Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Help talk:Citation Style 1. (BOT) |
m Whoops. |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Automatic archive navigator}}{{Search box|root=Help talk:Citation Style 1|search-width=85}}
== Documentation / Lua ==
Line 54:
::
:::Though kind of ugly, this might work:
<
for codepoint in mw.ustring.gcodepoint( s ) do
if 33 > codepoint -- C0 controls
Line 63:
end
end
</syntaxhighlight>
:::We might simplify and just accept everything below codepoint 592 (0x0250) on the theory that C0 and C1 controls would be an unlikely part of a name.
::
Line 95:
I have discovered and fixed an error in <code>reduce_to_initials()</code> that produced � for author initials when the first character of the name was not in the set [A-Za-z]:
:<code><nowiki>{{cite news/new|title=title|name-list-
:→{{cite news/new|title=title|name-list-
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 119:
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Why don't we just drop the bold completely, regardless of character count? <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::Volume numbers, which are especially significant for serials and journals, are often overlooked on account of being so short, wherefore they are commonly bolded so they are more readily seen in long citations.
Line 147:
| title=A Parallactic Distance of <math>389^{+24}_{-21}</math> Parsecs to the Orion Nebula Cluster from Very Long Baseline Array Observations | date=2007 | author=Sandstrom, Karin M. | journal=The Astrophysical Journal | volume=667 | issue=2 | pages=1161 | bibcode=2007ApJ...667.1161S | arxiv=0706.2361| last2=Peek | first2=J. E. G. | last3=Bower | first3=Geoffrey C. | last4=Bolatto | first4=Alberto D. | last5=Plambeck | first5=Richard L. }}
::::::::Fortunately there aren't ''that'' many instances of this second type:
:::::::::<code><nowiki>insource:/\| *title *=[^\|\}]*\<math/</nowiki></code>
::::::::Still, these lurk in the back of my mind as something that needs to be addressed.
Line 194:
Sure, but I'm simply not going to type in all 37 to get the "and 37 others" tag. Since the cite will only list one author, and the citeref refers only to that author, I shouldn't have to list all the rest just to get the template to display the way it's going to in the end anyway. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 02:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
::::{{u|Maury Markowitz}}: '''I just showed you''' how to get the 'et al.' with '''just two''' authors. Look at the wikisource. (Though, as I said, you really should have at least three/four. See below.) ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Maury Markowitz}} you can put the 1st author in {{para|author1}}, set {{para|display-authors|1}} (as suggested above), and copy & paste the remaining authors into {{para|author2}} as long as they're either comma or semicolon delimited. Then I, or someone with a similar script, can enumerate them into the appropriate # of authors. From all my citation cleanup, this seems to be the way it is being (hastily?) done. Whether or not there's a better way is a different story. <b>~</b> <
::The original problem that led me here was a PDF document that doesn't allow cut and paste of the text. :-) [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 14:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I have that same frustration with paper books and newspapers. I can cut and paste, but then I can't see my whole computer monitor. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 215:
:I have not implemented this for the editor name-list. Shall I proceed or revert?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
::I agree with both {{para|display-authors|more}} and {{para|more-authors}}, and prefer the {{para|display-authors|more}} solution since it uses an existing parameter in a non-conflicting way, is intuitive to use, and it's easy to remember. <b>~</b> <
:::I agree with {{para|display-authors|more}} for the reasons given by [[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]]. It would probably be useful to have a bit of error checking for {{para|display-authors}} to locate values that are not numbers or "more". I don't know what is done with {{para|display-authors|blahblahblah}} now, but it should throw an error.
:::Testing {{para|display-authors|blahblahblah}} : {{cite book|last=Smith|first=John|title=Title|display-authors=blahblahblah}}
Line 263:
:I think <code>etal</code> is clearer, and I love the idea of allowing multiple forms of it in the parameter value. Editors will reasonably expect to be able to type <code>et al</code> or <code>et al.</code>, especially since the latter is the recommended form in MOS. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
::I think that using {{para|display-authors|etal}} (and silently allowing the variations) is the easiest solution. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::Ok, {{para|display-authors|more}} no more.
Line 308:
:::Is this the sort of thing you're after, [[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]]? - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 03:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:::: Yep, that would work! -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 04:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::The biggest criticism I have of {{tl|cite tweet}} is that it links through the tweet number and relegates the content of the tweet to the optional quote parameter. Most citation guides say to include the full content of a tweet as the title of the tweet and not to display the tweet's number. At least one guide also advises using the real name of the author in addition to the Twitter account name, which should be preceded by the @. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::: If there's a way to make Twitter status compatible with CS1 I'd be all for that. Twitter status (as shown in my above example) allows for the title to summarize the tweet rather than force the exact quote which would introduce hashtags, links, and replies to non-notable users. -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 14:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Line 328:
::*To solve the issue of multiple instances of "Twitter" being linked, I'd just drop the publisher completely and default to {{para|type|Tweet}}. It may be a semantical distinction, but Twitter doesn't actually cause any tweets to be published; the user tweeting does. They merely host the content, just as Google Books hosts copies of scanned books, and we'd never say Google actually published the books. (It's possible that Google published content that they host on Google Books, but it's also possible that Twitter itself tweets.)
::*The quote parameter is superfluous as the full tweet should be given.
::For additional ideas, we can consult guidelines from the [http://
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACite_tweet%2Fsandbox&diff=655155932&oldid=655140355 These changes] implement your suggestions. Another point for discussion: At the moment, if {{para|user}} or {{para|number}} is ommitted, a junk url such as <nowiki>https://twitter.com/{{{user}}}/status/{{{number}}}</nowiki> is passed through to {{tl|cite web}}, and error messages regarding {{para|user}} and {{para|number}} are displayed. Another option would be to check the parameters, so that no url rather than a junk url is passed through – but not having a url results in the "Missing or empty |url=" error message, which is a bit deceptive as cite tweet doesn't have a |url= parameter. Any ideas on which is preferable, or if there is another option? - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 08:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Actually, I've just noticed that the missing url error message is hidden by default, so now the code checks that the parameters have been set - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 09:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 335:
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Done - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 14:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
::One other idea, but MLA uses a time in addition to the date, and it advises that the time zone should be that of the author of the paper, not the author of the tweet. Since Wikipedia is an international publication, if we did have a way to insert the time, I would suggest that we mandated UTC. (We don't use times in any other form of citations though, and I think the Lua module would see any attempt to add a time to a date as an error.) <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::: Regarding whether titles and quotes be the same, I disagree. While the quote can contain the full tweet (without the hashtags as appropriate) the title should be without the quotes as it may be needed to explain the context, such as when a user says "Happy Birthday", and the tweeter replies "Thanks!" -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|AngusWOOF}} since the title of a tweet is the full tweet, hashtags and all, any quotation in the middle of that is superfluous to the full tweet, period.
