Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 58
subscription=yesThe subscription=yes was deprecated this year. Maybe it's only me, but I don't get how the five (?) new …-access=… parameters are supposed to work. The general situation is a site using JavaScript to detect an AdBlock and not working at all, if JavaScript is disabled. What is this, …-access=limited or …-access=subscription?
Here's my problem:
Zbl checkAs a follow up on Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 36#Zbl error checking and Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 39#8 digit ZBL, the Zbl error checking should allow for all numeric (8 digit specifically) possibilities, as Zbl can have temporary assignments, such as Zbl 07013361 and Zbl 06949999 found in Vladimir Mazya, or Zbl 06684722 found in Lou van den Dries. Those could be put in a Category:CS1 maintenance: Temporary Zbl or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Cs1 function
url + title=noneFor stylistic reasons, the title in
needs suppressing. However, when you set
I believe in this case, we should have something like
or even something like
or
instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
MonkbotNow that a bot is changing field names, a concerning issue arises if "website=" can take no wiki-markup. "Website=" automatically italicizes anything in the field. Yet many things, like the names of TV networks (ABC, CNN) and non-periodical sites like Rotten Tomatoes and AllMusic, are not italicized, and having them appear non-italicized in text and italicized in References is inconsistent and contrary to most standard footnoting style. I would note the MOS indicates that non-periodical websites are not italicized and that only this template forces that. What can we do to address this? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The bot is doing the right thing. When I cite something I read on https://www.nbc.com, I am not citing the network because the network is on television. I am citing the website which is a periodical and just so happens to share a name with the network. The publisher is "NBCUniversal". The "website=" is the proper parameter to use in this example. If you believe "website=" should not be italicized, let's have that discussion. Or advocate for another parameter for non-periodical websites (but I don't see why they should be treated differently. They are a body of work and should be italicized). Misusing "publisher=" is not a solution no matter how long that has been the status quo. Rotten Tomatoes is published by Fandango. AllMusic is published by RhythmOne. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Add Introduction, Prologue, Foreword, Epilogue, Afterword?I don't know how to do this myself, but would Wikipedia and/or fellow Wikipedians please consider how to add both "Introduction" and "Introduction-first"/"Introduction-last" to the book citation template? Ditto for Prologue, Foreword, Epilogue, Afterword? I ask because often one or more experts will kindly not edit a famous book but will add expert commentary before and/or after a book's text. Thank you Aboudaqn (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
cite encyclopedia without |title=Way back at this discussion → Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 4#Looking for trans title for {{cite encyclopedia}}, I wrote code in Module:Citation/CS1 that remaps the various
I don't know what I was thinking. cs1|2 citations require titles. Internally, Module:Citation/CS1 copies the value assigned to I discovered this because I've been working on cleaning up various cs1 wrapper templates that link to wikisource (
Beyond the fact that there is no title, the problem with this way of dealing with the missing title is that the label portion of that wikilink, the part that goes into the citation's metadata, has html markup which it should not. So, I have tweaked the module to be more like other templates where
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Dates in author fieldHello, I have located around 200 bibcode/ADS - URL base is deprecatedThe cite journal template needs to be updated. I couldn't find which particular page codes for the bibcode= parameter in cite journal, so sorry if this is the wrong talk page. See my fix of the direct bibcode template for what needs doing. For example,
The fix will affect a huge amount of pages. Double-check and triple-check before hitting "Publish changes"...! Boud (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Update URL for bibcode tagPlease update the URL for bibcode=..., for example bibcode=1974AJ.....79..819H form http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974AJ.....79..819H to https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974AJ.....79..819H . ADS Classic is now deprecated. It will be completely retired in October 2019. Read here: https://adsabs.github.io/blog/transition-reminder https://adsabs.github.io/blog/ave-atque-vale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infin2694529 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Check for final character in several regular fieldsFor example, no author name ends with a
to make sure they don't end with such a comma, colon, or semi-colon, giving things like
Likewise for a slew of parameters, which are basically every parameter except
I also propose they are initially made as maintenance categories so they don't get thrown as big red errors to readers while kinks get worked out, and (possibly) corner cases identified. The only parameters I see this as potentially problematic is Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think it's worth thinking about expanding the set to other characters e.g., finalcheck
, = allowed {quote, url}
. = disallowed {last, editor-last, year, date, volume, issue, pages, page, at, ...}
& = disallowed {all}
; = allowed {chapter, title, quote, ...}
$ = allowed {chapter, title, quote, ...}
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Commonly found trailing garbage in URLs includes:
-- GreenC 23:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC) @Headbomb: right, sometimes wrong:
How often it is not-wrong for comparison is the question. Which is worse tracking or not. -- GreenC 05:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
How to handle a pseudonymA book that appeared with the author given on the title page as "A Virginian", but you know his real name, how is this best handled? I wish there were a "pseudonym" field. Please don't get off on how we know the real name. That's a different topic. This was posted unsuccessfully at Teahouse. Thanks for any help. deisenbe (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Display problem with issue parameterWhen Books with volumes and partsSome books are differentiated from each other by volumes and parts. For example:
How would I cite the last two? If I use the "issue" parameter in 'cite book' template it doesn't show:
--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
A related issue is that a book may have multiple volumes for its particular title, and also have a different numbering as a volume within a book series. What I've usually resorted to in such cases is to put, e.g. "Vol. I" into the title parameter, and use the volume parameter for the book series volume number. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) As I noted earlier in this discussion, book and encyclopedia cites do not show issue:
periodical cites (
web cites (
with
cs1 templates to show that I haven't broken anything:
with
While making these fixes, I also noticed that
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC) I've never liked the way "volume" appears for books. The template uses the form appropriate for journals. Would it be possible for it to render as "Vol. XXX" like suggested above? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC) Fill in |
| Wikitext | {{cite book
|
|---|---|
| Live | "Chapter". Title. {{cite book}}: Invalid |chapter-url-access=Subscription (help)
|
| Sandbox | "Chapter". Title. {{cite book}}: Invalid |chapter-url-access=Subscription (help)
|
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for this fix! − Pintoch (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Why no doi-access=subscription?
