How do I cite a work which was edited, and then re-published by another editor?

I have found an odd situation: The book Gifts of Power: The Writings of Rebecca Jackson, Black Visionary, Shaker Eldress is a collection of autobiographical writings compiled and edited by Jean McMahon Humez. Where this gets complicated is that one of the original autobiographical writings was also edited and annotated for publication. Is it possible to distinguish between the editor of the autobiography (since he is a primary source), and the editor who put the collection together as an academic publication?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Original pub], as cited in [New pub]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no "original editor" function? I supposed that "original publication" would work.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that the original documents were never published, they only exist in draft form. There was no publisher, only an editor who prepared and annotated the documents for publication.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update to omit deprecated parameters ?

This template still lists deadurl= in the "Template parameters" table, about four-fifths of the way down the page. It is deprecated. Should it be removed from the table? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Does anyone know if there is or will be a bot that will replace the zillions of cites that used deadurl? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will be a bot, if someone from the BAG takes action on it: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 16. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How should these be dealt with, now that the dead-url parameter has been deprecated?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the "help" link, which should get you to the text duplicated at Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters. Replace |dead-url=yes with |url-status=dead, for example. There is more complete documentation at Template:Cite web#URL. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jonesey95!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no output when looking at citations? Govvy (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by no output?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you view the citations at the bottom of the page, there is no output for deadurls, it would be helpful to have an output to tell people that the current citation in question is dead. Govvy (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Here are examples; note the differences (the linked portions of the static text) between the renderings of #1 and #2 (are the same) when compared to #3:
  1. |url-status= omitted so |url= is presumed to be dead:
    Title, archived from the original on 2002-01-20 – Title linked to the archive
  2. |url-status=dead explicitly states that |url= is dead:
    Title, archived from the original on 2002-01-20 – Title linked to the archive
  3. |url-status=live explicitly states that |url= is live:
    Title, archived from the original on 2002-01-20 – Title linked to the original url
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, In Predator (franchise) article I tagged cite #10 as a deadlink, yet there is no output. Govvy (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you did not provide an archive url when you added |url-status=dead. Read the documentation for that parameter. Without |archive-url= with a value, |url-status= is ignored.
If you want to mark the url in a citation as dead but can't, or don't want to, find an archived copy, use ((dead link)) per the instructions in that template's doc page.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thats kind of stupid, an editor should be able to tag citations either as live or dead and that should have an output regardless of an archive url. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the discussions regarding the recent edits that are causing millions of redlinks to appear:

There is also a brief VPT discussion (here) that points to the longer AN discussion linked above. Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ndash in dates

I just spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why |date=March–April throws an error. Turns out only hyphen is accepted, not ndash. I don't want to trigger anyone's hyphen-ndash PTSD, but ndash is actually correct, and while I don't suggest rejecting hyphen, ndash really should be accepted. EEng 02:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you mean –. Yep, that does not work but the ndash character does:
((cite book |title=Title |date=March–April 2019))
Title. March–April 2019. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
((cite book |title=Title |date=March–April 2019))
Title. March–April 2019.
Hyphens are converted to ndash characters and the article added to Category:CS1 maint: date format
((cite book |title=Title |date=March-ndash;April 2019))
Title. March–April 2019.((cite book)): CS1 maint: date format (link)
Instruction to not use the html character entity is mentioned in the error message help text along with instructions on how to make an endash character.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

block-level elements within quote

Is there any good way at all to do something like this:[cc 1][cc 2][cc 3]

References

  1. ^ Some normal ref
  2. ^ Durden, Tyler (1996). The Rules of Fight Club. Rules:
    1. You do not talk about Fight Club.
    2. You do not talk about Fight Club. ((cite book)): line feed character in |quote= at position 7 (help)
  3. ^ Other normal ref

(and somehow position the closing quotation mark at the end of line #2)? The actual example I'm looking at has <br /> elements with manual numbering on a single line (which avoids the "line feed character" warning), e.g. 

quote = Rules:<br />1. You do not talk about Fight Club.<br />2. You do not talk about Fight Club.