::::In your proffered example, the context would require the citation of two separate tweets. You'd end up with something like <code><nowiki><ref>{{cite tweet <details on first tweet...>}}<br/>{{cite tweet <details on reply tweet..>}}</ref></nowiki></code>. To attempt to quote the reply while only citing the original one fails to attribute both authors, even if the link to the original tweet displays the reply. If the reply comes days after original, you'd have issues related to which date to use. By using separate citations, even if combined into the same footnote, you'd properly attribute each other and note the proper date(s) for what are separate tweets. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::::: Yes, that would be needed if the tweets are not threaded, but in the case where it is threaded only the second tweet is necessary, as in this example: [https://twitter.com/YuriLowenthal/status/383858960958124033] But a double tweet in the ref would be fine. -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::There's still the same issue of attribution. Even in that case, you need the work of two separate authors to set up the context, and the template only supports one author because, by design, tweets only have a single author/account. I still think that even with the threading, you'd want to separately cite [https://twitter.com/Allens_tweets/status/383762383555928064] followed by [https://twitter.com/YuriLowenthal/status/383858960958124033 the reply] to keep attribution and dates correct. There's a 6-hour gap between the original and the reply, putting them on separate days according to how Twitter displays them for me. Maybe in other time zones they'd appear to have the same date. Adding date support would require additional modifications to the Lua module that handles CS1 templates though. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::::::: If the quote and the title are to be the same, then it would be fine to exclude hashtags and @'s (and http:// links, similarly use ellipses) where it doesn't add to the content of the article. Would that make it CS1 compatible? As for the date, it should be mainly dependent on where the RS person in question is situated. This would work if the OP asks their question the day before (or after if they are in the Far East and the RS is in the United States) and is also consistent with news article time stamps coming from whoever posted the article. -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 01:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Why would you drop the hashtags, at signs or the links? They're part of the content of the tweet, period. There's no compatibility issues to be worried about with the links, as Twitter drops the "http://" part of a URL in the displayed text. We wouldn't have any issue with the template/MediaWiki software recognizing a link in the middle of the title:
Line 346:
::::::::using that example from the APA Style Blog, and putting it in {{tl|cite web}}, there isn't a need to drop any of the content. If we're going to do this, we should do it properly and reproduce the full tweet.
::::::::As of right now, we can't include publication times in CS1 citations. The Lua module checks the formatting and validity of the dates supplied, and there is no standardized way to handle a time of publication. Adding a time stamp to a citation, at the present, creates an error. For most sources, anything more precise than a day is not needed; for other sources like books, anything more specific than the year of publication is overkill.
::::::::Twitter, like other social media, is different from news articles. The date and time stamp on an article published on cnn.com won't vary based on the time zone of the reader. CNN's time stamps are fixed based on their ___location in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. However, Twitter reports the date and time stamp on a tweet based on the time zone of the reader. Where I am located at the moment is UTC-5, so a freshly posted tweet would carry a date of April 6, 2015, and a time of 9:48 p.m. If I were located in London, that same tweet would appear with April 7, 2015 at 3:48 a.m. We can't assume or guess the original local time for the person writing a tweet, unless it's geotagged. Printed publications get around this because they'll default to the time zone of the author citing the tweet, which will be fixed because it is in print. If we ever added the capacity to include the time of a tweet, to minimize issues we should then specify that the time be given in UTC. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::::: Well that a tweet has that character limit means quoting the entire thing shouldn't be an issue then. -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 04:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have updated the template, and fixed the resulting errors in the error tracking category - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 04:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 550:
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
::I agree on the comment about informality of the name. Personally, I'd use the official name of the task force as the author. As for the report number, {{para|id| H. Rept. No. 102-1102}} should work to include it. Adding {{para|oclc| 27492534}} ({{oclc| 27492534}}) to link to the library catalog entry is another beneficial extension of the citation for readers. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::Thanks for the feedback. Although it makes the citation quite lengthy, I used the formal name in {{para|author}} but [[House October Surprise Task Force]] for its link:
::::{{cite book |author=Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 |author-link=House October Surprise Task Force |title=Joint report of the Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 ("October Surprise Task Force") |url=http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015060776773 |date=January 3, 1993 |publisher=United States Government Printing Office |___location=Washington, D.C. |page=147|chapter=VIII. Alleged Attempts to Delay the Release of the Hostages |chapterurl=http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015060776773?urlappend=%3Bseq=161 |id=H. Rept. No. 102-1102 |oclc=27492534 |ref={{harvid|"October Surprise Task Force"|1993}}}}
:::By the way, where did you find the OCLC number? - [[User:Location|Location]] ([[User talk:Location|talk]]) 18:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
::::The webpage displaying the report has a link on its left side to "Find in a library". Clicking that takes you to the worldcat.org entry: http://www.worldcat.org/title/joint-report-of-the-task-force-to-investigate-certain-allegations-concerning-the-holding-of-american-hostages-by-iran-in-1980-october-surprise-task-force/oclc/27492534 . <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::Thanks again! - [[User:Location|Location]] ([[User talk:Location|talk]]) 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 700:
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
:Thoughts on incorporating {{para|orig-date}}, perhaps by aliasing {{para|orig-year}} to it? ([[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_7#origyear -> origdate?|discussion]]) <b>~</b> <
::{{U|Trappist the monk}}, please post here when you have made the above edits so that we can update the documentation. Am I correct in thinking that we will be able to remove all of the non-Lua text from the template documentation files? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 753:
But, just to be a counterpoint:
{{cite compare |old=no |mode=map |author= Ohio Department of Highways |year= 1930 |title= Map of Ohio showing State Routes |url= http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Planning/TechServ/TIM/Documents/StateMaps/otm1930a.sid |format= [[MrSID]] }}
The "r" in [[MrSID]] shouldn't be capitalized. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:Ok, no case shifting.
