Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:23, 4 September 2015

Revision as of 10:13, 5 September 2015

Line 2,909:

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |editors=Last, First and Last2, First2 M. |display-editors=etal}}

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

== Merging [[Template:Cite ArXiv]] ==

After a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Unpublished/SPS/UGC sources and Template:Cite arXiv]], to make sure that we should ever be citing arXiv for anything but a convenience link, it's become clear that there are only two use cases for this template:

# Citing an arXiv paper that has also been published in a journal, where the arXiv URL is a convenience link, in which case it can be replaced with<br /> <del>{{tlx|Cite journal |url{{=}}{{var|URL of published copy at journal or indexing service, if one is available}}&nbsp;|arXiv{{=}}{{var|URL of the preprint at arXiv}}&nbsp;|at{{=}}{{var|value that would have been in the arXiv "class" parameter}}&nbsp;|...}}</del> <ins>It can actually just be swapped with:</ins> {{tlx|Cite journal |url{{=}}{{var|URL of published copy at journal or indexing service, if one is available}}&nbsp;|eprint{{=}}{{var|URL of the preprint at arXiv}}&nbsp;|...}} and can be done with just swapping in {{tnull|Cite journal}} with no adjustments at all if there's no non-arXiv URL to put in.

# Citing (rarely) an arXiv paper that has not yet been reputably published but is being cited as a primary source for some reason, and for which there is no other URL, in which case it can be replaced with<br /> <del>{{tlx|Cite web |url{{=}}{{var|URL at arXiv}}&nbsp;|at{{=}}{{var|value that would have been in the arXiv "class" parameter}}&nbsp;|...}}</del> <ins>It can actually just be swapped with:</ins> {{tlx|Cite web}} with no adjustments at all.

The one and only thing that this template does "special" is provide an optional {{para|class}} that gives the arXiv category the paper is in, and this is only "needed" for certain arXiv URLs that don't already include it. It's not actually required at all, since it does not aid in identifying and retrieving the source anyway; it's just a categorization identified that is sometimes in arXiv URLs, sometimes not, but which some like to include. If as I suspect we want to retain it:

* The template can be replaced with a call to {{tlx|Cite web}}, <del>that maps {{para|class}} to {{para|at}},</del> and passes all the other standard parameters for the template; or

* The template can just redirect to {{tlx|Cite web}}, <del>after aliasing {{para|class}} to {{para|at}}</del>.

Either way, for cases where the paper has subsequently been journal-published (case #1, the vast majority of legitimate citations using this template), the proper template to use, even if we did nothing else at all, is {{tlx|Cite journal}}. <del>It, too, should probably support {{para|class}} as an alias of {{para|at}}, just to preserve that tidbit of information. (It's not quite as trivial as some other info we discard, like total number of pages and arXiv.org prefers that it being included in citations to papers it hosts.)</del> <ins>Never mind:</ins> All the CS1 and CS2 templates already handle {{para|class}} directly.

The {{tlx|Cite arXiv}} template serves no purpose at all as a stand-alone template, and it's standard operating procedure, both site-wide and with regard to citation templates specifically, to merge redundant ones. Instances of this template cannot be "upgraded" with additional details after journal publication without replacing the template anyway, because it does not support {{para|doi}}, {{para|volume}}, etc., while both {{tlx|Cite journal}} and {{tlx|Cite web}} don't have this problem. And the use of this identifier-based, site-specific template hampers the ability to do source verification, because it mix-and-matches completely different (for WP purposes) kinds of sources &ndash; peer-reviewed publications vs. unpublished materials &ndash; solely on the criterion of what website they're hosted at. Yet we already deprecated and merged the entire little family of {{tlx|Cite doi}} and related templates, for the same reason, that they were identifier-based. This arxiv-specific template is foolhardy for the additional reason in that it effectively {{em|encourages}} citation of unpublished arXiv papers as if they were equivalent to peer-reviewed journal papers as a class; it lends false reliability to what amounts to self-published/user-contributed content. While arXiv is arguably better than various other sites that allow people to publish papers on their own, this fact that it's essentially a papers-wiki for original academic research cannot be avoided. Many instances of case #2 should probably be deleted, as failing [[WP:V]]'s basic requirements, but that's probably only determinable on a case-by-case basis &ndash; specifically because of this template's commingling of the two source types as undistinguished.