Why is the option doi-access=subscription not allowed when in fact most DOI lead to journal websites that require subscription or access via university libraries? --bender235 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The norm in access requirements is not indicated. However, I believe a registration option should be allowed for subscription-normal content identifiers such as doi or jstor. I have encountered registration-required access situations for both. 72.43.99.130 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is a url-access=subscription, which is why I was asking. --bender235 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Because, for named identifiers, the linked source usually lies behind some sort of registration barrier or paywall. When that isn't the case, that is when (for
|doi=as an example)|doi-access=freeshould be used. For|url=, the norm is that the linked source is usually free-to-read. When that isn't the case, that is when|url-access=subscription,|url-access=registration, or|url-access=limitedshould be used. - This is explained in the template documentation: Template:Citation Style documentation § Subscription or registration required. Is the documentation insufficient?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be good to accept the value instead of reject it and then display nothing, as well as a maintenance message. --Izno (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- meh. Then no one learns anything and it becomes busy work for some bot or dedicated gnome to fix. And we'll start getting: 'I added
|doi=subscriptionbut it isn't showing the red lock. How come?' - —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- meh. Then no one learns anything and it becomes busy work for some bot or dedicated gnome to fix. And we'll start getting: 'I added
- As mentioned above,
|doi|jstor=registrationshould be added for content that requires registration only. Without this clarification, readers are not offered an existing path to non-paid verification. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- That will just add complication and confusion. The rule is as simple as I think we can make it: sources linked by the named identifiers are behind some sort of restrictive barrier unless marked otherwise with
|<identifier>-access=free. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand who would be confused by this? There is already a similar array of access options for
|url=and I cannot remember anybody complaining about it. The same array of options (with allowances for the access norm) should be extended to all content identifiers. The specific case has the potential to make verifiability easier/more accessible. I would think this would make it a no-brainer. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand who would be confused by this? There is already a similar array of access options for
- That will just add complication and confusion. The rule is as simple as I think we can make it: sources linked by the named identifiers are behind some sort of restrictive barrier unless marked otherwise with
- Oh, so for DOI "subscription" is the default, and "free" would be the exceptional case. I see. But shouldn't the template then display the little red lock
by default, too? --bender235 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not quite. For most identifiers, the default is: not-free-to-read. The default state says nothing about what kind of restrictions the publisher has placed on the source. We do not highlight the norm and, because there are subscription, registration, and limited access options, it is not possible for the templates to apply an appropriate lock icon without being told what that lock icon should be.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be good to accept the value instead of reject it and then display nothing, as well as a maintenance message. --Izno (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bender235: we had this exact debate when we implemented this - I was of the same opinion as you, but we could only get the change to pass in this form. − Pintoch (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
On requiring the journal parameter
I read above that:
- With the next release of the cs1|2 module suite,
{{cite journal}}will require|journal=
Are we sure about this? There are thousands of journals which use DataCite DOIs, but the funny thing (as someone highlighted to me at some recent conferences) is that the DataCite schema doesn't have a field for the journal name. This might be dismissed as irrelevant but is a sign of what is considered important. Nemo 13:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I see no reason not to require
|journal=when using{{cite journal}}– that is, after all, the purpose of the template. - Shouldn't the data that support a journal article be cited from that journal article and not from a Wikipedia article?
- Aren't the data that the author(s) used in their research and from which they drew their conclusions, a primary source that is not subject to the normal editorial processes of publication and review? (WP:PRIMARY)
- If it is determined that citing research data is an appropriate thing to do, then shouldn't cs1|2 have a template specific to that requirement so that editors don't misuse other templates? (
{{cite data}}) - —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia with care. One might imagine, for example, a definition that needs to be precisely stated in a Wikipedia article, but the term is undefined, or vaguely defined in a journal article; the precise definition needs to be retrieved from the data. Or perhaps two different journal articles appear to rely on the same data, and citations to the data for each article are needed to confirm this.
- The problem with a special template that doesn't exist is that an editor can't be expected to wait for one of the few people who understand the monster that the citation templates have become to provide a special template. The editor would hand-code a citation. The editor would even be justified in rewriting every citation in the article to some other style that doesn't require templates, to avoid the suppression of acceptable sources by inadequate software. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that I said that primary sources could not be used. I do question the validity of citing research data here, at Wikipedia, because raw data are so often subject to interpretation which editors here should not be doing. I accept that there may be the occasional need to cite research data. If we are going to support that, we should provide a template specifically tailored to that task.
-
- Yeah, such a template doesn't exist. So what? If it is needed it will be created and yeah, that creation won't be instantaneous. Again, so what?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Trappist the monk: There is a reason, {{cite paper}} and {{cite document}} redirect to {{cite journal}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I spent a few minutes looking at a few dozen
{{cite paper}}and{{cite document}}transclusions. From that small sample, it seems to me that most could be (should be) rewritten to use a more appropriate template; obvious choices for the citations that I inspected were:{{cite arxiv}},{{cite book}},{{cite citeseerx}},{{cite conference}},{{cite journal}},{{cite thesis}},{{cite web}}. Template redirects do not act any differently from the template that they alias; editors should not expect different action simply because of a redirect's name. Perhaps this exercise will show that we need separate{{cite paper}}and{{cite document}}templates. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps they should be rewritten before you break them all by making
|journal=mandatory? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps they should be rewritten before you break them all by making
- I spent a few minutes looking at a few dozen
- If the objective is to require that "cite journal" is only used for documents which belong to some kind of "journal", also known as "papers", I suspect that requiring to provide a journal name is not the easiest or most efficient way to do it. Nemo 17:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
{{cite journal}}is a periodical template – always has been. Individual papers and documents are not periodicals. We already have some templates that are suitable for citing preprints of individual papers so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that we should also have templates specifically for citing individual papers and documents – the{{cite paper}}redirect might be usurped for that purpose and the{{cite document}}redirect pointed at{{cite paper}}instead of{{cite journal}}.