whereas I'd like to get away from that. The actual text of each numbered line is long enough to wrap around, so left-margin (relative to the numbers) becomes a factor. ―cobaltcigs 21:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I have always believed that quotes, if they are important enough for the article, should be in the article as quoted text and cited there or, in separate end notes and cited there; not part of the citations themselves.
In cs1|2, quotes are wrapped in <q>...</q> tags so that css can be used to render quote marks appropriate to the language of the wiki where the cs1|2 module suite is used (Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css).
If you must have the quotation with the reference, the quotation can be placed between the cs1|2 template's closing )) and the reference's </ref> – quote marks can be omitted then or manually added as necessary.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and it wasn't my idea to put it there. Just trying to cleanup the output without upsetting whoever did put it there. I guess I'll put it after the template as suggested. ―cobaltcigs 22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italic or bold markup not allowed

I see a new nag has appeared in citations across Wikipedia overnight, resplendent in reprimanding red: "Italic or bold markup not allowed ". Whatever the reasoning here, would it not be a simpler solution to strip out unwanted markup either at edit submission or at runtime? This error now relies on editors with the time and motivation to go around manually correcting it - if there is a Bot doing this job, I have yet to see it. Cnbrb (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Very often, editors use wiki markup, particularly italic markup, to change the visual rendering of the value assigned to work and publisher parameters. For example, it is common to see in ((cite news)) something like:
|publisher=''The New York Times''
The correct form is:
|newspaper=The New York Times
which automatically italicizes the newspaper's name.
Additionally, all of the periodical templates (((cite journal)), ((cite magazine)), ((cite news)), and ((cite web))) produce COinS metadata using that standard's journal object. The journal object does not have support for publisher metadata (though cs1|2 can and does display the value assigned to |publisher=). When editors misuse |publisher= to hold the periodical name, they do a disservice to readers who consume cs1|2 citations by way of the metadata because those readers do not get the (rather important) periodical name with the rest of the citation's bibliographic detail.
The correct repair for these errors is to first make sure that the template is using the correct parameter (rename the parameter if required) and then remove the wiki markup.
Monkbot/task 14 can repair some of these however, that task is currently deferred while Monkbot/task 16 is clearing Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC regarding the scope of RfC regarding italicization of the names of websites in citations and references

Pursuant to a request by the closer:

There is a request for comment to definitively determine how widely the RFC Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment should be applied. Please contribute.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs and line wrapping

See screenshot. Apparently avoiding a line-break between the abbreviation "ISBN" and the first digit was deemed more critical than avoiding a line-break between digits. Seeing a partial ISBN at the end of the line seems a lot worse than seeing a complete ISBN at the beginning of the line (and not immediately realizing it's an ISBN).

Recommend something like: 

[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] <span class="isbn">[[Special:BookSources/978-0-520-04128-8|978-0-520-04128-8]]</span>
                                           ↑
                                          (regular space)
with css:
span.isbn { white-space: nowrap; }

―cobaltcigs 03:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, identifier names (e.g. ISBN, OCLC) are typically separated from the identifier itself (i.e. the numbers) by a non-breaking space, as you have observed. If I am reading Module:Catalog lookup link correctly, an nbsp is inserted after the identifier label. See Template:Catalog lookup link#See also for a list of templates that use this convention. ((Citation)) also follows that convention, AFAIK, though it does not use ((Catalog lookup link)). If you are successful at Template talk:Catalog lookup link in persuading editors to change the wrapping behavior, come on back here and let us know. [Disclaimer: I am making a series of assumptions here, one or more of which may be incorrect, in the interest of providing a helpful and reasonably timely answer. Other editors may need to correct my inaccuracies.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 October 2019