Line 904:
:::I think an editor coming at referencing from a "non-academic normal guy" standpoint can be easily confused by the text generated for citations when using {{tl|cite journal}}, and some of these uses of an explicit page indicator within the {{para|page}} parameter will be attempts at making things easier to read. [[User:Stamptrader|Stamptrader]] ([[User talk:Stamptrader|talk]]) 20:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Maybe we could consider changing the formatting of journal references to something like "''Journal'', vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 54–128" instead of "''Journal'' '''3''' (2): 54–128"? It's a little less concise (so what) and less like typical academic citation formats (also so what) but clear enough and much less intimidating, I think. Not to be done without a lot of discussion first, though, since this is a big change. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm looking at CMOS 16, and for citing a specific volume of multivolume books, it uses "4:243" to put the volume and page number together if the volume lacks a separate name. For journals, they use "76, no. 1 (2006): 19–35;" after the name of the journal. On that basis, {{ul|David Eppstein}}'s idea of explicitly adding the "vol", "no." and "p."/"pp." prefixes isn't far fetched. What I've wanted to do for {{tl|cite journal}} is that "76(1):19–35" would be fine, but if the volume or issue number are dropped, the "p." or "pp." would appear with the page number, but the less concise format may be better for {{u|Stamptrader}}'s "non-academic normal guy". As it is, I wish many of our editors would heed the advice to stop using the overly abbreviated journal names in deference to our non-academic readers. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
== date for bimonthly issue ==
Line 916:
:::::{{cite journal |title= Title |journal= Journal |date= 21 December 1963 – 1 February 1964}}
:::::{{cite journal |title= Title |journal= Journal |date= 21 December 1963–1 February 1964}}
::::This is how the MOS says we are supposed to format dates in prose, which the templates are designed to enforce. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
Thank you; alles klar. [[Special:Contributions/86.160.232.4|86.160.232.4]] ([[User talk:86.160.232.4|talk]]) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 1,065:
|at= <s>[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-2.html Section 9.5.2: Sea Level]</s>
}} in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}.
:::<small>This should be considered as a ''full'' citation, which would appear only ''once'' in an article (presumably in the "Bibliography" or such), and refers to the ''whole'' source ("Chapter 9"), not to any specific material within. (I have stricken the specification that was mistakenly included.) It does not ''look'' like a "full" citation because it does not repeat the bibliographic details of the encompassing work, nor a proper list of authors, and contains only the details that distinguish this chapter from other chapters in the same work. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
::::{{tlx|harvc}} does that: can appear only once and refers/links to the single whole source, does not look like a full citation (because it isn't one) and contains only the details that distinguish this chapter from others in the same work. And, it doesn't produce corrupted metadata and so there isn't a missing title error message (though it will emit error messages when required stuff is omitted).
Line 1,265 ⟶ 1,264:
:::Of course, where the differences between two such templates is so slight, it would be absurd to maintain separate blocks of code. That also goes to creating and maintaining a whole new template (Harvc) which, in the end, implements what is a trivial enhancement of what can be (''and has been'') done with CS1. In brief, [{{tld|citation}} "in" {{tld|harv}}] worked fine; there was ''no need for Harvc'' until you broke {citation}. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:I think that the current situation works just fine. {{tl|Harvc}} is designed to shorten a citation down to the name(s) of the contributor(s) of a component in a larger work and link to the full citation of the encompassing work in another section. It works just fine to handle multiple chapters in a report that each have individual authorship apart from the encompassing report on [[Michigan State Trunkline Highway System]], and for the life of me, I can't see what the great issue is with that system that's caused all of this discussion and debate. The status quo with the templates, with a few possible amendments seems more than adequate. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::Imzadi: I think you are not paying close enough attention. All that you said is quite true except one little detail: a couple of months ago the status quo changed, resulting in numerous "error" messages that beg "fixing". I am trying to get Tappist to make a "possible amendment", but won't do it. He wants me to use Harvc, which I find quite unsuitable. Not because of the displayed result, but for all the objections he makes to my requested little change, plus the confusion it will add the use of citations, particularly the Harv templates. We are not arguing about the resulting display, but the process, and similar underlying issues. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 05:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 1,496 ⟶ 1,495:
::::- I'm not sure if this will just automatically work once {{tlx|cite arXiv}} gets migrated, so, just in case: {{para|display-authors}} isn't recognized currently, and the citation auto-truncates to 8 authors. Also, I support points 1-4.
::::- Concerning {{para|journal}} or {{para|publisher}} in {{tlx|cite arXiv}}, I agree with [[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein ]] and [[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist]] - I think it would be better to produce an error message, or at least a maintenance category/message to convert a {{tlx|cite arXiv}} to {{tlx|cite journal}} (I've seen variants of {{para|publisher|arXiv}} though..., which could be made to emit an error as well?). If {{tlx|cite arXiv}} were to accept {{para|journal}}, then it would make sense to duplicate most of the other {{tlx|cite journal}} parameters, but I don't think that's the right way to go. I think it'd make more sense to make {{tlx|cite journal}} a wrapper around {{tlx|cite arXiv}} (if I'm using the term properly), than the other way around. {{tlx|cite arXiv}} should be reserved for papers not yet published in a {{tlx|cite journal}}. A potential problem is that arXiv eprints are not always word-for-word copies of their published peer-reviewed counterparts, but the differences are generally minor. <b>~</b> <
:::::Setting {{para|displayauthors|4}} seems to work in the new version; as an example I've added {{para|publisher|Publisher}} (should show an error):
Line 1,508 ⟶ 1,507:
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but isn't it always better to use {{tlp|cite journal|2=arxiv=xxx}} than {{tlp|cite arxiv|2=eprint=xxx}} anyway? In the former case Citation bot automatically fills out the journal details if and when the preprint is published, and it ensures full compliance with all the normal formatting used by {{tl|cite journal}} and support for all the existing parameters. Is there any reason to maintain a separate template for this? It seems rather pointless to duplicate everything. Could {{tl|cite arxiv}} not be deprecated entirely, or converted into a simple wrapper for {{tl|cite journal}}? [[User:Modest Genius|<
:Are you sure about that? {{tlx|cite journal}} doesn't have the auto-filling-by-bot code that {{tlx|cite arxiv}} has. Infact, creating a {{tld|cite journal}} with just {{para|arxiv}} creates missing or empty title errors.
