Content deleted Content added
Create;` |
archive some sections |
||
Line 268:
:If I understand correctly, parameters are parsed by the MediaWiki software before they are passed to the CS1 module. By the time it gets to the module, previous parameters are already ignored. There is no way for a template or mudule to do this detection. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 21:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::Oof, that's disappointing. I don't feel like starting a giant discussion about this, but would there be a valid reason for having two identical parameters in the same template? It seems to my naive self that this would always be an error that should be flagged by the MW software so that editors could fix this inadvertent mistake. Maybe there are some situations in which this arrangement is not an error, and I am just not clever enough to think of any. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
== Translator ==
Add 'translator' parameters. Should show preceded by "Translated by". --''''' [[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850 (Ed)</span>]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup> 19:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
:I would appreciate this feature. Could you code this in the same way as authors and editors (eg: "last1=|first1=" etc.), as some works have multiple translators. <font color="#8b4513">[[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]]</font><font color="#ee8811">[[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]]</font> 03:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
::Just like 'last' and 'first', there would be an unlimited number. --''''' [[User:Gadget850|<span style="color:gray">Gadget850 (Ed)</span>]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup> 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
{{done}}. This change was implemented in the live CS1 module in September 2015. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
== Add "authorn=et al." to a maintenance category ==
{{resolved}}
An idea posted by {{U|Trappist the monk}} elsewhere, recorded here for posterity: "Add code to Module:Citation/CS1 that will put citations with |authorn=et al. into a separate specific category."
I imagine this as a maintenance category rather than a "CS1 error" / "incorrect syntax" category. Let's discuss at some point to see if there are editors interested in filling in the remaining authors, editors who object to people doing so, or other opinions/ideas. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:Also when et al. is included in {{para|first''n''}}.
:I think its an error condition; et al. is not an authors name, it is simply an indicator that there are unlisted authors. I'm wondering if there shouldn't be some mechanism by which editors can inform the template that not all authors are listed so that [[Module:Citation/CS1]] will add a properly formatted et al. to the citation but that same et al. won't be included in the [[COinS]] metadata (as happens now with {{para|author''n''|et al.}}). This is much like {{para|display-authors}} except that all of the authors included in the citation template are displayed followed by et al. – perhaps, {{para|etal|yes}} or something similar.
== arXiv class would be nice ==
{{resolved}}
Currently, supplying a parameter of the form "|arxiv=1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph]" produces a messy error:
{{Cite journal |title=Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li<sup>+</sup> Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed |arxiv=1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph] |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405 |journal=Physical Review Letters |volume=113 |number=120405 |pages=1–5 |date=September 2014 |first1=Benjamin |last1=Botermann |first2=Dennis |last2=Bing |first3=Christopher |last3=Geppert |first4=Gerald |last4=Gwinner |first5=Theodor W. |last5=Hänsch |first6=Gerhard |last6=Huber |first7=Sergei |last7=Karpuk |first8=Andreas |last8=Krieger |first9=Thomas |last9=Kühl |first10=Wilfried |last10=Nörtershäuser |first11=Christian |last11=Novotny |first12=Sascha |last12=Reinhardt |first13=Rodolfo |last13=Sánchez |first14=Dirk |last14=Schwalm |first15=Thomas |last15=Stöhlker |first16=Andreas |last16=Wolf |first17=Guido |last17=Saathoff}}
And trying &#91; doesn't improve it all that much:
{{Cite journal |title=Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li<sup>+</sup> Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed |arxiv=1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph] |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405 |journal=Physical Review Letters |volume=113 |number=120405 |pages=1–5 |date=September 2014 |first1=Benjamin |last1=Botermann |first2=Dennis |last2=Bing |first3=Christopher |last3=Geppert |first4=Gerald |last4=Gwinner |first5=Theodor W. |last5=Hänsch |first6=Gerhard |last6=Huber |first7=Sergei |last7=Karpuk |first8=Andreas |last8=Krieger |first9=Thomas |last9=Kühl |first10=Wilfried |last10=Nörtershäuser |first11=Christian |last11=Novotny |first12=Sascha |last12=Reinhardt |first13=Rodolfo |last13=Sánchez |first14=Dirk |last14=Schwalm |first15=Thomas |last15=Stöhlker |first16=Andreas |last16=Wolf |first17=Guido |last17=Saathoff}}
It would be nice if there were some way to include the arXiv class in new-style identifiers. It's not critical, but it's normally included in arXiv citations in print, and if it's [[WP:MOS]] to omit it, a comment in the template docs would be nice.
