Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Help talk:Citation Style 1. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 discussions from Help talk:Citation Style 1. (BOT) |
||
Line 989:
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
== "Missing or empty |title=" error message ==
Various uses of citation without a {{para|title}} now throw the error message "Missing or empty |title=". Per a [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive_7#cite_journal_without_.7Ctitle|discussion last January]] I had thought that use of "{{para|title|none}}" was going to suppress this message, but that is not happening. Can we get this message suppressed? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 19:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:Example?
:The [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite journal without .7Ctitle|referenced discussion]] referred specifically to {{tlx|cite journal}} though the applied 'fix' also applies to {{tlx|citation}} when one of the {{para|periodical}} parameters (except {{para|encyclopedia}}) is set. Which see:
::<code><nowiki>{{cite journal |title=none |periodical=Periodical}}</nowiki></code>
:::{{cite journal |title=none |periodical=Periodical}}
::<code><nowiki>{{citation |title=none |periodical=Periodical}}</nowiki></code>
:::{{citation |title=none |periodical=Periodical}}
::<code><nowiki>{{citation |title=none |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}</nowiki></code>
:::{{citation |title=none |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia}}
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Example:</br>
:<nowiki>{{citation |author= Hegerl, ''et al.'' |chapter= Chapter 9 |title=none }} in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}.</nowiki>
:> {{citation
|author= Hegerl, ''et al.''
|chapter= Chapter 9
|title=none
}} in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}.
::<small>[My apologies. I condensed the example the example so much that it looks like a ''short'' cite, but it is intended to be a ''full'' citation. See the uncondensed example below. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)]</small>
::<small>Better example below at [[#Example of "source in work"]] ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
:where the source is a chapter in the larger work linked to. Strictly speaking the 'work' is a book, but use of {cite book} gives the same result. Use {cite journal} causes {{para|chapter}} to be ignored. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
::This would allow replacement of the little used {{tl|source in source}}. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 22:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I have never warmed to {source in source} (too grotesque), and would favor its replacement. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
=== {Harvc} as alternative ===
Even though you are on the record in [[Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6#Citing multiple contributions to a work|opposition]], this is the kind of thing for which {{tlx|harvc}} was invented. Somewhere in the text you have: <code><nowiki>{{sfn|Hegerl, et al.|2007}}</nowiki></code> which for illustration I'll put here.{{sfn|Hegerl, et al.|2007}}
In the bibliography section write a citation for the book. This template is one I found at [[Global warming]]; it has not been modified:
:<code><nowiki>{{Cite book
| year = 2007
| author = IPCC AR4 WG1
| title = Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
| series = Contribution of Working Group I to the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|Fourth Assessment Report]] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
| editor = Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L.
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
| isbn = 978-0-521-88009-1
| ref = harv
}}
</nowiki></code>
Then write {{tlx|harvc}} templates for each of the individual chapters that are part the 'book' but are cited separately:
:<code><nowiki>{{harvc |last=Hegerl, et al. |year=2007 |c=Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html |loc=[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-2.html Section 9.5.2: Sea Level]|in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}</nowiki></code>
So, from your <code><nowiki>{{sfn|Hegerl, et al.|2007}}</nowiki></code> there is now a link into §References where there is a link to the appropriate chapter in §Bibliography which links to the book. Here is the link in article text again.{{sfn|Hegerl, et al.|2007|loc=[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-2.html Section 9.5.2: Sea Level]}} The {{tld|harvc}} template can also be enclosed in {{tag|ref}} tags.<ref>{{harvc |last=Hegerl, et al. |year=2007 |c=Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html |loc=[http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-2.html Section 9.5.2: Sea Level]|in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}</ref>
<nowiki>==References==</nowiki>
{{reflist-talk}}
<nowiki>==Bibliography==</nowiki><br />
*{{Cite book
| year = 2007
| author = IPCC AR4 WG1
| title = Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
| series = Contribution of Working Group I to the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|Fourth Assessment Report]] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
| editor = Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L.
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
| isbn = 978-0-521-88009-1
| ref = harv
}}
**{{harvc |last=Hegerl, et al. |year=2007 |c=Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html |in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
:My apologies for causing some confusion here. In the interest of brevity I condensed the example above so much it may appear to be a ''short'' cite, such as where harv templates are used to connect to a ''full'' citation with full bibliographic details. (This confusion is further compounded by the way citations are misused at [[Global warming#Citations]].) The preferred solution here is to have very short links (implemented with some form of {harv}), such as "{{harvnb|Hegerl, et al.|2007}}", used where ever material needs to be attributed, all of which link to a single ''full'' citation such as the following:
:* {{citation
|author= Hegerl, Smith, Jones, ''et al.''
|chapter-url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
|chapter= Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
|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).
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:The important point is that the "in ''source''" attribution follows only the ''full'' citation, not every instance of the short cite. (The latter being what {{tl|harvc}} does, which is one reason why I opposed it, the other being that I don't believe a whole additional template is necessary for this.) And in fact the current set does all this just fine, except for the little detail of an entirely unnecessary and unuseful red error message.
:So back to my initial request: can this little red splash be suppressed? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
::The example full citation template is incomplete. It identifies a chapter of 'something', but doesn't identify what that 'something' is. Because that template is a CS2 citation, it produces metadata that are also incomplete. This is the reason that there is, and should remain, an error message. The full template is coupled (by proximity only) to a {{tlx|harvnb}} template that links to a full citation that is complete in and of itself – title, editors, publisher, isbn, etc that the pseudo-full citation lacks.
::This same is all true of {{tlx|harvc}} in that it also lists only a chapter of 'something' without identifying what that 'something' is; it also links to a full citation with all of the aforementioned stuff (without an additional {{tld|harvnb}} template). But, because it isn't a CS1/CS2 template, it does not produce metadata and is simply a bridge between simple {{tlx|sfn}} templates and the full citation template. I've tweaked my examples above to include the chapter's name, url, and ___location data.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The "something" - the larger work which includes this source - ''is'' identified. Just not within the ''template''. The citation is indeed complete ''as displayed'' (that is, the work is identified/linked). But I gather your concern is providing context for the metadata collected from the template. Well, that is a deep issue. And it seems to me that harvc is, in the end, just a kludge for getting around the CS1 error checking. I think it would be simpler to just suppress the error message. However, I want to take a deeper look at al this, and see if I can better formulate what is needed. For the duration: even if "missing title" is kept as a maintenance category, could we at least have the error message suppressed? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes. There is no facility for us to split a citation and then, somehow, later, gather up all of the incomplete metadata from the disparate parts and meld them into a single complete unit. It is not possible; templates can't communicate with each other. Maybe someday but not at present. So, {{tlx|harvc}} is no more a kludge than writing a CS1/CS2 citation that intentionally leaves out information critical to the proper compilation of the citation's metadata. Better, I think, to have metadata that is complete and correct than to have metadata that is incomplete.
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::I have had an idea (yikes). In {{tl|harvc}} you have an {{para|in}} parameter. Could we have a similar parameter in {{tl|citation}}, which would signal that the citation metadata is incomplete and should not be collected for COinS? And incidentally overlook the lack of a title? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::Could. But:
::::::#{{tlx|harvc}} is already written, debugged, working, and documented
::::::#new documentation would be required
::::::#adding {{para|in}} to [[Module:Citation/CS1]] adds yet another level of complexity to an already complex code set
::::::So, unless overwhelming support for this compels me, I'd rather not.
