This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
I have tweaked the code that supports |vauthors=
and |veditors=
so that wikilinked names are correctly handled and so that the metadata author information is not corrupted by the wikilink markup:
Wikitext | ((cite book
|
---|---|
Live | White EB. Title. |
Sandbox | White EB. Title. |
Wikitext | ((cite book
|
---|---|
Live | White EB. Title. |
Sandbox | White EB. Title. |
redlinked because there isn't a 'White EB' redirect page to 'E. B. White' |
Wikitext | ((cite book
|
---|---|
Live | Lincoln A, White EB. Title. |
Sandbox | Lincoln A, White EB. Title. |
Compare the values assigned to the keywords &rft.aufirst
and &rft.aulast
:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000015-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFWhite" class="citation book cs1">[[E. B. White|White EB]]. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.aulast=White&rft.aufirst=EB&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+38" class="Z3988"></span>
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000017-QINU`"'<cite id="CITEREFWhite" class="citation book cs1">[[E. B. White|White EB]]. ''Title''.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.aulast=White&rft.aufirst=EB&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1%2FArchive+38" class="Z3988"></span>
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be a bug in the ((cite book)) implementation, which throws an error message "contributor not without author" if no author, but an editor is defined. I think it should work with editors as well, at least I can't think of any valid reason why it shouldn't... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
|editor=
to |author=
since that makes the citation incorrect by saying Jones is the author of the book, not its editor:((cite book |author-first=Bernhard |author-last=Jones |title=Encyclopaedia of photography |contribution=Introduction |contributor-first1=Peter C. |contributor-last1=Bunnell |contributor-first2=Robert A. |contributor-last2=Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974))
|contributor=
to |author=
and |contribution=
to |chapter=
, i.e.:((cite book |editor-first=Bernhard |editor-last=Jones |title=Encyclopaedia of photography |chapter=Introduction |author-first1=Peter C. |author-last1=Bunnell |author-first2=Robert A. |author-last2=Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974))
Bunnell, Peter C.; Sobieszek, Robert A. (1974). "Introduction". In Jones, Bernhard (ed.). Encyclopaedia of photography. Arno Press.
|contribution=
and |chapter=
are just alternate names:((cite encyclopedia |editor-first=Bernhard |editor-last=Jones |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of photography |chapter=Introduction |author-first1=Peter C. |author-last1=Bunnell |author-first2=Robert A. |author-last2=Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974))
((cite encyclopedia |editor-first=Bernhard |editor-last=Jones |encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of photography |contribution=Introduction |author-first1=Peter C. |author-last1=Bunnell |author-first2=Robert A. |author-last2=Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974))
Bunnell, Peter C.; Sobieszek, Robert A. (1974). "Introduction". In Jones, Bernhard (ed.). Encyclopaedia of photography. Arno Press.
|other=
is for, so something like:
((cite book |editor-first=Bernhard |editor-last=Jones |title=Encyclopaedia of photography |others=Introduction by Peter C. Bunnell & Robert A. Sobieszek |publisher=Arno Press |date=1974))
Jones, Bernhard, ed. (1974). Encyclopaedia of photography. Introduction by Peter C. Bunnell & Robert A. Sobieszek. Arno Press.
fuzzthe publisher put on the sleeve.
((cite book |editor-first=Bernhard Edward |editor-last=Jones |section=Sensitometry |title=Cassell's Cyclopaedia of Photography |publisher=Cassell |location=London |date=1911 |section-url=https://archive.org/stream/cassellscyclopae00jone#page/472/mode/2up |pages=472 et seq))
I am missing the possibility of naming an illustrator. bkb (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
|others=
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)
others: To record other contributors to the work, including illustrators. For the parameter value, write Illustrated by John Smith.. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The Springer book series Lecture Notes in Computer Science has meanwhile reached volumes >10000. Such 5-digit volume numbers aren't rendered in boldface, while shorter numbers are. See the 2017 entry at Conference on Artificial General Intelligence#References for an example. Maybe somebody can fix this. Thanks in advance! - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
|volume=
in ((cite book)), I manually insert "vol.", which bypasses the boldfacing. Since that's 5 characters, plus the numbers, if we switched the default to bold up to 5 and drop the bold on 6+, my desired template behavior would still work properly. Imzadi 1979 → 21:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
|volume=
as well as |issue=
in cite journal i.e. rendering it equivalently to the current cite magazine. I suspect, however, it would require an RFC prior, since that change seems likely to be contested. --Izno (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Please separate translation tables from Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration into /i18n subpage, so that it can has its own block policy, and make maintenance task easy when copied to local wiki, especially when updating the changed configuration. --Ans (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
most of /Configuration.
just halfand
most of/Configuration if you would like, but in the end, you are asking us to make a change for you without having offered much in the way of a good reason for us to do the work for you. Without you convince us that we should do the work, I think that the work will not get done.
block policyand that your desired solution will
make maintenance task easy when copied to local wiki. I think that you mean the protection policies at wikis other than en.wiki and that your phrase
block policymeans something akin to en.wiki's WP:PROTECT. If that is the problem, why not just change the /Configuration protection level at the 'local' wiki? It is after all, the prerogative of each wiki to establish its own protection rules for their copies of these modules.