-
- You
suspect that requiring to provide a journal name is not the easiest or most efficient way to
ensure that journal cites name the journal. State the better method; don't just leave us hanging ... - —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be more than fine having a fork of {{cite paper}}/{{cite document}} as a distinct template from {{cite journal}} if we're going to make
|journal=mandatory. Likely first as a maintenance category to see how bad things are have a preliminary round of cleanup through citation bot and the like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)- The better method is something both understandable to users and easy to verify. I would personally prefer a superset of the publications eligible for plan S, namely one of their requirements which is easy to use: «Use of persistent identifiers (PIDs) for scholarly publications (with versioning, for example, in case of revisions), such as DOI (preferable), URN, or Handle».
- On the other hand, if the objective is to prevent usage of this template by articles or depending templates for unforeseen citations which end up creating undue style demands or other hurdles for the maintainer(s) of this template, I don't have an easy answer. I wish we could fix the (technical? social?) problem with those usages rather than force their hand by breaking them. Nemo 09:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Plan S is fine and all, but that retroactively make some self-published 1928 paper from Johann Gambolputty all of a sudden become published and have a DOI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Surely we don't expect a wikitext condition to be able to take care of such undesired events though. Nemo 10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Plan S is fine and all, but that retroactively make some self-published 1928 paper from Johann Gambolputty all of a sudden become published and have a DOI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- I think that you are describing a solution to a problem that isn't the journal-cite-without-journal-title problem. I do not think that there should be any requirement for persistent identifiers in
{{cite journal}}because there likely to be sources that can use{{cite journal}}that lived and died before persistent identifiers were invented. Nor do I think that a persistent-identifier-requirement is a solution to your research data concern.
- I think that you are describing a solution to a problem that isn't the journal-cite-without-journal-title problem. I do not think that there should be any requirement for persistent identifiers in
-
- An actual
{{cite paper}}template to replace the redirect to{{cite journal}}would handle individually published papers that do notbelong to some kind of "journal"
. This template can use but must not require persistent identifiers, does not allow|journal=or aliases, gets the metadata right.{{cite paper}}should require|publisher=because WP:V. These same might apply to a{{cite data}}template were we to decide that citing research data is something that cs1|2 should support. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- An actual
- I'd be more than fine having a fork of {{cite paper}}/{{cite document}} as a distinct template from {{cite journal}} if we're going to make
- You
Break Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019 into months
3000 pages makes it very hard to check what's backlogged vs what's newly broken. Breaking down by months would make it easier to manage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers/sandbox so that it adds a sortkey to the category when it can decode a month value from
|doi-broken= - To prove that it is working, copy this:
{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |doi=10.1212/something |doi-broken=January 2019}}
- into Special:ExpandTemplates (the Input wikitext box) to see the category with sortkey (cs1|2 does not add categories when in the Help talk namespace). Change the date, give it invalid date, etc.
- When not given a month, does not add a sortkey. We might want to change that so that month-less articles don't sort by article-name first-letter. Might also want to change the sort key from month-name to month number.
- Another option is to create subcategories: Category:Pages with DOIs inactive as of 2019/January
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
cite ssrn
Harking back to this discussion, I found this:
{{Cite journal|last=Balding|first=Christopher|last2=Clarke|first2=Donald|date=17 April 2019|title=WHO OWNS HUAWEI?|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3372669|journal=SSRN|volume=|page=4|pages=15|via=SSRN}}- Balding, Christopher; Clarke, Donald (17 April 2019). "WHO OWNS HUAWEI?". SSRN: 4 – via SSRN.
{{cite journal}}: More than one of|pages=and|page=specified (help)
- Balding, Christopher; Clarke, Donald (17 April 2019). "WHO OWNS HUAWEI?". SSRN: 4 – via SSRN.
and that lead me to create {{cite ssrn/new}} to become {{cite ssrn}} after the next module update:
{{cite ssrn/new |last=Balding |first=Christopher |last2=Clarke |first2=Donald |date=17 April 2019 |title=Who Owns Huawei? |ssrn=3372669 |page=4}}
Like {{cite arxiv}}, {{cite bioRxiv}}, and {{cite citeseerx}}, this template accepts only a limited subset of the cs1|2 parameters.
Keep? Discard?
Needs documentation which I leave to someone else.
I will note that {{cite citeseerx}} still needs documentation ...
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- The solution, I feel, is to create a {{cite preprint}} and ultimately redirect cite arxiv/biorxiv/citeseerx/ssrn there, or have {{cite arxiv}} be a wrapper of
{{cite preprint|mode=arxiv}}or something. But that might be more complex than individual templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)- Yeah, maybe. Not clear to me how such a template would handle metadata if it were presented with more than one identifier (specifically
rft.jtitle). That suggests that only one of|arxiv=(or|eprint=),|biorxiv=,|citeseerx=, or|ssrn=would be allowed in any one instance of{{cite preprint}}. That means that the preprint parameters would all be pseudo-aliases of each other for the purpose of duplication detection (and error messaging) but as individual parameters for the purpose of rendering the proper link. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe. Not clear to me how such a template would handle metadata if it were presented with more than one identifier (specifically
|url=?
I just ran across this:
{{Cite arXiv|url=https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5346-sequence-to-sequence-learning-with-neural-networks.pdf|title=Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks|last=Sutskever|first=I.|last2=Vinyals|first2=O.|date=2014|website=|publisher=NIPS'2014|access-date=|last3=Le|first3=Q. V.|eprint=1409.3215|class=cs.CL}}- Sutskever, I.; Vinyals, O.; Le, Q. V. (2014). "Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks" (PDF). NIPS'2014. arXiv:1409.3215 [cs.CL].
{{cite arXiv}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|access-date=and|website=(help); Unknown parameter|publisher=ignored (help)
- Sutskever, I.; Vinyals, O.; Le, Q. V. (2014). "Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks" (PDF). NIPS'2014. arXiv:1409.3215 [cs.CL].
This template makes me wonder if supporting |url= in {{cite arxiv}} and the other preprint templates is the correct thing. For this particular example, I would say no. In this case, the paper was presented at the Twenty-eighth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2014 video of the talk linked from the conference schedule). So, this template is one that is better rewritten to use {{cite conference}} (which I will do).
