says url-status: the |url-status= parameter should only be included if an |archive-url= is set. Clear enough. The problem is that right near the top of the page, in the Full parameter set in vertical format table of the Usage section, the only prerequisite listed for url-status is url. Should that not be changed to archive-url? Could this be contributing to the confusion on the correct usage of url-status? Let's face it, many editors are not going to be reading the documentation beyond the Usage section. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- No doubt the template documentation can be improved. I think, however, that the inconsistency that you describe is not the cause of the misuse of
|url-status=. I suspect that much of the misuse is caused by visual editor because the Template:Cite web § TemplateData lists|url-status=,|archive-url=, and|archive-date=as 'suggested' parameters. This search finds about 34300 articles with|url-status=|archive-url=|archive-date=(where|url-status=may have an assigned value ofliveordeador nothing; the others are present but empty). This parameter sequence is the sequence listed in the TemplateData underparamOrder; this edit for example. - The real fix, is to fix ve and/or TemplateData so that ve doesn't add empty parameters to a template (even when suggested); is mindful of prerequisites; can handle enumerated parameters without TemplateData having a bazillion
|authorn=entries where the only thing that changed is the enumerator; etc. Are you holding your breath waiting for these fixes? Don't. - I suppose that the 'documentation' (such as it is) for
|url-status=in TemplateData might be tweaked so that itsdescriptionbegins with a statement of requirements: "Requires |url= and |archive-url=; If set to 'live', the title display is adjusted ..." Similarly, the description for|archive-url=and|archive-date=might begin with their prerequisites... Will this do any good? I'm skeptical, but feel free to try. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Wikkiwonkk - I fixed the issue with Template:Cite web/doc that you suggested, and leave Trappist's suggestions for you. GoingBatty (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not going to touch TemplateData though, modifying a template that is used so widely is way above my current editing risk tolerance. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Citing sections?
There doesn't seem to be a template for citing standards, e.g., FIPS PUB 60-1,[1] ANSI X3.53-1976.[2] Is {{cite report}} appropriate for that purpose? --
References
- ^ I/O Channel Interface (PDF) (Report). National Technical Information Service. July 29, 1983. FIPS PUB 60-2. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
- ^ Programming Language PL/l. ANSI. 1976. X3.53-1976. Retrieved May 18, 2023.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs), 8:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Chatul: Your question contradicts your section heading. If you are asking about citing standards, then see {{Cite techreport}}. If you are asking about about citing a specific section within a source, maybe try the
|chapter=or|at=parameters in most any citation template. — voidxor 15:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Google drive pages: which url-access
I am finding references to Google Drive pages that say, "You need access", for example:
{{cite map |last=Marquínez |first=Germán |last2=Rodríguez |first2=Yohana |last3=Terraza |first3=Roberto |last4=Martínez |first4=Mario |year=2003 |title=Plancha 365 - Coconuco - 1:100,000 |url=https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwFQPMJEi17QX2w2MnpuNGtHdVU |publisher=[[INGEOMINAS]] |pages=1 |access-date=2017-06-06}}- Marquínez, Germán; Rodríguez, Yohana; Terraza, Roberto; Martínez, Mario (2003). Plancha 365 - Coconuco - 1:100,000 (Map). INGEOMINAS. p. 1. Retrieved 2017-06-06.
This came up in Puracé. I believe the cite template needs a |url-access= parameter; the three choices are registration, limited, and subscription. Which one should be used? —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- The citation appears to sugget that Google drive is the only place to find the map, in which case I don't believe it's usable for referencing (as it hasn't been published). Also I doubt having links to random Google drive files is a good idea from a security perspective. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I had a quick look around online. It's possible that this https://recordcenter.sgc.gov.co/B4/13010010024433/mapa/Pdf/0101244331300002.pdf PDF file is the map being referenced. If it covers the details being referenced simply switch it out for the Google drive link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks. I used your link in Puracé and made a few similar replacements in a few other articles. Then I got to thinking that there might be a lot of Google Drive links in Wikipedia, so I did a search:
insource:"drive\.google\.com": link
- which has 4,854 results. The first one happens to be N. H. Wilson, which has 3 drive.google.com links
- "Obituary: N.H. Wilson". NADA: Native Affairs Department Annual: 104. 1961.