:::::
::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Harvc does not provide the functionality needed (such as expansion of the author list), misorders the elements (but fixable?), and adds complexity to the ''use'' of citations. I would be satisfied if {{tl|citation}} simply accepted the lack of a title; my idea for an {{para|in}} parameter would address your conern about incomplete metadata. It also permits retention of title checking for the general run of cases where lack of a title probably is an error. If coding that is too much trouble, then let's fall back to the previous idea of using {{para|title|none}} to suppress the error message. I believe any changes to the documentation are minimal, and I can take care of that, so that should not be any objection. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{tlx|harvc}} was modeled on the other short-form templates that accept a maximum of four author names. That could be changed, I suppose, though we would probably also need to include a form of {{para|display-authors}} so that the template could switch from its default, where it acts just like the other {{tlx|harv}} templates, to displaying all or part of the author list. How are the elements misordered? How is using {{tlx|harvc}} any more complex than the exemplar that uses both a broken CS2 template and a {{tlx|harvnb}} template?
:::::::
::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm putting together an example which should clarify the situation. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I've added a better example below at [[#Example of "source in work"]]. In brief, one or more short cites (implemented with harv templates) link to the citation for the chapter (contribution), which links to the citation for the work. The middle layer uses {{tl|citation}} because there is no simple form of {{tl|harv}} that will produce the full author list (which could include author-links), and because any use of harv of at the middle layer confuses the use of short cites. All of this works just fine, aside the from the red message. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 01:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Trappist the monk}}: back to my initial request, can the {{font color|red|Missing or empty title}} message be suppressed, either entirely, or in the specific case of {{para|title|none}}? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Have I not already answered this? No. The error message is there for a purpose and so should not be suppressed. If we do anything, it should be to {{tlx|harvc}} where we expand on its ability to better handle and display all or part of the author list.
::::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::You said you would "rather not" implement my idea of an {{para|in}} parameter, and I can accept that you think it is not important enough. However, suppressing this red message is a different matter. It is an "error" only because you (and ??) decided that it should be; I think it can be argued that it is not. Indeed, in regards of COinS I would argue that given a full citation for a containing work, citations for the chapters contained within should ''not'' generate COinS metadata. However, the usual way of handling such cases - incorporating all the bibliographic details of the containing working within each chapter's citation (see example below) - can lead to voluminous redundant data for the IPCC reports. The method I have developed for handling these cases is reasonable, and works. Except for the splot of red, which is a recent innovation.
:::::::::::Harvc is not suitable. Should we break out a subsection to discuss that? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::You are mistaken. I do think it is important. That is why {{tlx|harvc}} exists. I also think that it is important to let the CS1/2 templates do what they do best and not try to make them do else-wise by creating special cases where the module does something different; there is too much of that already complicating the code in service of the unique characteristics of the various templates. So far I see no reason to abandon my 'rather not' position.
::::::::::::I have suggested that {{tld|harvc}} functionality could be expanded but even with that you stand fast on {{tq|Harvc is not suitable}}. This begins to look rather like a stalemate which to me is wearisome.
::::::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
I regret that this is becoming wearisome, but it is rather important for me, so I would deem it a great favor if you might bear with me a little longer. The IPCC citations present some unusual and difficult challenges, and though these are not so notable across the entirety of Wikipedia (but what sources are?), they are very significant within the Global Warming articles. The approach I developed has worked very well, up until the recently introduced "error" messages. I take your view to be that this approach involves "broken" {{tl|citation}} templates, that this approach misuses the templates in making them do something they were not designed for, and would complicate the underlying code.
Regarding the last, I do not see how testing the template data for "missing or empty title" is any less complicated than ''not'' testing for that. Even the special case of skipping the test for "title=none" should be only a single line, nothing complicated. But if it is, then I would argue: eliminate the title test entirely.
Which gets to what I suspect is the core issue: is citation of chapters always incomplete, and therefore an error, if it is missing details of the containing work, such as title? I do agree that a "citation" is incomplete without such details. But I say the issue is more finely whether the ''template'' (whether {{tl|citation}} or {{tl|cite xxx}}) must contain all the details, and more particularly whether a ''link'' to those details is acceptable. I find that this must be made acceptable, as the alternative is that every chapter cited in every IPCC Assessment Report becomes bloated with these extensive details. I believe your argument at this point would be something about the incompleteness of COinS data. I will address that tomorrow. For now I ask if you concur with what I have described so far. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:Here are a couple of {{tlx|harvc}} templates of the sandbox variety. They will accept as many authors as you want. <s>Right now it's somewhat clunky: {{para|display-authors|99}}</s> {{para|display-authors|all}} is used to display all of the authors in the contributor's list. If the value assigned to {{para|display-authors}} is <code>all</code> or the same as or greater than the number of authors in the contributors list, then all last and first names are displayed. If {{para|display-authors}} is empty or omitted, then the template displays up to the first four (if present) last names in the same way that other 'harv' templates do. If {{para|display-authors}} is assigned a value less than the number of authors in the contributors list, the template displays both last and first names of that number of contributors followed by et al.
:Here the <s>{{tld|harvc/sandbox}}</s> {{tlx|harvc}} template output is compared to your unmodified {{tlx|citation}} output. The differences are date display and brackets around year in the link to the enclosing work.
:*{{tlx|sfn}} templates link to {{tlx|harv/sandbox}} templates.{{sfn|Hegerl|Zwiers|Braconnot|Gillett|2007}}{{sfn|Le Treut|Somerville|Cubasch|Ding|2007}}
{{reflist-talk}}
{{ref begin}}
:*{{Cite book
| year = 2007
| author = IPCC AR4 WG1
| title = Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
| series = Contribution of Working Group I to the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|Fourth Assessment Report]] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
| editor = Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L.
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
| isbn = 978-0-521-88009-1
| ref = harv
}}
:**{{harvc |mode=cs2 |ps=. |display-authors=all |first1= G. C. |last1= Hegerl |first2= F. W. |last2= Zwiers |first3= P. |last3= Braconnot |first4= N. P. |last4= Gillett |first5= Y. |last5= Luo |first6= J. A. |last6= Marengo Orsini |first7= N. |last7= Nicholls |first8= J. E. |last8= Penner |first9= P. A. |last9= Stott |year=2007 |c=Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html |in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}
:**{{citation
|ref= {{Harvid|Hegerl et al.|2007}}
|first1= G. C. |last1= Hegerl
|first2= F. W. |last2= Zwiers
|first3= P. |last3= Braconnot
|first4= N. P. |last4= Gillett
|first5= Y. |last5= Luo
|first6= J. A. |last6= Marengo Orsini
|first7= N. |last7= Nicholls
|first8= J. E. |last8= Penner
|first9= P. A. |last9= Stott
|date= 2007
|chapter-url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
|chapter= Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
}} in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}. {{tq|["Full" citation of ''Hegerl et al.'', except that details included in the citation of the containing work (below) are not repeated here. This citation appears only ''once'' in the article.]}}
:**{{harvc |mode=cs2 |ps=. |display-authors=all |first1= H. |last1= Le Treut |first2= R. |last2= Somerville |first3= U. |last3= Cubasch |first4= Y. |last4= Ding |first5= C. |last5= Mauritzen |first6= A. |last6= Mokssit |first7= T. |last7= Peterson |first8= M. |last8= Prather |year= 2007 |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1.html |chapter= Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science |in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}
:**{{Citation
|ref= {{Harvid|Le Treut et al.|2007}}
|first1= H. |last1= Le Treut
|first2= R. |last2= Somerville
|first3= U. |last3= Cubasch
|first4= Y. |last4= Ding
|first5= C. |last5= Mauritzen
|first6= A. |last6= Mokssit
|first7= T. |last7= Peterson
|first8= M. |last8= Prather
|date= 2007
|chapter-url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1.html
|chapter= Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
}} in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}.