Is there any reason that the identifier-based preprint templates need |url=?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Name order
As it is, the cite book template puts the surname before the first name (e.g. "Smith, John"). I'd like someone to add a option that will force the template to order it first then last (ie "John Smith"). The only way to do this currently is to use the author= parameter, but then this causes problems with the ref= parameter and other things. Could somebody do this for me? Something like a parameter first-last-name=true. Kurzon (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I support some version of this. Specifically, with the
|af=parameter, as I proposed it in 2018. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)- Combined with automatic global formatting like have for dates, especially. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why?
- First-last ordering of the lead author's name in a citation is considered acceptable when the citations occur as isolated driplets across the foot of various pages because there are usually only one or two, and there is no question of ordering. On the other hand, when full citations are collected into lists it is standard to collate them in some kind of order, which is typically alphabetically by the first author's surname (family name). As most Western cultures put this name last, which is inconvenient for the primary sort-key, it is standard practice to invert the name into "last, first" order. I do not know of any reason why this should not be done for the lead author.
- Variation on this point occurs regarding co-authors. That is an arguable point, and it seems to me it has been argued before. If it is going to be raised again I would expect a review of previous related discussions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, for one thing you have Asian names where the surname comes first. Previously, people just told me to use
|author=. Kurzon (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)- Another consideration is how certain style guides handle things. In The Chicago Manual of Style's system of footnotes/endnotes, the name order is not inverted. CMOS does invert name order in a bibliography for the first author only. For those more familiar with CMOS's methods, ours may seem strange. Imzadi 1979 → 12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why? Because WP:CITEVAR mostly, and because this would allow us to have "John Smith (1903) Book of Stuff ..." types of citation with correct last/first name metadata. But also because it would let us easily support a plethora of styles, from CMOS, Bluebook, Vancouver, and many others while also ensuring full consistency and error checking on author format across the whole article by slapping the equivalent of {{use dmy dates}} on the article, like we do for dates. You could slap something like {{use Vancouver names}}, or
{{cs1-name-format|Vancouver}}or similar, and not have to micromanage and review every citation after bots, tools, and editors get involved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)- I second this. The first-last name order is more readable, in particular if commas are part of a name or commas are used as name separators (as it happens in some style guides). This format is therefore used in many areas outside WP (and even in WP when not using cs1 citation templates). The last-first order has advantages as well, and I think it should remain the default. However, since the usage of the citation template framework is preferable over "free-style" citations for many reasons, it is important for the framework to support all major display variants, because otherwise some people will simply not use the templates.
- I would therefore applaud the addition of an af= parameter and global templates like "Use lf/fl names", and in the long run hopefully the possibility to set the preferred format in the user preferences overriding such Use names or Use dates templates.
- Although I consider the usage of abbreviated names as an anachronism being difficult to read and often causing confusion (and our MOS advises against the usage of abbreviations where possible), I would even support if an af= parameter would optionally support the automatic truncation of given names, because there might be a few areas where it's actually useful (for as long as this never becomes a default). This may also help to improve the quality of our references, because people could always specify the unabbreviated names, even if only abbreviated names were to be displayed in a specific scenario.
- --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Please pay closer attention: citations in a note at the foot of a page – i.e., footnotes – are exactly where I said that author names are not inverted. In any kind of list, such as a bibliography, it is preferred to sort the entries, which is most commonly alphabetically by authors.
- Kurzon: yes, with Asian style (also Hungarian) the family name (surname) comes first. If there is an possibility of confusion just use
|surname=, which is a synonym for|last=. As long as we invert "last" name everything works out. If we don't invert (perhaps for co-authors), well, that would be ambiguous. The problem with using|author=or|coauthor=for this is we have no indication of which order the names are in. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why? Because WP:CITEVAR mostly, and because this would allow us to have "John Smith (1903) Book of Stuff ..." types of citation with correct last/first name metadata. But also because it would let us easily support a plethora of styles, from CMOS, Bluebook, Vancouver, and many others while also ensuring full consistency and error checking on author format across the whole article by slapping the equivalent of {{use dmy dates}} on the article, like we do for dates. You could slap something like {{use Vancouver names}}, or
- Another consideration is how certain style guides handle things. In The Chicago Manual of Style's system of footnotes/endnotes, the name order is not inverted. CMOS does invert name order in a bibliography for the first author only. For those more familiar with CMOS's methods, ours may seem strange. Imzadi 1979 → 12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, for one thing you have Asian names where the surname comes first. Previously, people just told me to use
Da; there is no need for any kind of inversion. [That came in with my edit, but it's not my comment. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)]
Ideally, at least for lists of citations in alphabetical order, a person from a culture where the given name is written first in running text would be "Washington, George" while a person from a culture where the surname is written first in written first would be "Mao Zedong". To achieve this ideal, it would be necessary to individually mark each name to show which convention applies, or at least, mark those that don't follow the default for an English-language publication, "Washington, George". Jc3s5h (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- That is exactly what the comma does: it indicates that a cultural-specific "normal" ordering has been inverted to put the indexed term first. A question that has been raised before (here, but also outside of WP) is whether it is proper to have a comma in "Mao, Zedong", which might imply that inversion was done. I think a better view to take is that the comma marks the index term, and (from the pov of citation) we don't really care whether inversion was necessary. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- It could also be a simple delimiter, indication delineation Mao, Tse Tung vs Mao Tse, Tung, rather than inversion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? The surname is this example is "Mao", not "Mao Tse". Why would "Mao Tse" get delimited from "Tung"? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's my point. In Surname, Given name the comma makes it clear where the delimitation is. It doesn't have to indicate an inversion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Aren't we saying the same thing here? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- You're saying the comma indicates inversion. I'm saying it might simply indicate delineation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was not entirely clear. What I meant above is that a comma can indicate that a Western-style first-last ordering has been inverted. But regardless of whether inversion was necessary to get the surname first, the comma marks the index term. Or to use your term, delimits it. Same thing, right? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- You're saying the comma indicates inversion. I'm saying it might simply indicate delineation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Aren't we saying the same thing here? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's my point. In Surname, Given name the comma makes it clear where the delimitation is. It doesn't have to indicate an inversion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? The surname is this example is "Mao", not "Mao Tse". Why would "Mao Tse" get delimited from "Tung"? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- It could also be a simple delimiter, indication delineation Mao, Tse Tung vs Mao Tse, Tung, rather than inversion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I read the rules and Wikipedia does not have a fixed citation style. The citation templates are optional, not mandatory. I could ignore them to do what I want. Kurzon (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- You could, but it's also why it's important that CS1 templates can accommodate small variations like that. For now, you can use