- "Obituary: N.H. Wilson". East Africa and Rhodesia: 1019. June 23, 1960.
- "Obituary: Mrs. Agnes Wilson". The New Rhodesia: 19. October 27, 1950.
- all of which work fine, without any need to gain access first. Do you see any problem retaining these links? Should Wikipedia create a project of replacing or eliminating Google drive links in 4,854 articles? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just as a data point, 2022 Guamanian general election has a link to Google Drive, but it's the link provided by the Guam Election Commission on its homepage for the official results. That would be a case where the Google Drive link (which isn't restricted access) may need to stay, since there's no other page for the results. There may be other instances were an alternative link to an otherwise allowable source isn't available. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think though that quite are few are going to be copyvio, the three above certainly look like it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Totally agree. I just wanted to point out an instance (perhaps the only one) where such a link might be both valid and desirable. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The item in The New Rhodesia is now over 72 years old. The other two are over 61 years old. How long do these copyrights last? 75 years? —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- 70 years after the death of the author, at least in the US/UK. Without knowing the date of the authors death it's best to be cautious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think though that quite are few are going to be copyvio, the three above certainly look like it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Just as a data point, 2022 Guamanian general election has a link to Google Drive, but it's the link provided by the Guam Election Commission on its homepage for the official results. That would be a case where the Google Drive link (which isn't restricted access) may need to stay, since there's no other page for the results. There may be other instances were an alternative link to an otherwise allowable source isn't available. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks. I used your link in Puracé and made a few similar replacements in a few other articles. Then I got to thinking that there might be a lot of Google Drive links in Wikipedia, so I did a search:
Documentation needed for linking multiple urls within the 'pages' parameter
When citing newspapers I often want to link to both the front page article and the "continued on page X" second page. Using newspapers.com clips, the second page might not be accessible to people without an account/subscription unless explicitly linked. This has been discussed/requested in the past:
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 83#Multiple urls of source
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 78#How to extlink the components of a multi-component publication
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 78#Multiple URLs (split file)
- Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 60#Cite news - multiple URLs
From the last of those links I discovered that it is possible to link to multiple urls using the pages parameter, like so:
<ref name="StarTribune2014">{{cite news |last=Ross |first=Jenna |date=October 8, 2014 |title=Looking to the Past to Re-Engineer U.S. Towns |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune-looking-to-the-past-to-re-e/126871263/ |work=[[Star Tribune]] |access-date=June 21, 2023 |pages=[https://www.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune-looking-to-the-past-to-re-e/126871263/ A1], [https://www.newspapers.com/article/star-tribune-looking-to-the-past-to-re-e/126871290/ A6]}}</ref> (visible at article)
I don't think this is well explained in the documentation. Could support for multiple URLs in the pages parameter be explained somewhere in this documentation? Perhaps at the url parameter documentation and elsewhere.
PK-WIKI (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- @PK-WIKI: Thanks for the suggestion! You should be able to be bold and update the documentation. GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
QID parameter in Cite_Report?
Cite report currently doesn't have a parameter for QIDs. For this reference type, it'd actually be quite useful to include it as a possible identifier and link to additional metadata (perhaps similar to the display of {{cite_Q}}). I realise that consensus has been against includeion of QIDs in CS1 templates for other reference types, but I think that a case cacn be made for reports, ccine their relevant metadata is so hetreogenous. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 22 June 2023
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks ping me! 17:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
– "Techreport" isn't a word.[1][2] There's no reason that we need to mash words together to avoid one additional space; the sister templates like {{Cite AV media}}, {{Cite mailing list}}, and {{Cite press release}} don't.