{{ref end}}
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you. I will study this tonight. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::I am somewhat amazed that you went to the trouble of making harvc produce a proper display, where addition of (I believe) one or two lines in the CS1 code could have saved us all this trouble. Particularly as harvc extends the harv templates well past what they were designed for. Which sounds like what you complained about on the 26th, that "{{tq|it is important to let the CS1/2 templates do what they do best and not try to make them do else-wise by creating special cases where the module does something different...}}". The only special case I am asking for is the one value of "none" for title, and all it does is suppress an error message. Your fix introduces three new parameters ({{para|c}}, {{para|url}}, and the {{para|in}} parameter you rejected for CS1 on the 19th), and radically alters the normal Harv output. Not to mention that new documentation will be required (your objection #2 on the 19th).
::But while the harvc display now looks reasonable, there is still a fundamental problem: the harv templates are designed for use in-line as short cites, whereas the CS1 and CS2 templates are designed for full citations. As such the latter are often collected together as lists, where inclusion of a short cite form (harv) as an item is anomalous, and typically an error. Using a full citation form (such as {citation}) for the IPCC chapters is reasonable and conformable with all other full citations, using the same general format. Use of harvc increases complexity, creates anomalies that invite "correction", and increases the difficulty of explaining to other editors why there must be this anomalous usage.
::Trappist, I really appreciate that you would put significant time and effort into tweaking harvc. However, it also concerns me that you should expend so much time and effort on something fundamentally unsatisfactory when there is a better solution. I believe your principal concern is the integrity of the COinS data. If that is satisfactorily addressed, could we not have the minimalist modification of "title=none"? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:::{{para|c}} (and its aliases {{para|chapter}} and {{para|contribution}}), {{para|url}}, and {{para|in''n''}} have been part of {{tlx|harvc}} since its first release. The changes in {{tlx|harvc/sandbox}} are: unlimited {{para|last''n''}}, addition of {{para|first''n''}}, {{para|author-link''n''}}, {{para|author-mask''n''}}, and {{para|display-authors}}; conversion of {{para|separator}} to {{para|mode}} for CS1/2 compliance. Yeah, if I make this new version the live version then I'll need to update the documentation.
:::I chose {{tld|harvc}} as a name because it was developed from the code that handles the {{tlx|harv}} and {{tlx|sfn}} templates. {{tld|harvc}} is just a name. Pick another name; one that makes you happy; then make a redirect from that name. Or {{tld|harvc}} can be moved to that name.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::{{tl|citation-in}}? {{smiley}} Well, a name change would help, but the problem is that it is only "skin deep": the parameters and their usage are still different. This template by any name is inherently different, which increases complexity. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 00:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
=== "Error" message still a problem, and Harvc still unsuitable ===
{{u|Trappist the monk}}: the "missing or empty title" message is still a problem, and (upon re-reviwing the matter) I find Harvc is still unsuitable for the use needed (as previously explained). Therefore I re-iterate my original request to suppress this message. Or, alternately, to allow some keyword that would suppress the message. You previously stated (25 Mar) that "{{tq|[t]he error message is there for a purpose}}", which I take to be ensuring that data extracted for COinS is complete. However, it seems to me that skipping the metadata extraction these cases is simple (and even quite reasonable, as ''chapters'' are not really suitable for COinS anyway), and so should not be an issue if a special keyword is implemented.
If you still object to having a special keyword I would much appreciate reviewing your reasons. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure that my position hasn't changed since my last post on this topic three weeks ago. Unless there is something new to discuss ...
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|Trappist the monk}}: You have previously expressed concern for the COinS metadata, but in your statement of three weeks ago ({{diff2|653533997|00:05, 26 Mar}}) your opposition was to "{{tq|creating special cases}}" and "{{tq|complicating the code}}". Allow me to suggest that ''checking for "empty or missing" title is a special case that complicates the code'', and that eliminating that recently added functionality would simplify the code. Your position is also inconsistent with your advocacy of harvc, which (besides being quite unsuitable) is a definite cock-up relative to the rather simple change need to add a title exception. I can only surmise that your adamant opposition arises from some other basis, which we cannot examine until you state what it is. Despite your previous statement, it appears that you do ''not'' think this is important enough to even address. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Yep, because omitting {{para|title}} corrupts the metadata; yep, because to do what you want introduces yet another 'special case'; yep, because special cases complicate code, they always have and they always will. Checking for missing titles is not new but, rather, has been refined. In the past, anything that vaguely resembled a title counted as a title but that loose definition permitted editors to create citations that produced incomplete metadata.
:::I have no hidden reasons for my opposition and I have addressed the issue: see the {{tlx|harvc/sandbox}} examples in the adjoining discussions.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you for clarifying this. So your opposition is based entirely on two points: 1) leaving out "title" corrupts the COinS data, and 2) special cases complicate the code.
::::Regarding your first objection, I point out that '''metadata is not corrupted if it is not generated'''. If a "title" (referring to a containing book or "work") is not present, then it is appropriate to ''not'' generate any metadata, and there is no corruption. This is reasonable, as COinS is used to find library ''items'' (e.g., books), not chapters within books. (Underlying this is a deeper issue of whether every use of a citation template must include a title, but as this is not a point of objection we need not examine it.) If in the special case I am asking for COinS data is simply not generated, there is then no corruption of the metadata. Your point is refuted.
::::Regarding your second objection: if you insist on simplicity for its own sake, then you should remove all COinS processing, which is a vast complication on the original and primary purpose of the CS templates. On a smaller scale you could simply remove the code that checks for "missing or empty" titles. Of course, that would conflict with the preference for complete metadata, but that is my point: it's all a matter of '''trade-offs'''. You decided that reducing data corruption warranted further "refinement", but when you broke an established and valid usage you decided that it was not important enough for any further refinements. This is particularly odd as the CS code appears to be a mass of special cases, so why do you think ''this'' special case will break everything?
::::I do not find your objections valid (which is why I wonder if there is some other basis for your adamancy), and do not know how else to address them. Would you be persuaded otherwise if I can find (say) three other editors (after all, this is an obscure technical point) who support what I have requested? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Of course, metadata are not corrupted if not generated, but CS1 and CS2 do generate metadata. The decision to do so was taken quite long ago. I don't know how the metadata are consumed but I would guess that complete and accurate metadata are important to those who do consume it. The COinS documentation identifies a keyword <code>rft.atitle</code> to hold chapter titles. COinS support exists, the metadata are used, so that facility likely isn't going away even though it would simplify the code. (And yes, I think every CS1 and CS2 template should have a title.)
:::::Yep, [[Module:Citation/CS1]] is awash in special cases because it directly supports some two dozen CS1 and CS2 templates. One of my long-term goals is to minimize that to the extent possible.
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::So you agree that, in the cases at issue, if a COinS record is not generated, there is no corruption of the data. The question is then whether, in such cases, ''not'' generating a record is a loss of data. I say no, as a record ''is'' generated for the ''item'' (book) containing the chapter. I believe the issue comes down to having either '''a)''' multiple records containing chapter data that is that is useless for finding the book and book data that is repeated across all these records, or '''b)''' a single record for the book that does not contain information not useful for finding the book (i.e., the chapter details). In most cases of "source ''in'' work" there is only a single instance, so it is convenient to package all the bibliographic detail into one citation. (That COinS has a field for chapter title is, I believe, for the rare but extant cases where a chapter is published separately, where it is useful to know that the material might be found as an individual item, or included in a larger work.) In the cases I am working with there are multiple instances, and even multiple levels of containment (''section'' in ''chapter'' in ''report'' in ''review''), each with substantial bibliographic detail. Such masses of detail can overwhelm both readers and editors, and causes other problems, wherefore I find it necessary to use the second approach. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|I find it necessary to use the second approach}} for which purpose {{tlx|harvc}} was designed and since enhanced. {{tld|harvc}} does not produce COinS metadata, can be linked from multiple places in an article, does link to the containing work's CS1/2 citation, and does hold and display the substantial bibliographic details of the sub-unit. All of this so that {{tq|[s]uch masses of detail [don't] overwhelm both readers and editors, and [cause] other problems}}.