Line 1,517 ⟶ 1,516:
::Whenever I use a {{tl|cite journal}} I enter a single ID and then hit 'expand citations'. The bot is supposed to do it after some time if I forget to hit the button, but I haven't tested whether that's working in practice. If it's a preprint that hasn't been published yet the template still works fine so long as e.g. the title gets filled out by the bot.
::I'm unconvinced by the need to specifically cite the preprint rather than the final publication, because a) many editors read the arxiv version simply because that is the [[green open access]] copy of the final publication (rather than a preliminary version) and thus citing the real thing is preferably (as there are many other ways of accessing it) and b) If some claim was present in a pre-reviewing arxiv posting but not in the final publication then must have been found to be deficient during the peer review process, so we really shouldn't be citing it.
::Of course I still might be missing something here. [[User:Modest Genius|<
:::Update: I just did a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AModest_Genius%2Fsandbox&diff=656191915&oldid=656191362 quick sandbox test], and it was in fact the [[bibcode]] that behaves the way I was thinking, not the arxiv ID (which I had to add manually). Note however that the formatting of the final result was superior in the {{tl|cite journal}} case, whilst the {{tl|cite arxiv}} ended up with the wrong year of publication(!) but had a nicer clickable link. It's unclear to me whether it would be easier to get Citation bot to look up arxiv IDs in {{tl|cite journal}}, or make changes to {{tl|cite arxiv}} to mirror all the other desired functionality. I suspect the former but am no expert on bots. [[User:Modest Genius|<
::::There is no facility in {{tlx|cite journal}} to notify Citation bot that a journal citation needs to be completed. That facility does exist for {{tlx|cite arxiv}}; the template leaves you a message in the article telling you: "A bot will complete this citation soon." The template also gives you a link to click if you want it done now. {{tld|cite journal}} does not do this.
Line 1,528 ⟶ 1,527:
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::The 'tool' I'm using is just citation bot. Yes cite arxiv does give you a handy link to it, whilst cite journal does not (I mentioned this above), but the bot fills both out eventually anyway. The year is incorrect because it gave volume and page numbers that didn't exist until 2013 - in this case 2012 would refer to the preprint only and not the final journal publication. Oh and yes I did use cite arxiv, it's just that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Modest_Genius/sandbox&diff=656191511&oldid=656191501 when the bot fills it out it changes it to cite journal]. It seems that cite journal is better for some things, and cite arxiv better for others. Surely combining the best bits into a single template is easier to maintain than two separate but very similar templates? [[User:Modest Genius|<
::::::So you did; I missed the (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) text.
Line 1,831 ⟶ 1,830:
== Citing youtube and online video sites ==
Apologies if this question has been asked a gazillion times already. What is the preferred cite AV media parameters for citing a youtube or other online video: 1) from the direct site itself, and 2) from a wrapper site / news article that embeds the video? Should I use work=YouTube, medium=YouTube, or via=YouTube? [[User:AngusWOOF|<strong
:It probably hasn't, but I'll throw a suggested answer out:
:# If you are citing content in the video itself, I would recommend clicking through to the origin website (youtube.com in your example) and using that URL. This is cite AV media.
Line 2,136 ⟶ 2,135:
I'm going through this list and I'm not seeing the CS1 maintenance message on some of the pages. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anton_incident&oldid=633804975 Anton incident] (last edited 2014) contains <code>|language=English (<nowiki>[http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2009/05/stubb_puolustaa_antonin_isaa_ja_konsulaatin_tyontekijaa_740524.html Finnish]</nowiki>)</code> and is currently on the 1st page of [[:Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language]], yet I fail to see an unknown language error anywhere on the page. [[User:Tom.Reding/common.css|My common.css]] has the appropriate line of code to see maintenance messages, and I've null-edited the page. Is this a bug, a feature, or my fault? <b>~</b> <
:The bug that I introduced fails to categorize unrecognized languages. That whole long string is considered to be one language name because there isn't a comma separator.
Line 2,206 ⟶ 2,205:
* {{cite book|last=A Whited|first=Lana|title=The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter| publisher=University of Missouri Press|year=2004|isbn=978-0-8262-1549-9}}
* A Whited, Lana (2004). ''The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter''. University of Missouri Press. {{ISBN
The first one (use of {{para|isbn}}) contains an extra link to [[ISBN]]. The second one is given in plain text. I think this link is unnecessary. Moreover, it's overlinking. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 06:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,213 ⟶ 2,212:
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
: {{ISBN
[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] I mean we could just unlink all of PMC, doi, zbl, issn as common links and instead of having a wikilink followed by an (almost) external link just inherit the behaviour of {{ISBN
:I tend to agree it's overlinking. If it only did it with the first citation on the page that used it, maybe not, but it seems like "[[ISBN]]" (or whatever) may appear linked 100 times in the same long article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 12:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,221 ⟶ 2,220:
: I don't believe it is overlinking. The internal link serves a useful purpose (it answers the question of what the heck is a doi, isbn, pmid, etc.). [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 16:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:I disagree that having a link to ISBN or the others in overlinking. I'm guessing there are plenty of people who have no idea what "zb", PMC", etc. mean. Even if you believe it to be in contradiction with [[WP:OVERLINK]], it is irrelevant in that having such links ''does'' aid readers, and there always comes a time when guidelines are not actually helpful. If a guideline causes problems, it can be overlooked in certain specific situations. [[User:Dustin V. S.|<span style="color:green; font-family:Times New Roman">''Dustin''</span>]] [[User talk:Dustin V. S.|(<span style="color:green; font-family:Times New Roman">talk</span>)]] 16:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:Linking to the article "ISBN" breaks the consistency of formatting of ISBN links between different methods of displaying and ISBN, and should never have been introduced. The ISBN special page provides sufficient information, directly or indirectly, about what an ISBN is. Readers reasonably expect that clicking on any part of {{ISBN
== Journal article titles ==
Line 2,229 ⟶ 2,228:
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
::I disagree with the concept that CS1 follows the MOS. Only certain specific guidance has been adopted; the only guidance I know of adopted from MOS was date format, and that was a problem, because MOSNUM date guidance was being changed faster than the templates could be edited to keep up. As far as I know, there is no guidance whether to use sentence case or title case for journal article titles in citations. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 12:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Absent any declaration of specific style to the contrary, it is appropriate to fall back on [[WP:MOS|MOS:]] for style guidance. Style for titles is not defined for cs1|2 templates because there is no provision to detect deviation from a defined style and so enforce adherence to that style. As an aside, I have been wondering of late, about detecting and categorizing templates that have titles and other information in all capital letters.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
::::I disagree with the whole concept that only style matters that can be checked by programming language in a template are defined for CS1. If CS1 is a citation style in its own right, then style matters can be prescribed in the documentation even though they are not enforceable with software. Likewise, style prescriptions can be made in the documentation that, for the time being, are incorrectly implemented in the software (February 29, 1700, Julian calendar). In such cases it is the software that is faulty, not the editor who filled out the template. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 19:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,244 ⟶ 2,243:
:::::It would seem then that there is not much call for cs1|2 to support Julian leap days in the overlap period of 1582 – c. 1923. To do so would require some sort of mechanism to specifically identify those three dates as Julian dates; which can be done if there is ever a need.