References
- @Voidxor Note that templates such as {{Cite AVMedia}}, {{Cite mailinglist}}, {{Cite pressrelease}} are redirects to the templates with a space. I wouldn't mind if {{cite techreport}} redirects to {{cite tech report}}, which is the opposite of the current arrangement. GoingBatty (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand the use of redirects. I'm not sure what your point is beyond that. This is about where the template itself belongs, not whether redirects are available. And yes, my intent is to reverse the redirect. — voidxor 21:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support. It's completely necessary. :TarantulaTM (speak with me) (my legacy) 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support for understandability and consistency with other citation templates. "Tech report" with a space is easier to parse than scriptio continua. Glades12 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Quotation marks within the title= parameter of Template:cite web
Since {{cite web}} puts double quotation marks around titles, the documentation for this template should specify the replacement of double quotes within the title by single quotes per MOS:QINQ. — Peter Brown (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The documentation for the cs1|2 templates is not protected. If you believe that the documentation can/should be improved, please do so.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Trappist the monk or whoever: I am really struggling to figure out which article I should edit to effect this change. Can you help? Template:Cite Web consists of other templates. Help:Citation Style 1 § Titles and chapters is explicit that it doesn't apply to {{cite web}}. I've been thrashing around for some time now, and I'm close to giving up. Peter Brown (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have boldly attempted to implement this suggestion at Help:Citation Style 1 § Titles and chapters. Please correct as needed. -- Visviva (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's helpful, but I had really hoped to modify Template:Cite web § Title, which is unchanged. Here, I corrected the quotation marks in two instances of {{Cite web}} and I expect that the editor did consult Template:Cite web before proceeding. I, at least, do study the documentation for all but the simplest templates before using them, while I don't look at Help:Citation Style 1. I had hoped to use something like:
- title: The title of the source page on the website, usually found at the top of your web browser, will display with double quotation marks (") added. If the title itself contains quotation marks, change double quotation marks to single and vice versa, per MOS:QINQ.
- I have not been able to figure out how to incorporate this text into Template:Cite web § Title, however.
- Peter Brown (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think Template:Citation Style documentation/title is what you're looking for, but you'll note that the relevant passage is implemented as a switch, in what almost looks like a deliberate attempt to render it functionally uneditable. One could in theory edit in the desired text for the "cite web" case, but I will leave that to your judgment because I definitely don't understand the thought process behind this setup. -- Visviva (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I finally got that far, too, but then decided it looked like some kind of tar baby, and I've decided not to poke it. Sorry. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have edited the relevant documentation pages. Feedback is welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I finally got that far, too, but then decided it looked like some kind of tar baby, and I've decided not to poke it. Sorry. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Splendid! That's all that I was after. Visviva and JohnFromPinckney might be interested in a more detailed account of what you did; I don't expect that I would understand. Peter Brown (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I edited /title and /web. There are probably more places where similar text could be provided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looks great! My ParserFunctions skills are evidently even rustier than I thought, as that simple solution didn't even occur to me. -- Visviva (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jonesey, for both the edits and the pointers. There is still a non-trivial likelihood that I will leave future, similar improvements to you (or others); there are rather more meta-levels than I can grok, I think. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I edited /title and /web. There are probably more places where similar text could be provided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think Template:Citation Style documentation/title is what you're looking for, but you'll note that the relevant passage is implemented as a switch, in what almost looks like a deliberate attempt to render it functionally uneditable. One could in theory edit in the desired text for the "cite web" case, but I will leave that to your judgment because I definitely don't understand the thought process behind this setup. -- Visviva (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- That's helpful, but I had really hoped to modify Template:Cite web § Title, which is unchanged. Here, I corrected the quotation marks in two instances of {{Cite web}} and I expect that the editor did consult Template:Cite web before proceeding. I, at least, do study the documentation for all but the simplest templates before using them, while I don't look at Help:Citation Style 1. I had hoped to use something like:
- I have boldly attempted to implement this suggestion at Help:Citation Style 1 § Titles and chapters. Please correct as needed. -- Visviva (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Trappist the monk or whoever: I am really struggling to figure out which article I should edit to effect this change. Can you help? Template:Cite Web consists of other templates. Help:Citation Style 1 § Titles and chapters is explicit that it doesn't apply to {{cite web}}. I've been thrashing around for some time now, and I'm close to giving up. Peter Brown (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
New url access level needed
Can we get a new url access level of member or restricted or credentials (maybe aliases of each other) or similar? I was able to get a 1936 journal article from de:Historisches Jahrbuch through an WP:RX request that was answered by someone who had access to it via German university database, here. You will get some basic metadata at that link, plus 'access denied' for the text in the main window. I have sufficient information now to cite this fully, and I would like to include the link as it helps WP:Verifiability, but I would like to include |url-access=<something> but the values registration and subscription don't fit, and although the word limited sounds good as far as the English meaning goes, the description "free access is subject to limited trial and a subscription is normally required" is completely inapplicable for this case. For example, there are many resources online that are not available to the public, or through WP:TWL, or public library databases, that are available to university students/staff/alumni, and I could imagine other categories of institution (government agencies, think tanks, museums, documentation centers, archives, etc.) that have online repositories with restricted access available to some with proper credentials, but that still meet WP:SOURCEACCESS and are thus WP:Verifiable. It would be good to have value(s) of |url-access= that we could use to indicate this access level.