:::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Have I not already explained this? '''Harvc is fundamentally unsuitable'''. (See my previous comment of 22:39, 30 March.) Although you can make the resulting ''display'' essentially equivalent, Harvc is quite at odds with the use and purpose of the Harv family of templates. It is very much a special case (such as you keep inveighing against) that will only confuse the editors attempting to use. E.g., the Harv templates generate ''short cites'' which do ''not'' contain bibliographic details, and (typically) use only the ''last'' name (of one or more authors) or a ''shortened title'' to link to the full citation. Now editors will wonder (it becomes necessary to explain) why bibliographically complete full names and full titles are required for Harvc, but are not accepatble for the rest of the Harv templates. Also: editors can readily understand having the short cites (implemented with Harv) in the text (or notes therein) and the full citations (implemented with CS1/CS2 templates) in a seperate "References" section. But having Harvc templates mixed in with the CS templates is anomalous, confusing an otherwise distinct usage. Harvc not only makes the already challenging task of IPCC citation more complex, it is likely to confuse and perplex editors in the use of the Harv templates generally. This is entirely unacceptable.
::::::::CS1/CS2 already does everything you claim for the unsuitable and even dubious Harvc, and the simple enhancement I am requesting could easily skip producing COinS data. Your advocacy of Harvc in the face of a simpler and more suitable option brings us back to my previous question: why? Your objections are inconsistent and disproportionate, and I believe I have adequately addressed them. So why do you persist?
::::::::BTW: In quoting me are you concurring in preferring the second approach? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::I can take a file to one of the claws of a [[framing hammer]] so that it fits a slotted-head [[wood screw]] and use the modified hammer to drive the screw or I could just hammer the screw into place. I would be better to use a screwdriver, the proper tool for the job. {{tlx|harvc}} is not a special case but rather, the proper tool to render intermediate cites between long-form citation templates and short-form citation templates.
:::::::::{{tld|harvc}} has never required {{tq|bibliographically complete full names}}; its default is to display the contributor list in the same manner as {{tld|sfn}} and {{tld|harv}}. Because of its intermediate nature, it does require a title and the enclosing work's author/editor list or name.
:::::::::I don't believe that our editors are bucket-headed dolts who are incapable of understanding how all of these bits, pieces, and parts fit together. I took your point about {{tld|harvc}}'s name. Do you have a better name? You did suggest {{tlx|citation-in}}. Because {{tld|harvc}} defaults to CS1 styling perhaps that name should be {{tlx|cite-in}}. But, I don't think that {{tld|harvc}} should be renamed to either of those because it isn't one of the CS1 (cite) or CS2 (citation) family of templates. Perhaps the name should describe the function: {{tld|harvc}} is intermediate between short-form and long-form citation templates: {{tlx|intermediate harv cite}} perhaps with a redirect from {{tlx|ihc}}.
:::::::::I would not have gone to the trouble of coding {{tld|harvc}} if I didn't believe that there are times when an intermediate template between short- and long-form citation templates is appropriate.
:::::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
As a quasi-humorous interlude: years ago I was surprised to find a tool like an awl with screw thread on the end. The intended use is to hammer it into a stud, then screw it out, leaving a pre-threaded pilot hole for a proper screw. This was considered better practice than hammering screws in most of the way, taking a couple of turns at the end. Which is perhaps to say that kludginess is relative.
Your "bucket-headed dolts" is not really relevant here. I think there are such editors, but the editors I am trying to serve are quite experienced (and competently so), and I believe are fully ''capable'' of understanding citation complexity. But many of them are uncomfortable going beyond the simplest use of CS1/CS2. Which I find somewhat reasonable: WP has a lot of complex stuff, and I am loathe to add any ''unnecessary'' complexity. I would like to bring them up to using Harv, but there is great sensitivity to any perceived complexity, and especially so for any increase of complexity. This includes radically differing uses (such as use of full or only last name, as I described in my previous comment) of ostensibly similar "Harv''x''" templates. Using a different name would defuse some of the anticipation of similiarity, but would add another layer of complexity where I am convinced the existing tools (with a slight enhancement) are quite adequate.
Keep in mind that this intermediate link I am trying to implement has two components. First is the ''description'' (''full'' biblilographic details) of the ''chapter'' (contribution); second is the ''link'' (''minimal'' necessary details) to the enclosing ''work''. Note the key differences: the '''chapter''' has the ''full names'' of ''all authors'', AND the ''full title'', while the enclosing '''work''' has either the ''last names only'' of the ''first three editors'', OR a ''short title''. The CS1/CS2 templates are designed to do the former, while the Harv templates are designed for the latter. Except for Harvc, which you are repurposing to do both by adding a raft of additional parameters. Your hammer is now trying to emulate a ratchet screwdriver that handles slotted, Phillips, or Allen head screws.
If you really insist on a separate template let's do this: copy {{tl|citation}} to {{tl|citation-nc}} ("no coins"), then remove both the title test and all of the code for generating COinS data. No red message, no corrupted data, and we're both happy. Right? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::I understand what you are trying to implement. {{tlx|harvc}} does all that:
:::{{tlx|harv}} → {{tld|harvc}} → {{tlx|citation}}
:: vs your implementation:
::: {{tld|harv}} → {{tld|citation}} + in + {{tld|harv}} → {{tld|citation}}
::Copying {{tld|citation}} to {{tlx|citation-nc}} (really copying [[Module:Citation/CS1]] to some other name) is not going to happen. That makes two mostly similar code sets to maintain in parallel. No thank you. [[Module:Harvc]], not being a one-off copy of Module:Citation/CS1 does not have to be maintained in parallel. Yes, there will on occasion be times when a change to Module:Citation/CS1 will require a change to Module:Harvc but every change to Module:Citation/CS1 need not be reflected in Module:Harvc.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::<small> I was rather cherishing my virginal innocence of Lua, but in a momentary rashness I clicked on your link. And now I am undone, undone!! I blush to think of my ignorance all in shreds, with visions of algorithms dancing in my head. :-( </br> ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::I share your aversion to maintaining multiple nearly identical sets of code. But aside from that, consider that from a conceptual point of view, two templates whose use is identical and differ only in that one flags "missing or empty" titles as errors (which is what you want), and the other neither flags such cases (satisfying me) nor generates "corrupted" COinS data (satisfying you) would seem a satisfactory solution.
:::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|<font color="white">Imzadi 1979</font>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span> 05:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::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)
:::{{ping|J. Johnson}} I was also unhappy about the appearance of error messages when citation templates were used without titles, since I made regular use of references of the form "chapter_citation in Harvard_link" with the "Harvard_link" leading to an entry elsewhere, often in the Bibliography. But as far as I can see, {{tl|harvc}} can now be used to achieve the correct effect. So what is your real objection? If it's to the name of the template, I agree that for {{em|general use}}, it's a confusing name, since its purpose is "condensed citations" not Harvard style cross-references. However, as Trappist the monk says, there can be any number of aliases, so this is easily fixed. The precise behaviour of the parameters is an issue, I think; it betrays the origin of the template via the Harvard templates rather than via the cite/citation templates. For example, I do find it odd to have to use {{para|display-authors}} to get first names displayed. I believe this should be the default as it is for a normal citation, with {{para|display-authors}} required to suppress output not produce it. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 09:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::It wouldn't be much of an issue to make the default contributor list display be like that of CS1|2 templates and then use the CS1|2 presentation parameter {{para|name-list-format|harv}} to switch to the {{tlx|harv}} family style. This would, I think require a new name. Got any ideas for that? {{tlx|intermediate cite}}, {{tlx|intercite}}, {{tlx|icite}}; {{tlx|contribution cite}} with redirects from {{tlx|section cite}}, {{tlx|chapter cite}}, {{tlx|report cite}} (may be too close to {{tlx|cite report}}), {{tlx|review cite}} come to mind.