In Lua, I imagine simply expanding the syntax of legal arxiv identifiers would be simplest, but an additional template parameter in the style of [[Template:Cite arxiv]] is also okay. The latter allows a class, but has the problem that it's not possible to list journal, volume, issue, page numbers, etc. for papers that are published peer-reviewed:
{{Cite arxiv |title=Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li<sup>+</sup> Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed |arxiv=1409.7951 |class=physics.atom-ph |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405 |journal=Physical Review Letters |volume=113 |number=120405 |pages=1–5 |date=September 2014 |first1=Benjamin |last1=Botermann |first2=Dennis |last2=Bing |first3=Christopher |last3=Geppert |first4=Gerald |last4=Gwinner |first5=Theodor W. |last5=Hänsch |first6=Gerhard |last6=Huber |first7=Sergei |last7=Karpuk |first8=Andreas |last8=Krieger |first9=Thomas |last9=Kühl |first10=Wilfried |last10=Nörtershäuser |first11=Christian |last11=Novotny |first12=Sascha |last12=Reinhardt |first13=Rodolfo |last13=Sánchez |first14=Dirk |last14=Schwalm |first15=Thomas |last15=Stöhlker |first16=Andreas |last16=Wolf |first17=Guido |last17=Saathoff}}
Thank you! [[Special:Contributions/71.41.210.146|71.41.210.146]] ([[User talk:71.41.210.146|talk]]) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:What is an arXiv class? --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 14:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
::The arXiv classification is explained [http://arxiv.org/help/faq/references here] and [http://arxiv.org/help/arxiv_identifier here]. The folks at arXiv.org recommend including it in citations, but we do not render it well. It appears to me that it would best be included in CS1 templates as a separate parameter to make validation, presentation, and linking easier. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
::: The arXiv used to assign submission identifiers that started with a subject classification. This was annoyig if a paper was originally misclassified; reclassifying it required assigning a new identifier. In 2007, they changed to a system where permanent identifiers were purely numerical, with the classification appended as extra information. It's not essential, but customarily appended as additional information about a paper. [[Special:Contributions/71.41.210.146|71.41.210.146]] ([[User talk:71.41.210.146|talk]]) 21:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
==Improve accessdate checking==
{{resolved}}
May be we could improve the accessdate checking to rule out improbable dates of access. Probably the date when wiki was started should be an earliest possible accessdate. Have just seen article [[List of department stores of the United Kingdom]] with some accessdates of 1914! [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
:Since {{para|access-date}} requires URL (and maybe also requires that Wikipedia existed), we could set a minimum year. The [[World Wide Web]] article says that the oldest known web page dates from 1991.
:We could also test the access-date for future dates. I believe that we already test the year for dates greater than next year (since publications like magazines can have next year in their date). – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
::What should be the limit for future access dates? It would seem that the minimum must be current server date+1 because 12:00:00 UTC today is 00:00:00 tomorrow in New Zealand.
::*{{#time:Y-m-d"T"H:i:s}} – UTC time when this page last refreshed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Citation/CS1/Feature_requests&action=purge Purge])
::*{{#time:Y-m-d"T"H:i:s| +12 hours }} – NZST (UTC+12)
::*{{#time:Y-m-d"T"H:i:s| +13 hours }} – NZDT (UTC+13)
::Accepting current UTC date+1 allows editors to enter their local 'today's' date without error. If they use their local 'tomorrow's' date, there will be an error message for at most 24 hours after which there is no error.
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Looks good to me. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
::::Same here. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 22:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::Today+1 is fine with me. I sometimes enter a date that is tomorrow (to me) when it is already tomorrow in the UTC time zone (I know, UTC isn't really a time zone, but you get the idea). – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::The current method of checking errors only considers information stored in the template (and could presumably consider the system time). If someone enters a date 2 days in the future, and no one does anything about it, after a day passes the error message will go away. I think that really diminishes the usefulness of the message. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Do you have a proposal that is better than the one above? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: I don't have a better proposal. In a much more restricted editing environment, where the editing software knew that a citation was being entered (as in Microsoft Word) I would block the edit from happening at all, but the Wikipedia editing environment is too flexible for that. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::So what's the current status of this request? If it makes a difference, I'm fine leaving future alone if it will get it moved in faster...[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 22:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Making notes to myself for this topic. [[mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual#mw.language:formatDate]] refers to [[mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23time]].
[[Wikipedia]] started 15 January 2001. Using <code><nowiki>{{#time:}}</nowiki></code> we can get the number of seconds since 1970-01-01T00:00:00 UTC for the dates 2001-01-15, keyword 'today', and keyword 'tomorrow':
*2001-01-15 → {{#time: U "seconds" T|January 15, 2001}} → {{#time: Y-m-d:h:i:s T|@979516800}}
*today → {{#time: U "seconds" T|today}} → {{#time: Y-m-d:h:i:s T|@1427932800}}
*tomorrow → {{#time: U "seconds" T|tomorrow}} → {{#time: Y-m-d:h:i:s T|@1428019200}}
So then the value in {{para|accessdate}} must not convert to less than 979516800 seconds nor more than {{#time: U "seconds"|tomorrow}} (tomorrow).