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
:I usually tend to sentence case for journal entry/article titles since these seem to have uncommon capitalization (Or Use Capital Letters For Obvious Emphasis, something which is on the Do Not Do list at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Do not use for emphasis]]; [[WP:BADEMPHASIS]] is also relevant).<p>Regardless, I would recommend asking this question at [[WT:MOS]] with a note to that discussion from [[WT:Citing sources]] or similar (or vice versa as desired), since I don't think this is a question particularly specific to CS1. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)</p>
::Many thanks for your help. I've taken [[User:Izno|Izno]]'s advice and asked the question at [[WT:MOS]]. [[User:Aa77zz|Aa77zz]] ([[User talk:Aa77zz|talk]]) 17:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
::: I think everyone is missing the point here. MOS applies to text, not citations. MOS is irrelevant to this discussion. Journal article titles and journal names typically use title case, not sentence case. We should follow the case that is used in the original sources, not the MOS. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,252 ⟶ 2,251:
*As {{u|Aa77zz}} noted above at 17:13, 18 May 2015, a new thread was started at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Formatting titles of journal articles and book chapters in references]] and is continuing there. Beginning at 19:08, 19 May 2015 we have had ''six'' further comments here, so we now have a split discussion, which goes against [[WP:MULTI]]. Please could {{u|Jc3s5h}}, {{u|Trappist the monk}}, {{u|Boghog}}, {{u|David Eppstein}} and {{u|AManWithNoPlan}} consider moving their later comments to the MOS thread? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
*This whole "ignore MOS for citations because ... no real reason" stuff is causing more problems than it solves. As far as I can tell the only "problem" it "solves" at all is "I like to do citations my way, so to Hell with the MOS." This seems to be worse than useless. It's leading to some really wretched stuff, like more and more articles littered with citations like: {{cite journal |title=CHRONOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN CERAMIC PASTE: A COMPARISON OF DEPTFORD AND SAVANNAH PERIOD POTTERY IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER REGION OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA AND SOUTHEAST GEORGIA |first=Ann S. |last=Cordell |work=Southeastern Archaeology |volume=12 |issue=1 |date=1993 |pages=33–58}}. And worse - I at least used {{tlx|cite journal}} for that, when many do not, and thus do all kinds of other crap like leave the title unitalicized. I'm also seeing an increasing amount of "{{sm|Chronological Variability ...}}" which is not much better than ALLCAPS. Something detrimental has happened, presumably on one of my wikibreaks, so I didn't notice it until after the fact. [[WP:CITEVAR]] went from a reasonable "don't change an existing, acceptable citation style in an article" idea, to being aggressively interpreted as meaning "every citation style you can imagine is acceptable, so no matter how awful it is for readers, it will be set in stone forever by whoever makes the first major edit". This really needs to be undone. I have no problem at all with people pasting in citations in weird formats – at least they're working on citing sources for content at all. But the backward notion that no one is ever permitted to clean them up any more is unacceptable.</p><p>To move back toward the earlier gist of the thread: There's no defensible rationale for WP's own internal styles, e.g. CS1/2, to diverge from MOS, our own internal style guide, on anything. It's like supposing that some random class of citizens, e.g., dog catchers or plumbers, are exempt from their country's laws other than the ones they write themselves. I fully agree with Jc3s5h's point, "style matters can be prescribed in the documentation even though they are not enforceable with software". I simply add that there's no reason to deviate from MOS when it already prescribes a relevant style. NB: This also means WP doesn't care if APA says to use sentence case for titles. It's weird enough that WP does this for its own titles, for a technical reason that should have been fixed a long time ago, but we don't do that for titles in the encyclopedia content. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 10:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)</p>
** Update: See [[#Simple way to resolve MOS and citation discrepancies]], below, for totally painless solution (other than to whether we should permit externally-derived cite styles that do smallcaps and such; I'm just giving up on that for now). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,266 ⟶ 2,265:
:::For Djadjko's example:
:::*{{Cite book |ref= harv |script-title=ru:Книжка|title= Kniga |trans-title= Book |language= ru |first= I. I. |last= Ivanov |date= 2010 |publisher= Izdatelystvo |place=Moscow|isbn=000}}
:::{{para|script-title|ru:Книжка}} will add the non-transliterated title, and where necessary, it handles right-to-left coding (Hebrew, Arabic, etc). <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
== |script-chapter= ? ==
Line 2,320 ⟶ 2,319:
:::{{cite web |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news |title=CBC reports… |publisher=[[CBC News]] |accessdate=2015-06-16 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/ |archivedate=2015-06-16 |deadurl=yes}} {{resize|{{color|#AAA|“{{!}}deadurl{{=}}yes”}}}}
::become
:::<pre>{{cite web |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news |title=CBC reports… |publisher=[[CBC News]] |accessdate=2015-06-16}}{{Sourcearchived |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/ |archivedate=2015-06-16 |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news |deadurl=no}} {{resize|{{color|#AAA|“{{!}}deadurl{{=}}no”}}}}</pre>
:::<pre>{{cite web |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news |title=CBC reports… |publisher=[[CBC News]] |accessdate=2015-06-16}}{{Sourcearchived |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/ |archivedate=2015-06-16 |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news |deadurl=yes}} {{resize|{{color|#AAA|“{{!}}deadurl{{=}}yes”}}}}</pre>
::Only problem is that this version really needs more advanced programming to use a pop-up window (like footnotes within articles) to list links to multiple archives; otherwise it wouldn't look proper if something like “{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}{{tl|Sourcearchived}}” appeared at the end of a reference where many pages were individually archived.