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::Back into the sandbox, here's Hegerl:
:::::::<code><nowiki>{{harvc/sandbox |mode=cs2 |ps=. |first1= G. C. |last1= Hegerl |first2= F. W. |last2= Zwiers |first3= P. |last3= Braconnot |first4= N. P. |last4= Gillett |first5= Y. |last5= Luo |first6= J. A. |last6= Marengo Orsini |first7= N. |last7= Nicholls |first8= J. E. |last8= Penner |first9= P. A. |last9= Stott |year=2007 |c=Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html |in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}</nowiki></code>
::::::::→{{harvc/sandbox |mode=cs2 |ps=. |first1= G. C. |last1= Hegerl |first2= F. W. |last2= Zwiers |first3= P. |last3= Braconnot |first4= N. P. |last4= Gillett |first5= Y. |last5= Luo |first6= J. A. |last6= Marengo Orsini |first7= N. |last7= Nicholls |first8= J. E. |last8= Penner |first9= P. A. |last9= Stott |year=2007 |c=Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html |in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}
::::::and if you set {{para|name-list-format|harv}} you get this:
::::::::→{{harvc/sandbox |name-list-format=harv |mode=cs2 |ps=. |first1= G. C. |last1= Hegerl |first2= F. W. |last2= Zwiers |first3= P. |last3= Braconnot |first4= N. P. |last4= Gillett |first5= Y. |last5= Luo |first6= J. A. |last6= Marengo Orsini |first7= N. |last7= Nicholls |first8= J. E. |last8= Penner |first9= P. A. |last9= Stott |year=2007 |c=Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change |url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html |in=IPCC AR4 WG1}}
::::::I have set all previous uses of {{tlx|harvc/sandbox}} in these conversations to use the live version.
::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 10:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Trappist the monk}} the functionality of the sandbox version is closer to my current preference; please see the comment I've added at [[#Example of "source in work"]]. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Peter: I agree that Harvc can produce what is essentially identical display output. But as I was just saying, there is what I deem a very serious problem in how to use this template. Just for the sake of the Harv templates generally (and trying to get editors to use them) I strongly object to how Harvc goes way beyond that family of templates with these new parameters, uses, and output. For the case at hand I object to having to use yet another template, with its own peculiar characteristics, where, with a single enhancement, the existing CS1/CS2 templates would work just fine, with no additional training or explanations required. Alternately, I object to this ''dis''enhancement that broke prior usage.
:::::Trappist: "Harvc" as a name absolutely has to go. (That removes the confusion of anticipated similarity with the rest of the Harv family.) But the deeper problem is having ''yet another template'', with its own peculiar characteristics, which adds more complexity in creating citations. And (again), why go to so much trouble making Harvc more like CS1/CS2 instead of just fixing the latter? ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 00:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|J. Johnson}} please see the comment I've added at [[#Example of "source in work"]]. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
=== Comment ===
I need a context to understand this. Have I got this right? J. Johnson wants three levels of citation, a short inline citation, an intermediate level that describes a chapter in a larger work (in this case, an online work), and a top level citation that gives full information on the work? I don't think that's traditional in paper citation styles. If I'm right that it is untraditional, it's going to confuse readers, who won't be expecting a three-level citation hierarchy. And it's going to be even more confusing for editors. So if the work has the same authors for all chapters, I'd cite the entire work and have short cites to that. If the work has different authors for different chapters, and especially if the identity of the chapter authors is significant, I'd put every chapter that was used in the bibliography and make the short cites point to the appropriate chapter. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
:Pretty nearly "yes" on all counts. (Though what I want is subect to modification. I'm still working this out.) And what you suggest - giving each chapter (these all have different authorship) a full citation that includes the details of the containing work - is inded the standard format. However, in the various global warming articles the chapters from the IPCC reports are cited so often, and the citations of the containing works have so much detail, that the citations become very bloated, in both the wiki-text and the displayed text, with redundant information. This obscures the essential information, and makes careful editing extremely tedious. That having three levels of citation (instead of the more common two levels) is not "treaditional" is not, I think, a problem, as any readers interested in the sources (most of them are not) are used to clicking on a link to get to the next level of information. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 23:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
=== Example of "''source'' in ''work''" ===
The goal is to enable having within an article one or more short cites like this {{Harvtxt|Hegerl et al.|2007}}<ref>{{tq|[Generated with {{tl|harv}} templates like this: <nowiki>{{Harvtxt|Hegerl et al.|2007}}</nowiki>]}}</ref> (in either the text or a note, and optionally specifying a ___location within the source<ref>{{Harvnb|Hegerl et al.|2007}}, [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-5-2.html Section 9.5.2: Sea Level], p. 999. {{tq|[Short cite, with specification appended.]}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Le Treut et al.|2007}}, [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-3-2.html Section 1.3.2: Global Surface Temperature].</ref>) that link to a single citation for a chapter (contribution) with the full details of that source, which in turn links to a single citation for the containing work, without repeating at any level the details of the chapter or of the containing work. And without the red message complaining of a missing or empty title.
{{reflist-talk|title=Notes}}
{{quote box|
In the "'''References'''" or "Bibliography" section, using {{tl|citation}} templates:
*{{citation
|ref= {{Harvid|Hegerl et al.|2007}}
|first1= G. C. |last1= Hegerl
|first2= F. W. |last2= Zwiers
|first3= P. |last3= Braconnot
|first4= N. P. |last4= Gillett
|first5= Y. |last5= Luo
|first6= J. A. |last6= Marengo Orsini
|first7= N. |last7= Nicholls
|first8= J. E. |last8= Penner
|first9= P. A. |last9= Stott
|date= 2007
|chapter-url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
|chapter= Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
}} in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}. {{tq|["Full" citation of ''Hegerl et al.'', except that details included in the citation of the containing work (below) are not repeated here. This citation appears only ''once'' in the article.]}}
*{{Citation
|ref= {{Harvid|Le Treut et al.|2007}}
|first1= H. |last1= Le Treut
|first2= R. |last2= Somerville
|first3= U. |last3= Cubasch
|first4= Y. |last4= Ding
|first5= C. |last5= Mauritzen
|first6= A. |last6= Mokssit
|first7= T. |last7= Peterson
|first8= M. |last8= Prather
|date= 2007
|chapter-url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1.html
|chapter= Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
}} in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}. {{tq|[Another "full" citation, for a different chapter, with details specific to it, and appears only ''once'' in the article.]}}
* {{Citation
|year = 2007
|author = IPCC AR4 WG1
|author-link = IPCC
|title = Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
|series = Contribution of Working Group I to the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|Fourth Assessment Report]] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
|editor-last1= Solomon |editor-first1= S.
|editor-last2= Qin |editor-first2= D.
|editor-last3= Manning |editor-first3= M.
|editor-last4= Chen |editor-first4= Z.
|editor-last5= Marquis |editor-first5= M.
|editor-last6= Averyt |editor-first6= K.B.
|editor-last7= Tignor |editor-first7= M.
|editor-last8= Miller |editor-first8= H.L.
|publisher = Cambridge University Press
|url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
|isbn = 978-0-521-88009-1
}} (pb: {{ISBNT|978-0-521-70596-7}}). {{tq|[Full reference for the "work", with the details all chapters have in common given only ''once''.]}}
Contra-example: The goal is to avoid having to cite each chapter with a bloated "fullest" citation such as the following:
* {{Citation
|ref= {{Harvid|Hegerl et al.|2007b}}
|first1= G. C. |last1= Hegerl
|first2= F. W. |last2= Zwiers
|first3= P. |last3= Braconnot
|first4= N. P. |last4= Gillett
|first5= Y. |last5= Luo
|first6= J. A. |last6= Marengo Orsini
|first7= N. |last7= Nicholls
|first8= J. E. |last8= Penner
|first9= P. A. |last9= Stott
|date= 2007b
|chapter-url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
|chapter= Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
|title = Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
|series = Contribution of Working Group I to the [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|Fourth Assessment Report]] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
|editor-last1= Solomon |editor-first1= S.