|author=instead off|last=/|first=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Templates are strongly encouraged, as otherwise the identification of sources and locating them can get murky, and verifiability (our key principle) is impaired. On the the other hand, using
|authors=instead of first/last is deprecable. Yes, the documentation suggests using it, but that was never vetted, and one of these days (soon?) ought to be re-visited. - Getting back to Kurzon's initial request: I think that is a "
small variation
" we ought not to accommodate. I don't believe that is common practice here, and in bibliographies "last, first" is practically required. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)- It's a variation that most definitely ought to be accommodated. The cost of not doing so is greater inconsistency amongst articles, and a greater refusal to adopt citation templates, and poorer metadata because
|authorn=has to be used over|lastn=/|firstn=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)- Misuse of
|author=(and I have seen plenty of that) corrupts the metadata. But where has anyone rejected use of templates because they wanted to collate by personal name? This warrants a separate, deeper discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Misuse of
- It's a variation that most definitely ought to be accommodated. The cost of not doing so is greater inconsistency amongst articles, and a greater refusal to adopt citation templates, and poorer metadata because
- Templates are strongly encouraged, as otherwise the identification of sources and locating them can get murky, and verifiability (our key principle) is impaired. On the the other hand, using
WP:CITESTYLE says there is no hard rule for name order. Kurzon (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that the use of
|author=or|authors=could or should be deprecated. These parameters are necessary, to handle institutional authors (where the author of record is a committee or some such), and probably also necessary in some unusual circumstances to handle authors who are people but who do not have names that fit the first/last paradigm (the obligatory link). Perhaps they could be deprecated for instances where the author is a conventionally-named person or group of people but I don't see how that could be enforced. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)- Authors is deprecated by maintenance message at this time, in case you were not aware. Author is supported and I expect it to be supported until we identify some alternative like org-author for organizational authors. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not just organizational authors. As I thought I already clearly stated. An example: I recently added a source whose author is credited only as "Jacob". I believe it to be a first name, but the template does not allow first= without last=. The only reasonable choice is to set author=Jacob. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Or Riazuddin/Fayyazuddin/Plato/etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- Nothing wrong with that. It's
|authors=(plural) that is discouraged (it isn't really deprecated though I think that sometime in future it should be). This parameter is discouraged because of its free-form nature. It allows any number of names, usually human, but because human names are, per your obligatory link, so damn confounding, the module does not attempt to add the content of|authors=(plural) to the citation's metadata. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with that. It's
- It's not just organizational authors. As I thought I already clearly stated. An example: I recently added a source whose author is credited only as "Jacob". I believe it to be a first name, but the template does not allow first= without last=. The only reasonable choice is to set author=Jacob. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Authors is deprecated by maintenance message at this time, in case you were not aware. Author is supported and I expect it to be supported until we identify some alternative like org-author for organizational authors. --Izno (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that the use of
- Not true. What WP:STYLE says is that "
Wikipedia does not have a single house style
". It also says (here): "The full citations are listed in alphabetical order, according to the authors' surnames, at the end of the article in a "References" section.
" Also (here, underlining added): "General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor.
" As to alternative sorting, I am not aware of any instances, in or out of WP, of sorting by first (personal) names.
- But don't forget what I said before: not inverting an author's name is typically done only in isolated citations, such as found in foot notes (footnotes), at the foot of a printed page, where there are only a couple of citations, and no need to sort them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
New OAbot BRFA
Editors interested in citation templates might want to chime in: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3. − Pintoch (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Chapter trans title
I suggest enabling this because it is intuitive if one has url and archive-url to have chapter-trans-title beside trans-title for title and chapter params respectivelly. --Obsuser (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
|trans-chapter=already exists:{{cite book |chapter=Non-English chapter title |trans-chapter=Translated chapter title |title=Non-English title |trans-title=Translated title |chapter-url=//example.com |archive-url=//archove.org |archive-date=2019-07-26}}- "Non-English chapter title" [Translated chapter title]. Non-English title [Translated title]. Archived from the original on 2019-07-26.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think I could not find it in documentation. If not there should be added, if already there everything resolved. Maybe only to add alternative name if convenient. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
|trans-chapter=is documented and has been for a long time; see Template:Cite book § Title.- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think I could not find it in documentation. If not there should be added, if already there everything resolved. Maybe only to add alternative name if convenient. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Question about |id=
I'm working on a draft that is mainly cited to EBSCOHost databases because I can. For most sources, the URL I'm using is just the direct link to the EBSCOHost data from my institution. However, for one I have a better (more accessible) link and decided to have mercy on our poor readers and included it. However, I am still going to include an EBSCHost link because I want to and because I can 
. I just don't know how to mark the link as I would |url-access=subscription. Was the exclusion of a |id-access= intentional? It would seem that portions of the module code use it as a keyword (Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration defines it, and it is references in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers), but that essentially refers to all the |doi-access=-like parameters if I understand things right. Am I supposed to use a seperate template for this? Help would be nice here. This page isn't in my watchlist, so a ping is appreciated. BTW, the real reason I use EBSCOHost is because that is just what I have through school. Since I'm already using it, I want as many of my citations to be as uniform as possible here. Regards, (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
|id-access=is not the same as['id-access']The former is a non-existent template parameter while the latter is Lua table key.- Because
|id=can hold anything it is not constrained to be an external link. It is just some sort of free-form something tacked on at the end of the named-identifiers list. I don't recall discussion about|id=during the access icon discussions. I suppose that we could add support for|id-access=freeIFF|id=[<url> label]; onlyfreebecause|id=is an identifier parameter. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
URL error
The following cite generates a URL error. After reading the "help" page, I think it is caused by the "x". But I did not see a way to fix it:
{{Cite news|url=https://blog.x.company/a-peek-inside-the-moonshot-factory-operating-manual-f5c33c9ab4d7|title=A Peek Inside the Moonshot Factory Operating Manual|author=Astro Teller|date=2016-07-23|work=The Team at X|access-date=2018-04-24}}- Astro Teller (2016-07-23). "A Peek Inside the Moonshot Factory Operating Manual". The Team at X. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
- —User-duck (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- In the sandbox added 'company' to the list of hostnames that allow single-letter second-level domain names.