::Thoughts?
::Cheers — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">[[User:Who R you?|<span class="nowrap">Who R you?</span>]]</span> <small>[[User talk:Who R you?|Talk]]</small></span> 02:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,345 ⟶ 2,344:
::I've used the latter of Redrose64's two suggestions a number of times. As another suggestion, you can drop the volume and issue number; the date is the key item for finding an issue of a newspaper on microfilm or in bound volumes. Also, the ___location of "Chicago" is superfluous when the city name is contained within the newspaper name.
:::{{cite news |last=Clark |first=William |date=September 17, 1960 |title=Rome's Trade Center—How It Came to Be |url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1960/09/17/page/25/article/romes-trade-center-how-it-came-to-be |newspaper=Chicago Tribune |at= part 2, p. 5 |access-date=June 9, 2015}}
::should be sufficient to cite the article. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::::I feel silly for not even trying to put the section and page in the same parameter. Thanks again! - [[User:Location|Location]] ([[User talk:Location|talk]]) 13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Agreed either of those are acceptable solutions. So is {{para|page|5 (Sports/Finance)}}. I'd keep the volume and issue. More information is better than less (as long as it's not {{em|directly}} redundant, as with "Chicago" in that case) and consistent formatting is a virtue. Omission of vol. & issue for one kind of periodical inspires omission of it for all. We can't depend on editors already having memorized citation "etiquette" and necessarily knowing it should always be included for academic journals. I think it should also always be included for magazines not likely to be found in digitized or microfiche form. Frequently, if I want to verify something from an old magazine, I have to find it on eBay, and I can't depend on sellers to use both dates and vol./no. in their listings. Taken to an extreme, the "don't include parameters not absolutely required to identify the source" would mean citing nothing but an ISBN, ISSN or OCLC number. >;-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,399 ⟶ 2,398:
:Maybe the solution is to have a parameter such as {{para|ed-no-abbr}} which will not append "ed." and it will be up to the Wikipedia editor to describe the edition in a suitable way. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 19:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::Maybe, but I've also recast things slightly so that the "ed." fits at the end because of this, and if we didn't add a parameter, {{para|edition|Corrected printing of 2nd}} would resolve the issue. <small>P.S., please don't use {{tl|para}} or similar in the heading as it breaks the automatic link to the section in the edit summary.</small> <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
== archive-url requires archive-date ==
Line 2,412 ⟶ 2,411:
Websites are not italicized (see for example [[Facebook]], [[Wikipedia]] or [[Amazon.com]]), yet if you insert the title of a website in the "website" parameter of {{[[Template:Cite web|Cite web]]}} or the "work" parameter of {{[[Template:Cite news|Cite news]]}}, it is automatically italicized. The same goes for radio stations and possibly other types of sources as well. Shouldn't this be fixed? [[User:Littlecarmen|Littlecarmen]] ([[User talk:Littlecarmen|talk]]) 09:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
:Radio and TV stations are publishers, so they should be in the {{para|publisher}} parameter. Some TV stations' websites may have their own names; the site for WLUC-TV is named ''Upper Michigan's Source'', while the other local stations, lack names for their websites. ''Wikipedia'', if being cited, should be italicized. It's an online encyclopedia, and encyclopedia titles are italicized. As for your other two examples. since those are both the names of the websites and their respective companies, you can put them in {{para|publisher}} as well. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::Thank you for the fast response! [[User:Littlecarmen|Littlecarmen]] ([[User talk:Littlecarmen|talk]]) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}For context, the question relates to [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/archive1|a Featured List candidate]] and whether the name of a website should be placed in the "publisher" parameter if it is not a newspaper or magazine so that it is not displayed in italics. Websites are not among the works that should be italicized per [[MOS:ITALICS]]. This would mean, for example, that "BBC News" in the "website" parameter would need to be moved to the "publisher" parameter so that it doesn't display in italics (although, in this case, the correct publisher would be "British Broadcasting Corporation"). My reasoning against the requested move is that there is no consensus on style to apply to all articles ([[WP:CITEVAR]]) and per [[WP:CITECONSENSUS]], "If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values in order that the template will be rendered to the reader as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style)." A couple days ago, I spent a couple hours going through the article to make sure that all of the references used the appropriate CS1 template (News, Web, Journal), but I don't think adjusting the references to ensure that only major works (eg. newspapers & magazines) are italicized is necessary. Italicization of works in CS1 references has been discussed numerous times:
Line 2,479 ⟶ 2,478:
:using:
::<nowiki>{{cite book|last=His|first=Rudoulf|orig-year=1928 |year=1967 |edition= Reprint |publisher=Oldenbourg|title=Geschichte des deutschen Strafrechts bis zur Karolina|asin=B0000BRMK3}}</nowiki>
:In this case, the publisher and place of publication should be for the reprint, not the original. I hope that helps. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::Awesome, well I made the section [[Talk:Impalement#"reprint" editions]] in regards to the citation.[[Special:Contributions/96.52.0.249|96.52.0.249]] ([[User talk:96.52.0.249|talk]]) 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
== Feature request: "total_pages" ==
Line 2,682 ⟶ 2,681:
|author=Mrs. M. Grieve
|accessdate=2008-08-20
|archiveurl=
|archivedate= 9 August 2008 <!--DASHBot-->
|deadurl= no}
Line 2,690 ⟶ 2,689:
:{{cite web |url=http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/a/apric050.html |work=A Modern Herbal |title=Apricot |publisher= Botanical.com
|author=Mrs. M. Grieve |accessdate=2008-08-20 |archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20080809232203/http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/a/apric050.html |archivedate= 9 August 2008 |deadurl= no}}
:I don't think {{para|chapter}} is valid for {{tl|cite web}}. What is the {{para|chapter}} in your citation is the {{para|title}} of an individual web page, and what is the {{para|title}} is the name of a {{para|work}} hosted on that web site. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::Or, alternatively, since this is a book hosted online, use <nowiki>{{cite book |...}}</nowiki>. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 05:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::: I am non interested about the article [[Apricot oil]], I could also have made the [[Aval]] example or any other of the 4,700 articles that unexpectedly now signal this error. The problem is that in the example I don't see any ''chapter'' parameter, so what ? --[[User:Robertiki|Robertiki]] ([[User talk:Robertiki|talk]]) 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,791 ⟶ 2,790:
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
::In that previous discussion, I commented that this should be allowed. The MOS might be silent on this, but we cannot while still providing the facilities to faithfully render the publication information for sources in CS1/CS2. We already override the MOS to capitalize season names when used in citation dates, and I agree with that as it promotes consistency between "January 2005" and "Winter 2005". Since my comments last October, I think that the word "quarter" should also be capitalized in citations for the same consistency reasons. I would also whitelist "Q1 2005" as a standard abbreviation analogous to the abbreviations for month names. This abbreviation convention is already quite common in corporate financial documents, among other places. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
::: Yes, "Quarter"-type publication dates are definitely common in some of the official documents I run across from organizations and businesses when looking for references. I absolutely agree that the by "Quarter" dates should probably be included in the 'date' parameters again, esp. as the MOS is actually silent on "disallowing" their use. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 22:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
:Support allowing quarters (and seasons), but question whether this should be directly mingled with, rather than juxtaposed against, date data. For one thing, mingling them could break various tools. For another, many publications use both; the quarter or season is at least as much akin to title data as date data: {{xt|''Journal of Chicken Lips'', June/July 2015 (Summer issue)}}, etc. For a third, they can span multiple quarters or seasons, which spans themselves can cross a year boundary ({{xt|Winter 2014/2015}}, {{xt|4Q 2014 / 1Q 2015}}, etc.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Line 2,828 ⟶ 2,827:
:Series is italicised in Trappist's example above... - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 08:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
::It appears that the {{para|series}} parameter is being repurposed. When I started six years ago, it was used in {{tlx|cite journal}} to resolve duplication when the same volume/issue numbers were used for two different issues. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 13:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Well, as with {{para|title}} doing something different in different templates, this one needs to as well. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)<p>[[Template:Cite journal]] has had {{para|series}} since 26 October 2008 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_journal&diff=next&oldid=242802643]. [[Template:Cite episode]] has had it since its creation on 4 March 2006 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_episode&action=edit&oldid=42134627]. It may have been around in some other template even longer; not sure. Was added to {{tlx|Cite book}} in 2007, for example. Anyway, it's highly desirable that it italicize in {{tlx|Cite episode}}. I would just go fix it, but I can't due to full protection on the module.<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 21:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)</p>
Test: {{Cite episode |title=Athena's Earlobes |episode-link=Rickrolling |url=http://www.google.com |access-date=20 July 2015 |series=Cracksmokin' Buttmonkeys |series-link=Humor |first=Ann |last=Onie-Maus |network=Insipid Broadcasting Network |station=KBLARGH |___location=Weed, New Mexico |date=19 July 2015 |season=2 |number=6 |minutes=48 |transcript=This parameter seems to serve no purpose |transcript-url=http://yandex.com |quote=My chicken has bigger nuggets than yours! |language=Gaelic}}
Line 2,890 ⟶ 2,889:
:<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First |display-authors=etal}}</nowiki></code>
::{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First |display-authors=etal}}
:<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Title |editor-last=Last |name-list-
::{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First |name-list-
:<code><nowiki>{{cite book/new |title=Title |editor-last=Last |editor-first=First |display-editors=etal}}</nowiki></code>
::{{cite book/new |title=Title |editor-last=Last |editor-first=First |display-editors=etal}}
Line 3,006 ⟶ 3,005:
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
::The problem also appears when using {{tl|citation}} where you end up with a meaningless number for the page number. Can we do something to always render the p. or pp. for page number as the colon is not intuitive and we are producing references which are not easily understood by the majority of readers. If this needs a wider discussion then we should set one up so that we can see if there is consensus for change. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:::When citing scholarly journals, {{tlx|cite journal}} and {{tlx|citation}} follow the model established and used by scholarly journals: volume (issue): page(s). Why should cs1|2 deviate from that standardized presentation? For example, {{PMID
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Problem comes when you are not using the volume and issue fields but just a page number it just shown a number that has no context and which needs something to show its purpose. I would guess that most readers would not know what the number relates to. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 23:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Line 3,021 ⟶ 3,020:
:::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::I have two ideas in this regard. The first is to possibly remove the compressed format for journals and use "vol. 1, no. 2, p. 3" or similar. CMOS16 uses "1, no. 2 (XXX): 3" (where the XXXX is the date or year of publication. This would have the advantage that page numbers would then always be preceded by the appropriate abbreviation, and readers who aren't familiar with the meaning of the bold-faced and bracketed numbers or the colon would have a more explicit frame of reference in the reference.
::::::::::The other idea is to emit the "p." or "pp." as appropriate unless a volume, an issue or both are also defined. So: "'''1''' (2): 3", "'''1''': 3", "(2):3" or just plain "p. 3" would be display options depending on what parameters are defined. The latter idea may be simpler to code, and bots could then strip manually inserted "p." or "pp." to avoid doubling up. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:::::::::::I would favour the first option as that removes any ambiguity for the reader. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 11:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{replyto|Trappist the monk}} Altering {{noredirect|Template:Cite magazine}} to point to {{tlx|cite news}} instead of {{tlx|cite journal}} should not be undertaken lightly. It has been suggested before, several times, in different venues. For instance, at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia#Unfortunate interaction between template and wikiproject]]. Notice in particular my comment of 14:02, 2 October 2011: whenever I have used {{tlx|cite magazine}}, someone with AWB has popped by and altered it to {{tlx|cite journal}}. So altering the redirect will not fix everything, but will cause a large number of magazine citations that directly use {{tlx|cite journal}} to suddenly become "wrong".