|editor-last2= Qin |editor-first2= D.
|editor-last3= Manning |editor-first3= M.
|editor-last4= Chen |editor-first4= Z.
|editor-last5= Marquis |editor-first5= M.
|editor-last6= Averyt |editor-first6= K.B.
|editor-last7= Tignor |editor-first7= M.
|editor-last8= Miller |editor-first8= H.L.
|publisher = Cambridge University Press
|url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
|isbn = 978-0-521-88009-1
}} (pb: {{ISBNT|978-0-521-70596-7}}). {{tq|[Full citation for a chapter that incorporates all of the "in" details.]}}
}}
All this currently works just fine, aside from the recent introduction of the "missing or empty title" message. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I have added a contra-example of the bloated "fullest" citation that ordinary usage requires for ''every'' chapter cited. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|J. Johnson}} the disadvantage of your approach above is that it involves a "two template" citation of this form:
::<code><nowiki>{{Citation |...chapter details... }} in {{Harvnb|...link to book...}}</nowiki></code>
:Like you I used to use this approach regularly, and was initially annoyed that it produced an error message. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I see that the "two template" approach was not optimal. All the relevant information is not contained within the Citation template, which is logically wrong and makes automated processing and extraction of citation details difficult. With the benefit of the work done by [[User:Trappist the monk]], and some more hindsight, what is needed instead is the ability to use a "one template" citation of the form:
::<code><nowiki>{{Citation |...chapter details... |in=...link to book.. }}</nowiki></code>
:so that the link to the book is ''within'' the Citation template. (The sandbox version of harvc almost achieves this, but not quite, because some functionality of the Citation template is missing – e.g. {{para|lastauthoramp}}.) Given a little bit of tweaking and a better name for the template, I can't see that the "one template" approach is any more difficult for editors to use than the "two template" approach: it requires precisely the same information to be provided. It has some limited, but real, advantages.
:The only slight difficulty I see is that the "two template" approach allows some extra choice; thus I prefer the style of {{tl|Citation}} plus {{tl|Harvtxt}}, the latter with no terminal full stop to be compatible with CS2, whereas you appear to prefer CS2 + {{tl|Harvnb}} and to have a terminal full stop not usually considered compatible with CS2. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 19:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Unlike CS1|2 which is promiscuous, for {{para|last-author-amp}}, {{tlx|harvc/sandbox}} requires <code>yes</code> or <code>true</code> (case insensitive):
::::<code><nowiki>{{harvc/sandbox |last-author-amp=yes |mode=cs2 |last1=Last1 |first1=First1 |last2=Last2 |first2=First2 |last3=Last3 |first3=First3 |chapter=Chapter |in=Enclosing Source |year=2009}}</nowiki></code>
:::::{{harvc/sandbox |last-author-amp=yes |mode=cs2 |last1=Last1 |first1=First1 |last2=Last2 |first2=First2 |last3=Last3 |first3=First3 |chapter=Chapter |in=Enclosing Source |year=2009}}
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Trappist the monk}} ah, I see now that the problem is with my use of the alternative/alias {{para|lastauthoramp}}. Try using this with the sandbox version, i.e. use {{para|lastauthoramp|yes}} and see what happens. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 13:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::I've fixed the Lua error. The CS1|2 alias {{para|lastauthoramp}} is not supported by {{tlx|harvc}} because of the move to hyphenated parameter names in CS1|2. I'm wondering about making <code>yes</code> the only accepted value for {{para|last-author-amp}}.
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::It's fair enough not to 'advertise' the unhyphenated aliases, in the interests of simplifying the documentation and thus helping {{em|new}} users, but spare a thought for us oldies (both in age and Wikipedia editing time) who find it hard to shake off old habits! [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 15:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::Peter: the key difference between these two approaches is whether "all the relevant information" of the containing work (such as the editors, publisher, isbn, etc.) should be '''1''') contained ''within'' the template that describes the chapter (for every chapter), or '''2''') contained in single citation for the work, to which each chapter ''links''. The first case results in multiple instances of "fullest" (i.e., bloated) citations with lots of redundant data, such as the "contra-example" shown above.
::In the second case there are two ways of linking: '''2a''') ''externally'', by explicitly suffixing a Harv link (as I have done), or '''2b''') ''internally'', using an {{para|in}} parameter and code to create the link automatically. This is what Trappist did in Harvc, and (if I understand you correctly) what you seem to be suggesting for {{tld|citation}}. However, note that I already suggested that (23:04, 18 Mar), which Trappist rejected (15:25, 19 Mar) as "{{tq|adds yet another level of complexity to an already complex code set}}".
::As to ease of use: your "one template" approach is more accurately (if I understand you correctly) a ''hybrid template'' approach. And the arithmetic is more precisely the use of ''two'' templates (citation and harv) versus ''three'' templates (citation, harv, and the hybrid Harvc). (The hybrid form does not eliminate use of the other Harv templates because they are still needed to link to the chapter template.) Use of {{para|in}} in any template increases the complexity of that template; using {{tld|citation}} "in" {{tld|harv}} does not, as that is a straightforward application of what the editor already knows. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 20:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Trappist hasn't rejected the use of the "one template" approach, but rather trying to shoe-horn it into the existing template. I'm happy to leave it to an experienced template/module editor to decide on the appropriate modularity for the implementation; a single template would indeed be easier to use, but may simply be too difficult to maintain well. You and I agree, I think, that "harvc" is a bad name for the "one template", but given that the most editors prefer CS1 (for reasons which escape me), and hence have to choose between "cite book", "cite web", "cite encyclopedia", "cite journal", etc., having one more citation template (with a more sensible name like "cite in") can't be a serious burden. Anyway, it seems that we aren't going to agree. [[User:Peter coxhead|Peter coxhead]] ([[User talk:Peter coxhead|talk]]) 13:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Peter, I think we ''can'' agree. It's just a "simple matter" (ha) of finding the right basis for resolving our different views. It's not easy, but have patience. One partial resolution is renaming Harvc. (More on that later.)
::::My prior comment seems to have been a bit ambiguous. What Trappist rejected was not your "one template" approach, but my suggestion for an {{para|in}} parameter.
::::As to appropriate modularity: although I have not dabbled in Lua (and am reluctant to even look at the template coding), I am an experienced programmer, with a deep appreciation of "appropriate modularity". I am also quite familiar with human factors, such as why people use (or not) the tools made available. And it is in this regard that, quite aside from all issues of coding (which should be transparent to the users), ''adding'' a hybrid ''third'' template (like Harvc) is more complicated (for the users) than using a pair of existing templates. ~ [[User:J. Johnson|J. Johnson (JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 21:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
== cite arxiv ==
In considering how best to migrate {{tlx|cite arxiv}}, I have answered [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests#arXiv_class_would_be_nice|this feature request]]. {{para|class}} is used in {{tld|cite arxiv}} to append the assigned value to the arxiv identifier. If {{para|arxiv}} is empty or omitted, {{para|class}} is ignored. There is no error checking of the value assigned to {{para|class}}.