{{Cite news/new|url=https://blog.x.company/a-peek-inside-the-moonshot-factory-operating-manual-f5c33c9ab4d7|title=A Peek Inside the Moonshot Factory Operating Manual|author=Astro Teller|date=2016-07-23|work=The Team at X|access-date=2018-04-24}}- Astro Teller (2016-07-23). "A Peek Inside the Moonshot Factory Operating Manual". The Team at X. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you
- —User-duck (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- If I may nitpick, "company" is not a hostname but a dns suffix, signifying in this case a generic top-level domain. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Sense number
Is there any way to cite a specific sense of an entry? I'm hoping for something like how the Wiktionary template (wikt:Template:R:OED_Online#Examples) has a `pos` (part of speech) parameter that allows you to cite a specific sense in a dictionary entry.
- No. And rightly so. 172.254.255.250 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
|at=can be used for this purpose. --Izno (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Partial links in title
Moved from Feature requests § Partial links in titleAccording to the docs, title accepts wikitext is title-link is not set. However, the code {{cite journal | author =Tiffeneau Marc| year=1921 | title = L'oeuvre commune de [[Charles Frederic Gerhardt|Gerhardt]] et de Wurtz | journal=Revue scientifique }} is mistakenly rendered with the title Gerhardt. This is because is_wikilink, which is called from kern_quotes ignores text before and after the wikilink. I was wondering if this is intentional or a bug?--Strainu (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have moved this dicussion because this is a more public forum and where we handle bug reports.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would assume the behavior described in the OP is intentional. Linking of the title/work in citations is supposed to provide additional info about the source itself, it is not meant to convey any other info, including info about the work's subject. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Likely a bug though I would also argue that wikilinking as you show in your example really isn't appropriate because a link to an article about Gerhardt isn't going to do much to help readers locate a copy of an article (by Marc Tiffeneau, right? comma missing in
|author=?). If Gerhardt is important enough to be wikilinked, then a wikilink from the article's prose is a much better place for that link. - Further, while the title is truncated by this bug, it is not italicized as you show in your post:
{{cite journal | author =Tiffeneau Marc| year=1921 | title = L'oeuvre commune de [[Charles Frederic Gerhardt|Gerhardt]] et de Wurtz | journal=Revue scientifique }}- Tiffeneau Marc (1921). "L'oeuvre commune de Gerhardt et de Wurtz". Revue scientifique.
- Still, cs1|2 shouldn't corrupt source titles by truncating to the piped link; un-piping the wikilink appears to work:
{{cite journal | author =Tiffeneau Marc| year=1921 | title = L'oeuvre commune de [[Charles Frederic Gerhardt]] et de Wurtz | journal=Revue scientifique }}- Tiffeneau Marc (1921). "L'oeuvre commune de Charles Frederic Gerhardt et de Wurtz". Revue scientifique.
- so I'll look into it.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Before I get too involved with 'fixing' this, should I? The truncation issue is I think fixed:
- Tiffeneau Marc (1921). "L'oeuvre commune de Gerhardt et de Wurtz". Revue scientifique.
- As it works now,
kern_quotes()correctly handles kerning when|title=holds a value that is one of these forms:|title='plain text'→ "'plain text'". Journal.|title='[[en.wiki article title]]'→ "'en.wiki article title'". Journal.|title='[[en.wiki article title|label]]'→ "'label'". Journal.|title=[[en.wiki article title|'label']]→ "'label'". Journal.|title='plain text [[en.wiki article title]]'→ "'plain text en.wiki article title'". Journal.|title='[[en.wiki article title]] plain text'→ "'en.wiki article title plain text'". Journal.|title='plain text [[en.wiki article title]] plain text'→ "'plain text en.wiki article title plain text'". Journal.|title='plain text [[en.wiki article title|label]] plain text'→ "'plain text label plain text'". Journal.
- it doesn't properly handle these two mixed plain text / wikilink when the wikilink(s) begin or end the title:
- The question is, should it handle 5–8 and the two that it currently doesn't, or should mixed plain text / wikilink titles throw an error? Are there cases where partially wikilinked titles help readers locate the source? Certainly an article about a book when there isn't a courtesy url might be helpful but that should be the whole title wikilinked. Mixed plain text and wikilinks in
|chapter=(and aliases)? in|title=for the periodical templates ({{cite journal}},{{cite magazine}},{{cite news}},{{cite web}})? - —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't bother. Titles are wikilinked because they refer to sources. We verify sources according to the complete, correct titles. I cannot see where a title-fragment would even be allowed in a citation as a verifiable source. Linking a fragment just because there's a Wikipedia article for it does not offer anything for citation purposes imo, and could lead to charges of OR when used to divine a title. But even if it did offer an advantage, there's way too much complexity (obvious by your questioning above) in exchange for dubious results. 65.88.88.217 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have seen titles along the lines of Star Wars: A New Hope in citations. One of the current naming conventions (WP:SUBTITLES) indicates that some works have their titles trimmed on Wikipedia. I also do not know if that should be a valid use, or if we should error when the link does not include the entire part of the work's name. --Izno (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
"developer=" ?
I have just recently encountered cites with the "unsupported parameter" |developer=. Is there some discussion about adding this parameter? (I hope not) -- User-duck (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be related to: Replaced Infobox online music service with Infobox online service. -- User-duck (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Way back, I think before citation templates were standardized, I think there was
{{|cite software}}. With a "developer" parameter. 98.0.145.210 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC) - {{cite video game}} has a
|developer=, but I do not think any other templates employ it. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Tracking bad et al
I just found about 170 incorrect parsing of the et al in an author list (possibly by a script). if I have time, I may try to fix some of these, but it would be good to have some tracking to assist (if possible). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Some of them are identifiable by the other author parameter as well, e.g.
|last=al.. That one seems harder to track, but the your pattern might be reasonably possible. (Though, otoh, maybe just in|first=;|author=is used to hold pseudonyms, which sometimes include brackets.) --Izno (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
DOI check, 10.5555 = test doi
All 10.5555 DOIs are test DOIs and will never resolve. There should be an error thrown for those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the sandbox:
{{cite journal/new |title=Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904) |url=https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 |website=JSTOR Plants |accessdate=9 August 2018 |language=en |doi=10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 |doi-broken-date=2019-08-08 }}- "Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904)". JSTOR Plants. doi:10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 (inactive 2019-08-08). Retrieved 9 August 2018.