One quick & dirty solution occurs to me: rewrite the documentation so that |url-acccess=limited is redefined as meaning, "membership or institutional credentials required" to cover the case under discussion, and rewrite |url-access=subscription to bundle the existing meaning along with the current meaning of "limited", so that we'd have, "subscription required, or limited free trial and subscription". The q&d is not ideal, as we lose the distinction between "subscription" and "free trial+subscription", but it saves having to make any change to the software. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would rather redo the documentation versus adding different types, because there are so many scenarios. -- GreenC 01:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Which scenarios can you envision that would need different treatment? Afaic, web pages restricted to members/staff/alumni of universities, government agencies, think tanks, museums, documentation centers, or archives could all share one new access level:
|url-access=credentials, as I don't see anything different among any of them. Can you see some other scenario that is essentially different in some way? Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)- "registration" is a good catch-all for these types of things. There are pros and cons with clumping vs. splitting. Generally unless there is a compelling reason clumping is preferable to reduce complexity. We could get into a clumping/splitting debate if you want, but it has no right answer. Like, one needs to be a "registered student" at a school library to access the link, is a form of registration. Registration can mean multiple things. I'm also not convinced the distinction of "member" vs. "registration" is going to mean much to end users, they both mean essentially the same thing in terms of access, you need some kind of credentials, that's all we need to say. If you want to get into the specific method of access then yes there are many possibilities. -- GreenC 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm okay going with "registration" (especially if we can add an alias like "credentials") but even with no change to the software if we go with "registration", then we would have to change the doc at Template:Citation Style documentation/registration to mention the new case, so users know which one to apply. I have no objection to updating it myself, but it seems like it's a significant enough change it should get buy-in. Or, I could just make a bold edit, link back here in the summary, and see if anybody squawks. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- "registration" is a good catch-all for these types of things. There are pros and cons with clumping vs. splitting. Generally unless there is a compelling reason clumping is preferable to reduce complexity. We could get into a clumping/splitting debate if you want, but it has no right answer. Like, one needs to be a "registered student" at a school library to access the link, is a form of registration. Registration can mean multiple things. I'm also not convinced the distinction of "member" vs. "registration" is going to mean much to end users, they both mean essentially the same thing in terms of access, you need some kind of credentials, that's all we need to say. If you want to get into the specific method of access then yes there are many possibilities. -- GreenC 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would rather not have to categorize all the links in all of the references I edit by all of the different ways that access may be available to some people from some addresses but not available to other people from other people with other addresses, require subscriptions from a third class of people with a third class of accesses, be available for a one-time fee for a fourth class of people from a fourth class of addresses, and be available only if it's among their first three views for a fifth class of people from a fifth class of addresses. That way lies madness. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- David, I don't envision multiple classes of addresses; rather, I'm faced with a concrete issue I'm trying to resolve, namely, to write the citation for a resource I have. Here's what I have so far:
{{cite journal |lang=de |last=Schöningh |first=Franz Josef |date=1936 |title=Karl Ludwig Bruck und die Idee 'Mitteleuropa' |journal=Historisches Jahrbuch |volume=56 |url=https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?385984421_0056 |url-access=xxxxxxxxx |pages=1-14}}
- What value should I put in place of the x's? I think
credentialswould be good, but that doesn't exist. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)- You may not envision multiple classes of addresses, but they're present in that example. When I try it from different addresses I get different behavior. "Nothing" should always be an acceptable answer for how to fill in a field that does nothing to help readers find the reference and cannot be filled in a way that is correct and meaningful to all readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand "multiple classes of addresses", nor "trying it from different addresses", so I'll just let that part of it go. "Nothing" is indeed an acceptable answer, and the fields lang, date, url, and pages could also be left out as they are not required by WP:V. However, I like to use any params that might help another editor locate and verify the content. So, yes: you could just leave out url-access entirely, and that would be a valid option. Not one I would knowingly choose, but valid. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- For how to get different addresses without using different computers or being different people, see VPN. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand "multiple classes of addresses", nor "trying it from different addresses", so I'll just let that part of it go. "Nothing" is indeed an acceptable answer, and the fields lang, date, url, and pages could also be left out as they are not required by WP:V. However, I like to use any params that might help another editor locate and verify the content. So, yes: you could just leave out url-access entirely, and that would be a valid option. Not one I would knowingly choose, but valid. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- You may not envision multiple classes of addresses, but they're present in that example. When I try it from different addresses I get different behavior. "Nothing" should always be an acceptable answer for how to fill in a field that does nothing to help readers find the reference and cannot be filled in a way that is correct and meaningful to all readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- David, I don't envision multiple classes of addresses; rather, I'm faced with a concrete issue I'm trying to resolve, namely, to write the citation for a resource I have. Here's what I have so far:
- Which scenarios can you envision that would need different treatment? Afaic, web pages restricted to members/staff/alumni of universities, government agencies, think tanks, museums, documentation centers, or archives could all share one new access level:
Julian vs. Gregorian
Unsurprisingly, all the dates in Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa use the Gregorian calendar. I don't offhand see any from an era when this would be in question. How can I get rid of Category:CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty? - Jmabel | Talk 21:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- This one has a date that is in the uncertainty realm (1 October 1582 and 1 January 1926).
- The category was created because there are editors out there who questioned whether cs1|2 templates are creating bogus (read: illegitimate) dates in the COinS metadata; there was a 2017 rfc: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 44 § RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata. So far as I know, those editors have never once used that category for anything. If that is true, I think that the category can / should go away because it is merely clutter. I solicit opinions...
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Does the generation of metadata do anything differently if an article is in that category? It's not tracking errors but potential errors, that would be better handle by an inline template that editors can add if they are concerned with a potential ambiguous date. It's likely the vast majority of the articles being tracked are fasle positives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- The creation of metadata has nothing to do with the en.wiki article that holds the cs1|2 template. Because this is the English wikipedia, and because Great Britain adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, and because most sources used here are written in English, the 'window of uncertainty' for those sources is narrower: 1582–1752, so yeah English-language sources dated 1752–1926 are false positive and are listed in Category:CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty. So far as I know, no one has ever attempted to determine how many of the categorized templates are false positive.
- For the metadata, dates in the Julian calendar (before 1582) are reduced to year-only regardless of precision in
|date=. I should probably tweak that so dates before 1 October 1582 are reduced to year only; that was the intent; don't know why it didn't happen. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox tweaked to properly render 1582 Julian and Gregorian dates:
{{cite book/new |title=Julian date |date=30 September 1582}}'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000148-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Julian date''. 30 September 1582.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Julian+date&rft.date=1582&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+88" class="Z3988"></span>- Julian date. 30 September 1582.
{{cite book/new |title=Gregorian date |date=1 October 1582}}'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000014C-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Gregorian date''. 1 October 1582.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Gregorian+date&rft.date=1582-10-01&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+88" class="Z3988"></span>- Gregorian date. 1 October 1582.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that invalid dates are not placed in
&rft.chron. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- Does the generation of metadata do anything differently if an article is in that category? It's not tracking errors but potential errors, that would be better handle by an inline template that editors can add if they are concerned with a potential ambiguous date. It's likely the vast majority of the articles being tracked are fasle positives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
medrxiv?