—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me![[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 17:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
== et al. ==
{{resolved}}
:''see also: [[Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests#Add "authorn=et al." to a maintenance category]]''
Detect "et al." in an author field. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
:And having detected it, what then?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 03:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
::Trigger an error. I have recently found it in author fields for some reason. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Yeah, so have I. In fact, Monkbot, when it finds et al. in {{para|coauthors}}, is guilty of converting it to {{para|author''n''|et al.}} But I guess I was looking for some sort of idea about what should be done instead of simply adding an error message. What do we suggest that editors should do to get CS1/2 to display et al. outside of misusing {{para|author}}, {{para|last}}, and {{para|first}}? Do we tweak the definition of {{para|display-authors}} so that when {{para|display-authors|et al}} the rendered author list has et al. but the COinS data does not. This might also be applied to {{para|display-editors}}. We could invent {{para|et-al-author}} and {{para|et-al-editor}} or some such similar to do the same sort of thing. We'd need to worry about interaction with {{para|display-authors|''n''}} when the author list has more than ''n'' authors so that {{para|display-authors}} and {{para|et-al-author}} don't both add et al. to a rendered citation.
:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
::::I usually see {{para|author}} or {{para|authors}} with multiple authors and et al. --<span style="color:Turquoise">''''' [[User:Gadget850|Gadget850]]'''''<sup>[[User talk:Gadget850| ''talk'']]</sup></span> 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
==Extra checking of URL & title==
Hi, I think that there should be some additional checking on the {{para|url}} and {{para|title}} fields and setting up tracking categories so that they can be looked at and fixed appropriately.
For the {{para|url}} check if there is text in the field other than the URL, easiest way to do this would be to check for mid-string white space. This would pick up things such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NYPD_officer_killings&diff=prev&oldid=667414396 this].
A converse would be to check for a URL in the {{para|title}} field as you should not get URLs in the title. This would pick up the inclusion of unnecessary details such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grigor_Dimitrov&diff=prev&oldid=667413052 this].
[[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 22:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
:Part of this request was discussed in a [[Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_7#A_proposed_new_error_to_detect:_URL_in_.7Ctitle.3D|previous conversation]], although it does not appear that any action was taken based on that discussion. [[Help talk:Citation Style 1]] is usually a better forum for these conversations, in any event; it has more watchers. I recommend that you start two separate threads on that page, since this is really two different feature requests. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
::{{done}}. This change was implemented in the live CS1 module in September 2015. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
==Suppress original URL==
Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&curid=2735348&diff=675426637&oldid=675311321 this IP edit], I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Hip_Hop_Witch&diff=675432042&oldid=666009787 this change] to [[Da Hip Hop Witch]]. The cite templates force the display of the original URL once an archived link is provided, and unfortunately in this case, provides a link to a Paypal request. I've seen other original links leading to linkfarms or other undesirable links.
Can we add a feature to suppress the display of the original URL in such cases? <font color="#8b4513">[[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]]</font><font color="#ee8811">[[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]]</font> 15:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
:I presume that we could extend the functionality of {{para|dead-url}} to include some sort of meaningful code word that would serve the purpose of rendering the citation with just the archived message without the link. What should that code word be?
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
::Maybe {{para|dead-url|hide}}? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
::Perhaps {{para|dead-url|nolink}}?
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I think I'd prefer something which is better represents the semantics of the problem, in this case that the original link is spam or at the least "undesirable". Not quite sure of a good keyword for that. "origspam" or "originalspam". --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::I had exactly that thought but my poor little brain isn't finding the right term. I did think of <code>spam</code> but that to me connotes [[spamming]] or [[spam (email)]], not a usurped or expired ___domain name. I also thought about <code>advert</code>, but this case isn't that; <code>phishing</code>, <code>fraud</code> also came to mind.
::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::I was thinking that the parameter value should describe the function, not the purpose. There could be multiple reasons for hiding the original URL. Hence "hide" or "nolink". – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::The problem I have with function over purpose is that function enables behavior that may not be desirable. For example, I can't think of ''any'' reason other than a link being a "bad" link to be correct to hide. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::<code>unfit</code> meaning not approriate?
:::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::What about <code>usurped</code>? <font color="#8b4513">[[User:Mindmatrix|Mind]]</font><font color="#ee8811">[[User_talk:Mindmatrix|matrix]]</font> 15:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
{{mdt|Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#Suppress original URL}}
{{done}}. This change was implemented in the live CS1 module in September 2015. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
| |||