{{cite journal}}: Check|doi=value (help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2019 (link)
- "Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904)". JSTOR Plants. doi:10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 (inactive 2019-08-08). Retrieved 9 August 2018.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
doi-broken-date without doi
*{{cite journal |title=Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904) |url=https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 |website=JSTOR Plants |accessdate=9 August 2018 |language=en |doi=10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 |doi-broken-date=2019-08-08 }}
*{{cite journal |title=Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904) |url=https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 |website=JSTOR Plants |accessdate=9 August 2018 |language=en|doi-broken-date=2019-08-08 }}
gives
- "Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904)". JSTOR Plants. doi:10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 (inactive 2019-08-08). Retrieved 9 August 2018.
{{cite journal}}: Check|doi=value (help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2019 (link) - "Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904)". JSTOR Plants. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
{{cite journal}}:|doi-broken-date=requires|doi=(help)
The second case should be in a tracking category so that |doi-broken-date can be removed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, this should be an error. --Izno (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the sandbox:
{{cite journal/new |title=Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904) |url=https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000006508 |website=JSTOR Plants |accessdate=9 August 2018 |language=en|doi-broken-date=2019-08-08 }}- "Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904)". JSTOR Plants. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
{{cite journal}}:|doi-broken-date=requires|doi=(help)
- "Philippi, Rudolph Amandus (Rodolfo Amando) (1808-1904)". JSTOR Plants. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
- Categorizes to Category:CS1 errors: DOI.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's putting a lot of weird things in Category:CS1 errors: DOI. A namespace check is probably needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- fixed.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's putting a lot of weird things in Category:CS1 errors: DOI. A namespace check is probably needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Also
{{cite book/new|last=Frontani|first=Michael|chapter=The Solo Years|editor-last=Womack|editor-first=Kenneth|year=2009|title=The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles|location=Cambridge, UK|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-68976-2|ref=harv}}
throws a weird error
- Frontani, Michael (2009). "The Solo Years". In Womack, Kenneth (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68976-2.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
As do a lot of things in #Partial links in title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anything strange in #Partial links in title.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- The fix above got rid of those errors as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Chapter + Contributor = Error
I find myself here from {{Cite book}}'s talk; Using both |chapter= and |contributor*= throws an error. Am I doing something wrong, or more importantly, how do I fix this?
{{Cite book |title=Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography |chapter=Better to find out for yourself |first=Andrea |last=Warner |contributor-first=Joni |contributor-last=Mitchell |contributor-link=Joni Mitchell |contribution=foreword |publisher=[[Greystone Books]] |year=2018 |isbn=9781771643597 |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m2JmDwAAQBAJ&q=The+song+of+the+French+partisan#v=snippet&q=The%20song%20of%20the%20French%20partisan&f=false}}- Warner, Andrea (2018). "Better to find out for yourself". Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771643597.
{{cite book}}:|contributor=requires|contribution=(help); More than one of|contribution=and|chapter=specified (help)
- Warner, Andrea (2018). "Better to find out for yourself". Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771643597.
{{Cite book |title=Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography | first=Andrea |last=Warner |contributor-first=Joni |contributor-last=Mitchell |contributor-link=Joni Mitchell |contribution=foreword |publisher=[[Greystone Books]] |year=2018 |isbn=9781771643597 |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m2JmDwAAQBAJ&q=The+song+of+the+French+partisan#v=snippet&q=The%20song%20of%20the%20French%20partisan&f=false}}- Mitchell, Joni (2018). foreword. Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography. By Warner, Andrea. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771643597.
{{Cite book |title=Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography |chapter=Better to find out for yourself |first=Andrea |last=Warner |publisher=[[Greystone Books]] |year=2018 |isbn=9781771643597 |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m2JmDwAAQBAJ&q=The+song+of+the+French+partisan#v=snippet&q=The%20song%20of%20the%20French%20partisan&f=false}}- Warner, Andrea (2018). "Better to find out for yourself". Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography. Greystone Books. ISBN 9781771643597.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Are you citing something Mitchell said in the foreword, of something Warner said in the body of the book? If you're citing the book, there's no need to mention the forword in a citation. It's also unnecessary to specify the chapter if the whole book is by the same author. If you are citing both, you need separate citations. Kanguole 07:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Contributors and chapters are not the same thing and should not be an alias of each other. I'll figure something out to workaround this error, but it should be fixed.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs18:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)- Umm,
|contributor=and|chapter=are not aliases of each other. However,|contribution=and|chapter=are aliases.
- Umm,
-
- The value in
|url=from your examples takes readers to, for lack of a better term, a dab page at books.google.com. Neither of the two offerings there are part of Mitchell's foreword. Since it would appear that you are not citing Mitchell's foreword, she and the foreword should not be part of the citation. The error message is correct. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- So the contribution should only be mentioned if it's being directly cited? Fair enough; I see that now; thanks. Since I'm sure it would not be trivial to output a special error that better explains its self in this case, perhaps a clear note in either the template docs or at the CS1 error help would be a good idea. Being informed that there are repeated params that are not repeated, without explanation, is just plain annoying and lead to this need for clarification.
Fred Gandt · talk · contribs18:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- So the contribution should only be mentioned if it's being directly cited? Fair enough; I see that now; thanks. Since I'm sure it would not be trivial to output a special error that better explains its self in this case, perhaps a clear note in either the template docs or at the CS1 error help would be a good idea. Being informed that there are repeated params that are not repeated, without explanation, is just plain annoying and lead to this need for clarification.
- The value in
- Contributors and chapters are not the same thing and should not be an alias of each other. I'll figure something out to workaround this error, but it should be fixed.