Should we support MedRxiv in the same way that we support BioRxiv? Both have similar identifiers so adding |medrxiv= would make use of code already used for |biorxiv=. The start date for the validator would be 2020-01-01 instead of biorxiv's 2019-12-11. The medrxiv validator would not accept a shortened identifier as biorxiv does.
Do it? Don't do it?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- medRxiv, EarthArXiv, PsyArXiv, etc... should all be supported. It might be easier to have a generic {{cite preprint}} handle those automatically however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have implemented
|medrxiv=and created{{cite medrxiv/new}}. Here is a journal citation using|medrxiv=:{{cite journal/new |vauthors=Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R |date=3 June 2021 |title=The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=118 |issue=25 |article-number=e2024815118 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2024815118 |doi-access=free |medrxiv=10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v2}}- Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R (3 June 2021). "The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (25) e2024815118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2024815118. medRxiv 10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v2.
- and
{{cite medrxiv/new}}to cite an earlier version of the preprint mentioned in the above:{{cite medRxiv/new |vauthors=Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R |date=5 April 2021 |title=The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions in an infected person |medrxiv=10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v1}}- Sender R, Bar-On YM, Gleizer S, Bernsthein B, Flamholz A, Phillips R, Milo R (5 April 2021). "The total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions in an infected person". medRxiv 10.1101/2020.11.16.20232009v1.
- After the next module update,
{{cite preprint}}can be updated to support{{cite medrxiv}}. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful to have
|medrxiv=support for cite journal template. Occasionally, people cite the preprint doi instead of the published article doi, which can lead to confusion about what identifiers to include and whether the article is peer-reviewed. I've run into confusion editing around this, [1] so it would be a nice fix. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 23:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful to have
Discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Further steps?
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Further steps?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
PMID numbers exceeding configured limit
I understand that CS1 templates have a constraint on PMID numbers, limiting them to 37400000. New articles published as of 3 July 2023 are exceeding that number. See PMID 37400000 for example. DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Use of title and corrections of said title
So under the parameters I see for title (which is required for cite web) we are to use Template:Cite_web#Title the "Title of source page on website." Ok... I usually see the title of the actual article on the source page but no matter. But per the template it seems that the citation: <ref>{{cite web|title=The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 25 August 1941|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/52616260|website=newspapers.com}}</ref> is ok. Sure it could be better but it is not an error? If someone then changes it to: <ref>{{cite web|work=The Brooklyn Daily Eagle|date=25 August 1941|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/52616260|via=newspapers.com}}</ref> would you think that the person who changed it should be required to add the new title instead of leaving it with a red error code of "missing title" in the ref section? I'm all for making things better but if you go to the trouble of putting in the "work=" parameter (only required by "cite journal" and "cite magazine" then it seems you should also re-add the removed title= parameter instead of leaving it for others to fix. Am I missing something? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): Each editor working on the reference should have used the proper values in the appropriate parameters. The editor who changed the reference to have no
|title=parameter should have seen the red error code, and should have received a bot notice on their user talk page reminding them to fix the reference. Since you didn't provide the Wikipedia article name, I hope you'll fix the reference if it is still incorrect. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)- This discussion is a WP:TALKFORK of this discussion. The article is incorrectly using {{Cite web}} when it should be using {{cite news}}, and was misusing the
|title=parameter in those incorrect citation templates. So much to learn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)- Per the things I am reading "cite web" was not incorrect... not if it was from a web page like newspapers.com. You use {{cite news}} if it is from an actual newspaper that is not online. This was just a curious post here to make sure I'm getting the correct info from you. I thought I was but now I'm not so sure as this is a very grey area. . I was giving an editor advise based on listening to editors Jonesey95 and Colonies Chris. In digging around the templates and wikipedia articles I'm now thinking I may have been given incomplete info. Hence I asked here what other experts think. Articles are going from no errors in the ref section to dozens and dozens of errors in the ref section. If it was one it's easily fixed and i would have just done it.Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:Fyunck(click), I was going to mention that the wrong citation template was being used in your example, then I figured I might as well go fix it myself instead of being pedantic about it, then couldn't find the link using an