:{{cite journal/new |last=Indelicato|first=Paul |title=Exotic Atoms|journal=[[Physica Scripta]] |year=2004|volume=T112 |issue=1|pages=20–26 |doi=10.1238/Physica.Topical.112a00020 |arxiv = physics/0409058 |class=physics.atom-ph |bibcode = 2004PhST..112...20I }}
{{tld|cite arxiv}} is an odd duck. In its current guise it is {{tlx|cite journal}} without a proper journal title though it uses the {{tlx|citation/core}} meta-parameter {{para|Periodical}} to hold the external link to the arXiv page.
{{tld|cite arxiv}} has some parameters that are new to [[Module:Citation/CS1]]:
#{{para|class}} – mentioned above
#{{para|eprint}} – apparently an alias of {{para|arxiv}}
#{{para|version}} – not actually new to the module but used in a different way. In the module, {{para|version}} is an alias of {{para|serial}} and is used in other CS1/2 templates to identify different versions of things in the rendered citation. In relation to arxiv identifiers, {{para|version}} is a suffix on the arxiv identifier that specifies which version of the paper the identifier identifies. I propose to deprecate this parameter in {{tld|cite arxiv}} so that it is included in {{para|arxiv}} (arxiv error checking already supports this).
#{{para|use ampersand before last author}} – really, it's there; same as {{para|last-author-amp}} so I propose to deprecate it.
Apparently, {{tld|cite arxiv}} can be filled by bot if {{para|title}} and all of the {{para|author}} parameters are empty and if the citation contains {{para|arxiv}} or {{para|eprint}}. The bot that does this work isn't identified so if anyone knows which bot that is, and if it is still alive, please tell us so that we can add its name to the documentation.
When editors rely on the bot to fill the template, the template code invokes {{tld|citation/core}} to render a link to the arxiv page with a message saying that a bot will soon fill the template. That won't work so nicely with the module which will emit a missing title error message. This code needs to be rewritten so that the appropriate message is rendered but the module isn't invoked.
I don't quite know yet what to do about the COinS metadata. Currently, this template:
:{{cite arXiv |last=Mashnik|first=Stepan G. |year=2000 |title=On Solar System and Cosmic Rays Nucleosynthesis and Spallation Processes |class=astro-ph |eprint=astro-ph/0008382 }}
produces this jibberish for <code>rft.jtitle</code>:
:<code>&rft.jtitle=%27%27%5B%5BarXiv%5D%5D%3A%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2Fastro-ph%2F0008382+astro-ph%2F0008382%5D%26nbsp%3B%5B%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Farchive%2Fastro-ph+astro-ph%5D%5D%27%27</code>
This may be a case where we just name the 'journal' arXiv and produce this:
:<code>&rft.jtitle=arXiv</code>
For the {{para|arxiv}} identifier, the module produces this metatdata:
:<code>&rft_id=info%3Aarxiv%2Fastro-ph%2F0008382</code>
which it would also do for {{tld|cite arxiv}} once it has migrated.
Opinions?
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
::{{tq|The bot that does this work isn't identified}} – perhaps not well identified, but in the first line under the Usage heading, "a bot" is a piped link to [[User:Citation bot]] - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:::So it does, I've tweaked it.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I've created {{tlx|cite arxiv/new}} which mimics the way the current {{tlx|cite arxiv}} works. The new version doesn't invoke [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]] unless both {{para|title}} and {{para|last}} (or one of its aliases) are set. In contrast, {{tld|cite arxiv}} always invokes {{tlx|citation/core}}. To mimic the old version, the new adds an external link to the output using the value provided in {{para|arxiv}} or {{para|eprint}}. The output for <code><nowiki>{{cite arxiv/new |arxiv = physics/0409058}}</nowiki></code> looks like this:
:<code><nowiki>A bot will complete this citation soon. <small>[http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?page=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 Click here to jump the queue]</small>[[Category:Articles with missing Cite arXiv inputs |Citation Style 1]] [[arXiv]]:[//arxiv.org/abs/physics/0409058 physics/0409058].</nowiki></code>
which renders as (category commented out):
:A bot will complete this citation soon. <small>[http://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?page=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 Click here to jump the queue]</small><!-- [[Category:Articles with missing Cite arXiv inputs |Citation Style 1]] --> [[arXiv]]:[//arxiv.org/abs/physics/0409058 physics/0409058].
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:(e/c) I agree with points 1 through 4 above. I have seen Citation Bot fill in one of these templates recently, so that piece of the system does work. {{tl|Cite doi}} emits a similar message about the bot when you create a new template that contains only a DOI value, although the template is structured differently, with only a single unnamed parameter.
:Emitting "arXiv" as the journal may not be appropriate, but I can't tell. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2928?context=cs.DS Some arXiv articles] contain a "journal reference", presumably to indicate that the article, or a version of it, was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Maybe we emit "arXiv" unless {{para|journal}} is filled in?
:Trappist, thanks for taking on these migrations. I know you get a lot of static for it since you are the main programmer, but I think that the changes that have been made to the CS1 templates over the last two years have dramatically increased the consistency and accuracy of CS1 citations in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of articles. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
::If the arXiv article has a journal reference, we should be using {{tl|cite journal}} (with {{para|arxiv}} filled in) not {{tl|cite arxiv}} (which should only be for preprints that do not also have a more definitive published form). So I think using "arXiv" as the journal should be ok. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
::I was just coming to that. {{tlx|cite arxiv}} has associated categories
:::{{cl|Articles with missing Cite arXiv inputs}} – I suspect that Citation bot uses the content of this category
:::{{cl|Articles with a journal parameter in their Cite arxiv templates}} – can go away and be replace with an error message? add to {{cl|CS1 errors: arXiv}}?
:::{{cl|Articles with a publisher parameter in their Cite arxiv templates}} – also goes away?
::I think that if either of {{para|journal}} or {{para|publisher}} is set (or their alias), the module should set them to empty strings, and then emit an appropriate error message. There wouldn't be any periodical in the rendered citation, but the COinS would get <code>&rft.jtitle=arXiv</code> (this parameter usually holds the periodical name).
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
::Perhaps like this, and, perhaps, {{para|url}} should be added to the list of parameters not supported by the new {{tlx|cite arxiv}}:
{{cite compare |old=no |mode=arXiv |last=Conte |first=Elio |arxiv=0711.2260 |class=quant-ph |title=A Quantum Like Interpretation and Solution of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox in Quantum Mechanics<!--|date=nov 2007-->| journal=Proceedings Fundamental problems of Sciences, 271-304, S. Petersburg 2002|date=2002|pages=271-304|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2260v1|accessdate=3 March 2014}}
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 21:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
::In comparison to all of the other CS1/2 templates, {{tlx|cite arxiv}} is quite limited in what it supports. Along with the aforementioned {{para|journal}}, {{para|publisher}}, and {{para|url}}, there are {{para|access-date}}, {{para|page}}, {{para|pages}}, and {{para|at}}. It does support {{para|format}} but shouldn't; it supports all of the usual identifiers but probably shouldn't. I have to think about this some more.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::Ok, rather than have the error message list the unsupported parameter(s), I've opted to create a simpler error message. The list of unsupported parameters and an explanation will be available at the [[Help:CS1 errors]]. The test for unsupported parameters includes all of the special identifiers (ISBN, doi, etc) but doesn't set them to empty strings.