Shouldn't a period be rendered at the end by default, as in Template:Cite book etc.?--Hildeoc (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is one of the differences between Citation Style 2 (the result of this template's formatting in its default settings) and Citation Style 1 (the result of cite book etc). Citation style 1. Has lots. Of silly. Periods, partitioning. Each citation. Into sentence fragments. Citation Style 2 uses commas, instead, and no period at the end either —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Thank you for your reply! But what exactly is wrong with having a period at the end of the footnote here, as is common in scientific / reference works?--Hildeoc (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with a dot at the end of a ((citation)) template. If you want a dot at the end of a ((citation)) template (in cs2 mode), here are two possibilities:
((citation |title=Title)). → Title. – this form is quite common
((citation |title=Title |postscript=.)) → Title. – this form not so common
Also, please read the documentation at ((edit fully-protected)); particularly the first paragraph. ((edit fully-protected)) should not be used until there is consensus for the proposed change and at least a rudimentary road-map on what edit(s) is / are required to achieve that consensus.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: Okay, thanks, but once again: Why not add the dot at the end in the default settings here (as it already is in the other citation templates), not least in order to achieve at least some harmonization?--Hildeoc (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want harmonization between ((citation)) and the cs1 templates, use only cs1 templates or only ((citation)) or, in a mixed environment, in ((citation)), set |mode=cs1 (or in the cs1 templates set |mode=cs2). I don't know the exact reason for cs2's lack of terminal punctuation but I believe that there are those who believe that bibliographic listings made using ((citation)) are more grammatically correct than making the same listing using cs1 with its terminal punctuation. I could be wholly wrong about this. ((citation)) was developed more-or-less separately from the cs1 templates. Perhaps if you troll through this talk page's archives, you will discover the answer to the question. If you do, post that answer here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the most common form of citation in Wikipedia is a CS1 or CS2 template between a <ref> and </ref> tag. Of the style manuals that heavily influenced CS1 and CS2, the only one that advocates (as one option) footnote superscript numbers in the text with the citations appearing as a footnote or end note with the same number is The Chicago Manual of Style. That manual calls for this style of citation to separate the elements with commas and end the note with a period. For Wikipedia citation templates, I believe it would be most consistent with the roots of the system to use CS2 when end notes are being used, and to alter CS2 to end with a period by default. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Quite often it is useful to append various text after a citation (though many editors seem oblivious to that possibility), which (for cs2 style) requires a comma. The automatic inclusion of a terminating period (as done by the cite xxx templates) is a dubious convenience. The notion that having to type a single "." is so burdensome it must be done automatically, while not having it requires typing "|postscript=none", seems bass-ackwards. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

url-access parameter

The 'free' value is throwing (has been throwing for some time) an validation problem against the CS-1 check engine. At Help:CS1_errors#invalid_param_val, 'free' is not included as a valid parameter, yet it appears in many documentation pages for templates. Is there a plan to either a) include 'free' as an option which is supported by the CS-1 check engine, or b) update documentation to remove this from the viable options? I'd be willing to pitch in to either effort (though really qualified only for the second). Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the CS1 documentation for the access parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "free" is NOT allowed; it results in CS-1 errors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that |url-access=free is supported? It is not, and has never been. If there is some place that says that it is supported, that place needs to be corrected.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's in all the template documentations, though I know most 'advanced' editors never bother to read that because they already know it all. Look at Template:Citation#Subscription_or_registration_required which is contradicted in the next section, Template:Citation#Access_indicators_for_url-holding_parameters; or Template:Cite_web#Subscription_or_registration_required; etc. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK—I tracked down the source template for this documentaiton to Template:Citation_Style_documentation/registration and revised it to remove reference to the 'free' option. Not sure how many template documentations this is transcluded into, but should impact these once the individual documentation pages are next edited (or null-edited). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and it was reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_Style_documentation/registration&oldid=prev&diff=923072222&diffmode=source --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I agree with the revert. cs1|2 really does define four separate access levels; Template:Citation § Subscription or registration required merely lists those access levels with brief definitions of the icon meanings. It is left to subsequent sections of the documentation to specify the application of the access parameters. I have tweaked the doc a bit.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"language" is equal to "en"

The argument for not deleting the "language = English" parameter is that it makes easier copying and translating articles into Wikipedia sections in other languages. On the other hand, some editors do not like the extra page code. Is there any opinion formed on this subject? (plz ping me in case of answer) ·Carn !? 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

related discussions?
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8 § AWB volunteer to clean up Category:CS1 maint: Unrecognized language?
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11 § Language parameter
Do these answer your questions? If not, please clarify.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! As I see, now, than the language annotation for |language=English or |language=en is not displayed, one should not delete them. @Sabbatino: is it ok to you?·Carn !? 16:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappist the monk: I vaguely remember some discussions where editors decided that if the reference is in English then the |language= parameter should not be used, because the "English" is not shown anyways. I have been removing it for a very long time when adding and/or fixing references that come in English language, but the user who started this discussion, started bothering me with it out of the blue. Therefore, I will ask you a clearer question – is it acceptable to not use or remove the "English" tag from the |language= parameter when the source is in English? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category