insource=search across all namespaces, and ended up taking no action. Newspapers.com is a hosting service, and if anywhere other than the URL it should go in|via=. The|title=should be given the value of whatever headline was at the top of the news story you're citing. {{cite web}} is way overused. Folly Mox (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)- The title of the actual news story is what I would generally use myself, but the doc in the wikipedia template does not say that at all. Very confusing. And simply removing the title= creates dozens of red errors in articles that likely may not get fixed for years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- All the best practices surrounding citations have been a continuing journey for me. There's a lot of different stakeholders, with the template editors here working with the Wikidata people for precise metadata, and the Internet Archive people and their link rot prevention efforts, while the Foundation understandably wants to keep the barrier of entry as low as possible for new people to edit, but doesn't seem interested in improving their own citation tools, and the maintainers of the volunteer written citation tools don't have time to maintain them....The good news is that I think you have to have a setting enabled to see template errors anyway, so the people who see them are likelier than average to try to address them, but I might be wrong about the enabling a setting bit. Folly Mox (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously it's a journey for me too. The wild ways of wikipedia can oft times be confusing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- All the best practices surrounding citations have been a continuing journey for me. There's a lot of different stakeholders, with the template editors here working with the Wikidata people for precise metadata, and the Internet Archive people and their link rot prevention efforts, while the Foundation understandably wants to keep the barrier of entry as low as possible for new people to edit, but doesn't seem interested in improving their own citation tools, and the maintainers of the volunteer written citation tools don't have time to maintain them....The good news is that I think you have to have a setting enabled to see template errors anyway, so the people who see them are likelier than average to try to address them, but I might be wrong about the enabling a setting bit. Folly Mox (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- The title of the actual news story is what I would generally use myself, but the doc in the wikipedia template does not say that at all. Very confusing. And simply removing the title= creates dozens of red errors in articles that likely may not get fixed for years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:Fyunck(click), I was going to mention that the wrong citation template was being used in your example, then I figured I might as well go fix it myself instead of being pedantic about it, then couldn't find the link using an
- Per the things I am reading "cite web" was not incorrect... not if it was from a web page like newspapers.com. You use {{cite news}} if it is from an actual newspaper that is not online. This was just a curious post here to make sure I'm getting the correct info from you. I thought I was but now I'm not so sure as this is a very grey area. . I was giving an editor advise based on listening to editors Jonesey95 and Colonies Chris. In digging around the templates and wikipedia articles I'm now thinking I may have been given incomplete info. Hence I asked here what other experts think. Articles are going from no errors in the ref section to dozens and dozens of errors in the ref section. If it was one it's easily fixed and i would have just done it.Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion is a WP:TALKFORK of this discussion. The article is incorrectly using {{Cite web}} when it should be using {{cite news}}, and was misusing the
Volume titles in "Cite book"
Greetings and felicitations. I have had a recent discussion regarding the italicization of volume titles in the |volume= field of the {{Cite book}} template. Citing that discussion, volume titles are italicized per
- The Chicago Manual of Style 17th Ed. §14.117 though §14.122 (pp. 808–810 of the hardcover)
- the MLA Handbook, Ninth Ed., §5.117 "Multivolume Works" (pp. 215–216 of the hardcover)
and also
- New Oxford Style Manual (2016), §18.2.7 (p. 357 of the hardcover)
The APA 6th Ed. does not address this; I can also check the minor style guide Words into Print if desired. Per Nardog's request (as linked at the top of this section) for me to make my case for italicizing all (book) volume titles, can we agree to (at least) add one or more italicized volume titles as examples to the Cite book template, or even make it explicit in the template's documentation? —DocWatson42 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Could you maybe provide an example (here or in one of the other places you're having this discussion) of what you're looking for, formatted manually the way you envision it. I've looked at three "discussions" but still can't tell what the "before" and "after" formatting is supposed to look like. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