Line 3,045 ⟶ 3,044:
I came across this citation in [[¿Dónde Están Mis Amigos?]]:
{{cite compare |sandbox=yes |mode=web |url=Salaverri, Fernando. Sólo éxitos: año a año : 1959-2002. Iberautor Promociones Culturales, 2005. {{ISBN
The 1999 access date properly throws an error, but the URL does not, even though it probably should. Can the module code be tweaked to detect the above URL value as an error? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 11:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Line 3,090 ⟶ 3,089:
::::How do we positively identify a URL if it does not have http:// at the start? What pattern do we search for? For some real-life examples of what editors do to the {{para|url}} parameter, look through {{cl|Pages with URL errors}}. At least half of the ones I just looked at would not link to a source if we simply added "http://" to the front of the parameter's value. Those need to be tagged or investigated by a human, something that would not happen without the error message. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 01:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::I already gave the pattern to look for (albeit not as a regexp). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::::<p>Actually, there's a more trivial use case to consider: the odd website that does not serve content over HTTP but instead HTTPS. Like we do, these days. HTTP happens to redirect but that's a function of the particular website, not a global assumption that can be made. Regardless of what browsers do, I would prefer to see the error rather than gracefully permit an editor to leave off the scheme where it might be the case that the page in question does not use HTTP.</p><p>{{ping|Trappist the monk}} I assume this is the case, but does {{para|archiveurl}} have these checks? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)</p>
:::::yes. It's part of the code that renders a wiki external link so applies to all external links made by the module:
Line 3,120 ⟶ 3,119:
:::{{tq|filibuster[ing] gatekeepers}}: Erm? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 02:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Don't need to get into it in detail here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 17:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::I was looking for a reason for the personal attacks. I agree you don't need to get into it here, and shouldn't have used the phrase at all.<p>That aside, I disagree with the assertion that {{tq|We can actually [[WP:IAR|just do this]] right now}}. Let's figure out whether we want to use cite that way first (there) and then we can make the change (here). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)</p>
::::::It's not up to the CSS page to determine what elements and classes are to be used in Wikipedia. It's up to implementors of templates, etc., to determine what elements and classes they need implemented at the CSS page! You're putting the cart before the horse. More like putting the horse in the driver's seat of the cart. Also, criticism of longstanding editing patterns isn't an "attack". <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 03:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::<p>{{tq|It's not up to the CSS page}} I agree with. I disagree with {{tq|[i]t's up to implementors of templates, etc.}} My position is that you are, intentionally or otherwise, attempting to split discussion of what we ''should'' do with the element. Seeing as the discussion at MW:Common.css was opened prior to this one, my position is also that we should stop commenting here on that point.</p><p>{{tq|Also, criticism of longstanding editing patterns isn't an "attack".}} ''Any'' comment not in accordance with [[WP:NPA|NPA]] is on the wrong track. From that ''policy'', {{tq|Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.}} In this case, it is clear to me you have commented on the contributors, not the content. If you think that there are problems with the users at that page, [[WP:ANI|ANI]] is -> that way. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 04:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)</p>
::::::::{{ping|Izno}} What we should do editorially {{em|with}} the element is entirely a matter for contextual discussion with regard to different templates and other situations, and across MW generally, not just at en.wp. I.e., those are automatically separate discussions. One thing that should be done with {{tag|cite|o}} is, for example, to wrap users' signatures in it on talk pages (when used with <code><nowiki>~~~</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>, which is attribution, but not with <code><nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki></code>, which is just a shorthand for date insertion). Something similar should be done around both parameters of {{tlx|Unsigned}}, and the attributive parameter of {{tlx|Talkquote}}. What should be done with it in the citation templates is wrap the entire output with it instead of with {{tag|span|o}}. What should be done with it at [[Template:Quote]] is put it around both the {{para|author}} and {{para|source}} parameters' output if one or both are used, and suppress it otherwise. And so on. I'm sure we can devise many distinct uses and implementations of this semantic metadata markup.</p><p>What we should do technologically {{em|about}} the element at Mediawiki/common.css is obviously to stop force-italicizing it, because that's pointless, wrong for most uses we can put to the element, and it interferes with and prejudices decisions about what we should do editorially {{em|with}} the element. Except when it is essentially impossible to work around, technological considerations never dictate content editing matters here.</p><p>These are completely severable discussions, and {{em|should}} be split. The fact that it's virtually impossible to get the controllers of that interface page to do even simple, commonsense things means that the editorial, context specific discussions necessarily need to address "routing around" this processual "damage" to get the work done. It would be completely ridiculous if 6 months from now we're still not doing the more useful things with this element simply because undoing the forced italics was still being stonewalled at Mediawiki/common.css, a sadly predictable outcome, though I may try an RfC to get it done. I'll also take the matter up with the MW developers, since this italicization doesn't make sense as a MW default to begin with, just as it did not for {{tag|dfn|o}}, but I'll have to bother to figure out the new-ish ticket tracking system. (Haven't filed a MW bug since they quit using Bugzilla.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 06:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)</p>
Line 3,357 ⟶ 3,356:
:which gives:
::{{cite letter |first=Sturgis |last=Frank |recipient=Gene Wilson |subject=Pre-freedom of information request notice of charges |date=May 7, 1976 |url=http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=76999 |accessdate=August 11, 2015 |via= National Archives and Records Administration (HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 19) |id= NARA Record Number 1993.08.02.09:31:14:370053 }}
:I just added {{para|id}} to the template, and {{para|via}} was already there. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<
:Are you citing the hard copy? Have you actually seen the hard copy? If not, and you are citing the copy at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, then the direct cs1 equivalent to {{tlx|cite letter}} would be {{tlx|cite web}} ([[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]] applies). It should be noted that {{tld|cite letter}} is a meta-template of {{tlx|cite news}}. Such a citation might look like this:
Line 3,381 ⟶ 3,380:
;{{para|name-list-format}}
:accepted value is 'vanc'
:*{{cite book/new |title=Title: name-list-format=vanc |name-list-
:*{{cite book/new |title=Title: name-list-format=venc |name-list-format=venc |last=Last |first=Fred George |last2=Laster |first2=A. B. |last3=Lastest |first3=First}}
;{{para|mode}} – accepted values are 'cs1', 'cs2'
Line 3,425 ⟶ 3,424:
;;;{{para|last-author-amp}}
:::accepted values are 'yes', 'true', 'y'
:::*{{cite book/new |title=Title: last-author-amp=y
:::*{{cite book/new |title=Title: last-author-amp=true
:::*{{cite book/new |title=Title: last-author-amp=yes
:::*{{cite book/new |title=Title: last-author-amp=1
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I've created a table of keywords in [[Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox]] so that the keywords can be defined and the same reused; 'yes, true, y' is used for several parameters – no need to keep separate lists.
| |||