::I've also added an error message for the case where {{para|arxiv}} is missing or empty:
{{cite compare |old=no |mode=arXiv |last=Conte |first=Elio |title=A Quantum Like Interpretation and Solution of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox in Quantum Mechanics |date=Nov 2007}}
::With that then, I think that this migration is done. See [[Template:Cite arxiv/testcases]] and add more if you see something that should be tested.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I have notified Wikiproject Astronomy, Wikiproject Mathematics, and Wikiproject Physics about this discussion. Feedback from the actual users of this template will be helpful. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
::::- 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> <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:17px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[Special:Contributions/Tom.Reding|contribs]] ⋅[[WP:Don%27t-give-a-fuckism|dgaf]])</font> 16:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Setting {{para|displayauthors|4}} seems to work in the new version; as an example I've added {{para|publisher|Publisher}} (should show an error):
{{cite compare |old=no |mode=arXiv |displayauthors=4 |publisher=Publisher |author=Mayor, M. |author2=Marmier, M. |author3=Lovis, C. |author4=Udry, S. |author5=Ségransan, D. |author6=Pepe, F. |author7=Benz, W. |author8=Bertaux, J.-L. |author9=Bouchy, F. |author10=Dumusque, X. |author11=Lo Curto, G. |author12=Mordasini, C. |author13=Queloz, D. |author14=Santos, N. C. |date=2011|title=The HARPS Search for Southern Extra-solar Planets XXXIV. Occurrence, Mass Distribution and Orbital Properties of Super-Earths and Neptune-mass Planets| eprint=1109.2497|class=astro-ph.EP}}
:::::To convert {{tlx|cite arxiv}} to {{tlx|cite journal}} (once the paper has been published) is a simple matter of changing the template name and adding or deleting the relevant details – as you say, the preprint may not accurately reflect the final published paper.
:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
In the COinS, the module version will report the title's genre as <code>&rft.genre=preprint</code>. The change to support this may allow us to refine COinS data for the other CS1 templates.
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
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|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 22:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
: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.
:If an editor is citing a paper that hasn't been published, or if the editor is citing a version of the paper that is a preprint (because that's the [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]] paper) and not citing the published version, then the editor is correct to use {{tld|cite arxiv}}. According to the [[arXiv]] article, some papers never make it out of preprint so, for those papers ever languishing in the arXiv limbo, {{tld|arxiv}} is the correct template.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 22:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
::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|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:::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|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 23:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
::::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.
::::Whatever problems you are having with auto-filling are problems with the tool you are using, not with {{tld|cite arxiv}} or {{tld|cite journal}}. My guess for the different dates is that it's simply a matter of where the tool goes to get the data. Following the Bibcode link at your sandbox example takes you to a [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.429..939S page] that lists publication date as 02/2013; similarly, following the arXiv link takes you to a [//arxiv.org/abs/1210.8136 page] that identifies the v1 version date as 30 October 2012. It would appear that the tool acted correctly.
::::Your sandbox example makes no use of {{tlx|cite arxiv}} so it is not clear to me how you can make any claims that it is better or worse than {{tld|cite journal}}.
::::If an editor uses material found at arXiv in support of assertions made in a Wikipedia article, that is the source that should be cited. If the editor uses material found in a journal in support of assertions made in a Wikipedia article, that is the source that should be cited. The two may be identical; they may not. If the editor has read one but not the other, it is inappropriate to identify the unread material as the source supporting the Wikipedia article. Is this not what [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]] is all about?
::::—[[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|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::So you did; I missed the (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) text.
::::::The bot clearly fetches some information from the arXiv page which you can see if you compare the completed template page parameter with the page information at the arXiv page. But, this talk page isn't about Citation bot; if it is fetching incorrect information, regardless of the CS1 template being used, that topic should be raised at the [[User talk:Citation bot|bot's discussion page]] because it won't be solved or addressed here.
::::::I don't have a problem with the notion of {{tq|combining the best bits into a single template}} when it makes sense to do so. But, here we have one template designed to cite published work and another designed to cite unpublished work. These two templates are to my mind, serving sufficiently different purposes to remain separate.
::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
== Allow slash and numbers in Vancouver style? ==
{{cl|CS1 errors: Vancouver style}} has been emptied, mostly through null edits, except for three articles, [[BRCA1]], [[BRCA2]], and [[Tuberous sclerosis]]. The first two contain the slash "/" in the author name (copied straight from PubMed), and the third contains numbers in the author name (also copied straight from PubMed). Paging {{U|Boghog}} and other interested parties for comment. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 16:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:It seems to me that those templates shouldn't be {{tlx|vcite2 journal}} but {{tlx|cite journal}}. Those corporate author names can't be reduced to Vancouver name format so I think that the error message is correct.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
:: Non-conforming Vancouver authors in PubMed are very rare (on the order of one in ten thousand citations), hence substituting {{tlx|vcite2 journal}} with {{tlx|cite journal}} or by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BRCA1&diff=prev&oldid=660006444 resetting] {{para|author-list-format}} to null should be OK. {{cl|CS1 errors: Vancouver style}} is now completely emptied. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 05:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:::There are those who believe that empty parameters such as {{para|author-list-format}} constitute citation clutter and so will complain about and / or remove them. Can I suggest that {{tlx|vcite2 journal}} and [[Module:ParseVauthors]] use some form of positive indication that the parameter is there for a purpose? Perhaps one of these: {{para|author-list-format|none}} or {{para|author-list-format|default}} or {{para|author-list-format|cs1}}; all of which would serve the purpose of not passing {{para|author-list-format|vanc}} to {{tlx|cite journal}}.
:::I don't think that it is necessary to have this same functionality in [[Module:Citation/CS1]] because an empty {{para|author-list-format}} doesn't disable anything.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
== New behavior of {{para|authors}} needs to be adjusted or documented ==
Now that {{para|authors}} is officially not an alias of {{para|last}}, it appears that some behavior of the {{para|authors}} parameter needs to be either adjusted or documented.
First, using "et al." in {{para|authors}} does not put it in the "explicit et al." maintenance category:
{{cite compare|mode=journal|old=no |title=Photometry of the z=7.08 quasar ULAS J1120+0641 |authors= Steve Warren, Daniel Mortlock, ''et al.'' |journal= Spitzer Proposals |volume=80114 |date=May 2011 |bibcode=2011sptz.prop80114W }}
Second, using {{para|authors}} with {{para|display-authors|etal}} does not display author names and shows a redundant parameter error (although this appears to be fixed in the sandbox):
{{cite compare|mode=journal|old=no |title=Photometry of the z=7.08 quasar ULAS J1120+0641 |authors= Steve Warren, Daniel Mortlock |display-authors=etal |journal= Spitzer Proposals |volume=80114 |date=May 2011 |bibcode=2011sptz.prop80114W }}
Changing {{para|authors}} to {{para|last}} works fine, by the way:
{{cite compare|mode=journal|old=no |title=Photometry of the z=7.08 quasar ULAS J1120+0641 |last= Steve Warren, Daniel Mortlock |display-authors=etal |journal= Spitzer Proposals |volume=80114 |date=May 2011 |bibcode=2011sptz.prop80114W }}
And just to be perverse, here's one with {{para|authors}}, {{para|last2}}, and {{para|display-authors|etal}}:
{{cite compare|mode=journal|old=no |title=Photometry of the z=7.08 quasar ULAS J1120+0641 |authors= Steve Warren |last2 =Daniel Mortlock |display-authors=etal |journal= Spitzer Proposals |volume=80114 |date=May 2011 |bibcode=2011sptz.prop80114W }}
Is this working as designed? If so, we need to document it. If not, how should it be adjusted? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 03:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:First case fixed today, I think; second case was fixed 23 April 2015 (see [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#.7Cdisplay-author.3Detal_bug|here]]); third case, yep; fourth case is working as intended. When you mix {{para|authors}} with {{para|last2}} you have two author parameters that are not aliases of each other so we emit the 'more than one of ...' redundant parameter error message. Because {{para|authors}} with {{para|last2}} are not aliases of each other, the code is looking for {{para|last1}} to complete that author name list. Not finding it, the module emits the 'missing |last1= ...' error message.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
::Nice work. The sandbox examples all look right to me now. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
==FYI==
Hi all, just flagging [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Language_parameter|this conversation]] at Module talk:Citation/CS1. Best, --[[User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Elitre (WMF)|talk]]) 08:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
| |||