It's my impression that [[WT:CS1]] prefers collectively to handle merge discussions here than take them to [[WP:TFD]], so here we are. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 02:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Two points:

:# You have completely misrepresented the content of the discussion, instead putting forward your minority opinion as the consensus. None of the other participants said anything in favor of merging or deleting {{tl|cite arxiv}}

:# {{tl|cite arxiv}} and {{tl|arxiv}} serve completely different purposes, and merging them makes no sense. One of them is for formatting citations. The other is for formatting links to the arxiv, within citations (usually but not always redundant with the {{para|arxiv}} parameters of the various citation templates and/or with direct wikilink syntax <nowiki>[[arxiv:...]]</nowiki>).

:I see no valid justification for this merge proposal. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 02:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::A clear case of [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] by SMcCandlish here. As for his two scenarios, they manage to be both gross oversimplifications and bad practice as the same time. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|contribs]] / [[WP:PHYS|physics]] / [[WP:WBOOKS|books]]}</span> 03:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I see no reason to merge [[Template:ArXiv]] with any other template, as proposed in the section header, based on the confusing narrative above. ArXiv, Cite arxiv? What templates are we talking about here?

:::I have looked at the original discussion. There is no consensus there, and a lot of misunderstanding and failure to communicate effectively. I disagree with the OP's suggestion that on that page, "it's become clear that...."

:::I suggest that this discussion continue at the original ___location, per [[WP:MULTI]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::::It's no longer relevant to or at [[WP:RS]]; I moved it for a reason. I made no claims about any consensus in either direction, BTW. I simply stated the fact that only two kinds of use-case for {{tlx|Cite journal}} had been outlined. Go read the discussion, and you'll see that this is entirely factual. Still is, even factoring in this discussion. All this [[hand wave]] activity isn't going to change that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 11:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

:The value assigned to {{para|class}} in {{tlx|cite arxiv}} should not be mapped to {{para|at}} because {{para|at}} is an in-source ___location parameter which {{para|class}} is not.

:{{para|class}} is part of the {{para|arxiv}} identifier handling code in [[Module:Citation/CS1]]. If {{para|class}} is set, its value is concatenated with the value assigned to {{para|arxiv}} at rendering. Because it is one of the predefined identifiers, {{para|arxiv}} is available to all cs1|2 templates; {{para|class}} is ignored if {{para|arxiv}} is not set.

:Converting {{tld|cite arxiv}} to {{tlx|cite journal}} is a simple matter of changing the name of the template and adding the appropriate journal parameters, typically {{para|journal}}, {{para|volume}}, {{para|issue}}, {{para|pages}} plus perhaps {{para|doi}}, {{para|bibcode}}, etc:

::<code><nowiki>{{cite arxiv |last=Lodders |first=K. |date = 2008 |title=The solar argon abundance |arxiv=0710.4523v1 |class=astro-ph}}</nowiki></code>

:::{{cite arxiv |last=Lodders |first=K. |date = 2008 |title=The solar argon abundance |arxiv=0710.4523v1 |class=astro-ph}}

:becomes

::<code><nowiki>{{cite journal |last=Lodders |first=K. |date = 2008 |title=The solar argon abundance |arxiv=0710.4523v1 |class=astro-ph |journal=[[Astrophysical Journal]] |volume=674 |pages=607 |doi=10.1086/524725 |bibcode=2008ApJ...674..607L}}</nowiki></code>

:::{{cite journal |last=Lodders |first=K. |date = 2008 |title=The solar argon abundance |arxiv=0710.4523v1 |class=astro-ph |journal=[[Astrophysical Journal]] |volume=674 |pages=607 |doi=10.1086/524725 |bibcode=2008ApJ...674..607L}}

:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::Moot point about {{para|at}}, since {{para|class}} is supported anyway (but I would have disagreed; the {{para|at}} parameter is for ___location within the source {{para|work}}, not necessarily within the {{para|title}} object. One of the most frequent uses of {{para|at}} is identifying named sections of websites, periodicals, etc., in which the {{para|title}} article is located. But who cares? It doesn't matter anyway: The {{para|class}} value, as you say, is already part of all the cs1|2 templates. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 11:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

:::I never said that {{para|at}} was anything but an in-source ___location parameter. That was my reasoning for why {{para|class}} should ''not'' be mapped to {{para|at}}. At arXiv, class is akin to Wikipedia's categories.

:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

::::OK. Not worth arguing about since it's doesn't matter anyway; {{para|class}} is directly supported. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 23:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

:Two editors who cannot provide a rationale to keep this template, nor refute arguments to merge it, but just rant at me about it with a lot of heat, do not magically make a consensus. The fact that {{para|class}} is {{em|already}} handled by {{tlx|Cite journal}} (I hadn't noticed, and thought it might need to be added) just proves that the one thing that maybe, kinda-sorta made this template possibly not redundant, is actually irrelevant. This template is {{em|totally}} redundant. There is nothing I am "not hearing". I moved the discussion here because it was no longer relevant at its original ___location (no RS question is open any longer). But you can move it where ever you want; there doesn't appear to be anything left to discuss: There is literally no rationale for keeping this template at all. I decline to get worked up about it. The level of emotional invective being spewed about this is entirely out of proportion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 11:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)<p>PS: {{ping|David Eppstein}} We not talking about merging {{tlx|arxiv}} with anything (I see there was one typographical error in the previous discussion about this stuff that referred to {{tnull|arxiv}} in passing instead of {{tnull|cite arxiv}}, in a side discussion about {{tlx|cite doi}}, but I would think the fact it was a typo would have been clear in the context, since the arguments about the latter do not pertain to the former, and none of that was central to the main thread to begin with. {{tnull|Arxiv}} can be used to provide additional links if necessary to, e.g., multiple versions of the same paper, as someone else mentioned in the previous discussion. Is most of this angry verbiage simply generated because of a typo? This discussion is {{em|only}} about {{tlx|Cite arXiv}}. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 11:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)</p>

::I haven't seen a lot of emotion, just confusion and attempts by other editors to find a way through the confusion. I can explain our confusion about which template you are proposing to discuss. The header of this section refers to {{tl|ArXiv}}, but the discussion appears to be about {{tl|Cite ArXiv}}. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

:::Fixed! It doesn't explain the vitriol about this at [[Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Unpublished/SPS/UGC sources and Template:Cite arXiv]], which is entirely about [[Template:Cite arXiv]]. It all boils down to a defense of citing self-published claptrap at arXiv that isn't permissible under [[WP:SPS]] / [[WP:UGC]]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 23:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

== Missing author without error message ==

I found the following citation in [[¡Vivan los niños!]], which was in {{cl|CS1 errors: missing author or editor}}:

{{Cite compare|mode=news|old=no

|url=http://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/23653.vivan-los-ninos-llega-a-su-fin.html

|title=Vivan los niños llega a su fin

|first=SUN-AEE

|date=2003-03-15

|work=Online edition

|publisher=El Siglo de Torréon

|language=Spanish

|accessdate=2009-10-21}}

As of this writing, the above citation does not emit a red error message (for me, at least), but I think it should. It has a first name with no last name. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

:Yep, and I am perplexed.

:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

::Ha! Found it! In the function <code>select_author_editor_source()</code> we select one of three possible name lists to use: {{para|author''n''}} / {{para|last''n''}} / {{para|first''n''}} or {{para|vauthors}} or {{para|authors}}. The code looks for {{para|last}}, {{para|last1}} and {{para|last2}} (and aliases). If the code doesn't find any of these and also doesn't find {{para|vauthors}} and {{para|authors}}, then it returns a value indicating that there isn't an author list. That no-author-list return value causes the missing name check to be skipped. For now, I've set the code to assume that there is an {{para|author''n''}} / {{para|last''n''}} / {{para|first''n''}} list when no author-name-lists are defined so that the missing name test can catch a {{para|first}} only error.

::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)