Problem with URL containing non-Latin characters
I have a URL that is throwing an error, "https://нэб.рф/catalog/000200_000018_RU_NLR_DIGIT_11048/viewer". The URL works (takes one to the desired location on the web), but it throws an error, and coming here I see "The URL field is checked to ensure that it contains only Latin characters..."
So after looking it up, I substited the "encoded" version, which is ""%D0%BD%D1%8D%D0%B1.%D1%80%D1%84", in place of the Cyrillic characters "нэб.рф", but it still throws an error, altho this version also works.
So my questions are: 1) Why throw an error when it works? 2) What's the solution?
(As with all templates, I wish there was a "don't check, I know what I'm doing" field, but there isn't AFAIK.) Herostratus (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is an internationalized domain name (IDN), with an added top-level domain implementation because of the рф portion. These use IDNA encoding ie. punycode, not percent-encoding. Thus нэб.рф converts to the plain-text but odd looking xn--90ax2c.xn--p1ai (converter tool) which actually works: http://xn--90ax2c.xn--p1ai .. the question is should the punnycode conversion be the responsibility of the editor adding the domain; or can CS1|2 accept IDNs; or should a bot search out and convert them to punycode when in CS1|2. -- GreenC 15:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- When I first added support for punycode detection to cs1|2 I though about encoding. At the time, unicode urls were quite rare so I did not pursue that. Given the number of complaints about them (few), it would seem that they are still rare or that editors don't mind doing the encoding. If we do decide to accept and encode unicode urls, it would seem that cs1|2 is where it should be done. That way the unicode url remains with the source (though it can, of course, be decoded).
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, OK, this works, thank you. Yeah I mean trying to figure this out, failing to find anything right off on the internet, trying the unicode, figuring out where to ask for help, and all that, tool me an hour at least. So a bot doing that would save x manhours over time. Or something in the documentation.
- And I mean, as I said, the Cyrillic version works. Something somewhere is able to interpret it and take the reader to the desired place. It seems kind of like "Well, the check engine light comes on whem the framitz is out of alignment, but the car works just as well anyway". Well then why did I make this trip to the dealer. I suppose maybe it's hygiene thing, where you don't want to ask whatever interprets the URL to do more work that you need to, maybe in case whoever controls that decides they don't want to support that function anymore, or something. But OK. It's not a big deal, and I myself am now gruntled. Thans again. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree CS1|2 should be able to parse an IDN without warning/error:
- Category:Pages with URL errors has about 6,000 pages (most of which are likely not caused by IDN) so it's not a big problem but would be a nice feature to support. -- GreenC 23:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
pages parameter
Pages are displayed ":57–59", but the explanation says they are displayed "pp. 57–59". Am I doing something wrong? Template:Cite magazine displays pages "pp. 57–59". Vzeebjtf (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- You don't give an example of what you are doing so I have to assume that you're using
{{cite journal}}in which case|pages=57–59displaying as ":57–59" is correct. Similarly, using{{cite magazine}}with the same|pages=57–59displaying as "pp. 57–59" is also correct. Give an example of what you are doing. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry -- I was sloppy in asking my question. See Template:Cite journal/doc#In-source locations. It says:
—which does not seem to be accurate. Perhaps it should be corrected? Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content. Use either |page= or |pages=, but not both. Displays preceded by p. unless |nopp=y or work (or an alias) is defined.
- I was confused by this question until I realized that the cite journal documentation for the page and pages parameter merely calls {{csdoc}} (the documentation for Citation Style 1 more generally) and that this general-purpose documentation does not accurately describe the journal-specific treatment of pages. I'm not sure of the correct fix: parameterize {{csdoc}} to allow it to know that it should use the journal-specific page description, or expand it for that section in cite journal and then correct the expansion? Probably parameterizing the template would be more flexible for future changes. On the other hand I wouldn't be strongly opposed to changing CS1 so that journals are more in line with everything else in this respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cite journal has many deviating aspects and AFAICS it's due to no-one trying to change it, because it comes up often enough how its various deviations are deviations.... :) --Izno (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was confused by this question until I realized that the cite journal documentation for the page and pages parameter merely calls {{csdoc}} (the documentation for Citation Style 1 more generally) and that this general-purpose documentation does not accurately describe the journal-specific treatment of pages. I'm not sure of the correct fix: parameterize {{csdoc}} to allow it to know that it should use the journal-specific page description, or expand it for that section in cite journal and then correct the expansion? Probably parameterizing the template would be more flexible for future changes. On the other hand I wouldn't be strongly opposed to changing CS1 so that journals are more in line with everything else in this respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry -- I was sloppy in asking my question. See Template:Cite journal/doc#In-source locations. It says:
Protected edit request on 19 August 2019
 | This edit request to Template:Cite book has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Template:Cite book § In-source locations, in the examples for use of the |at= parameter, please add box and table (e.g. "Box 8.1" and "Table 8.1" on page 195 of ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription). Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done- cs1|2 documentation is not fully protected; you can make the changes yourself.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Error - Bibcode Journal (JJJJJ = E3SWC) contains a number
I searched the archives but haven't seen this mentioned. The bibcode check assumes that the JJJJJ will only have letter, ampersand, or dot, but 'E3S Web of Conferences' = E3SWC breaks the standard and throws an invalid bibcode error (see Food_safety_incidents_in_China); Can the templates be updates to validate this? Quuux (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
fixed in the sandbox:
| Wikitext | {{cite news
|
|---|---|
| Live | Hadiyanto, Hadiyanto (2018). "Ozone Application for Tofu Waste Water Treatment and Its Utilisation for Growth Medium of Microalgae Spirulina sp". E3S Web of Conferences. Vol. 31. p. 03002. Bibcode:2018E3SWC..3103002H. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20183103002. |
| Sandbox | Hadiyanto, Hadiyanto (2018). "Ozone Application for Tofu Waste Water Treatment and Its Utilisation for Growth Medium of Microalgae Spirulina sp". E3S Web of Conferences. Vol. 31. p. 03002. Bibcode:2018E3SWC..3103002H. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20183103002. |
—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
website or work?
I wanted to ask which is preferred, I've noticed =work being changed to =website by some users. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- In Template:Cite web,
|work=is an alias of|website=; there is no reason to change it. I don’t think one is preferred over the other. Umimmak (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