((Cite court))
is a hard-coded simplistic template, that should probably be folded into the CS1 system.
At bare minimum, it needs to support the following:
|access-date=
and |accessdate=
(its doc says it supports the latter, but it does not)|archive-url=
/ |archiveurl=
, |archive-date=
/ |archivedate=
, |dead-url=
/ |deadurl=
|via=
– for URLs that do not go to the reporter but to somewhere less official|id=
– for reporters that don't fit the US pattern (volume order, etc.); e.g., India uses two reporters, with a different format, which can be done with |id=Something_here; Something2_here (or, see below, we could have a switch for specifying the format)|judge=
– to use with a judge name or "majority" or whatever, to attribute whatever is in |quote=
|at=
– make the current, weird |poinpoint=
an alias to this, and stop "advertising" pinpoint in the doc|lang=
– we cite cases that are not in English|title=
– make the current, weird |litigants=
an alias to this, and list both in the doc|work=
– make the current, weird |reporter=
an alias to this or vice versa, and list both in the doc|page=
, |pages=
– alias to |at=
/ |pinpoint=
|volume=
– template presently only supports |vol=
|reporter=
/ |work=
will work properly and not generate a bogus URL if people use this as freeform text, e.g. post an entire Indian reporter citation (or both of them) into it. Not ideal, but our templates are here to serve editors and readers, not make them serve our templates.|vol=
and |opinion=
as only pertaining to US case citations (and those that follow the same format); optionally, just code in various differ formats and provide a switch for them, thought that would be a lot of work (e.g. the two India don't use the same order of citation parts).— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
|court=
equivalent to |author=
(or |publisher=
?)|opinion=
equivalent to |work=
|date=
equivalent to |publication date=
|quote=
output is in parentheses|court=
output is also in parentheses((cite book |title=Parker v. D.C. |volume=478 <!--|reporter=F.3d--> |page=401 <!--|at=370 -->|last=Silberman |publisher=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.))
))As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
((cite book |title=Parker v. D.C. |volume=478 <!--|reporter=F.3d--> |page=401 <!--|at=370 --> |publisher=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.))
As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
((cite web |title=04-7041a | id=Parker v. D.C. |department=Opinions |website=U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit |date=9 March 2007 |last=Silberman |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.))
As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
|via=
if it didn't come from an official source; already covered this in the original post. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 11:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)|publisher=
. |opinion=
isn't |work=
; |reporter=
is. Yes, quotation marks should be in quotation marks not parentheses, or no one is going to understand they're quotations. If there's strident demand to mimic Bluebook and other citation styles exactly we can add a switch to do that, as we're already doing with Vancouver, but it's probably a lot of work so absent an RfC indicating a solid consensus to require it be done, I would suggest not going there (unless someone has a lot of time on their hands). I have to observe that we have loads of legal articles, even on important cases like FCC v. Pacifica and Reno v. ACLU, that make no use of ((Cite court))
; it's actually quite disused. So, I'll be highly skeptical of any argument that diverging from its present output is somehow against consensus.Another option is to just leave this template mostly alone, and create a new one at ((Cite case))
(presently a redirect that would have to be usurped after bot replacement) that is CS1-based from the start, and normalizes all the citation style to match ((cite journal))
. Someone can continue using the current few-featured template, which is really only for US cases, if they demand to do so (i.e., per WP:CITEVAR) if consensus on an article's talk page doesn't override them to prefer the better-featured and more consistent template. Regardless, there should be a CS1 template for citing cases, that is jurisdiction-agnostic. The simplest way to do this is probably to have |id=
hold the compressed citation gobbledegook that no one understands but lawyers in particular legal systems, e.g. |at=438 U.S. 726
– treat it like |doi=
, |isbn=
, or any other "ID code" parameter – and use normal parameters to present the information readable, for mere mortals, e.g. |work=United States Reports
, etc. I suppose we can already "fake it" with ((Cite journal))
, but it would be nice to have an explicitly legal variant, documented for that context, that supported aliases like |reporter=
and |court=
. Maybe this can just be done as a template wrapper that uses ((Cite journal))
.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 11:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
((Bluebook journal))
and ((Bluebook website))
. I would oppose any move to make the cs1|2 templates conform to Bluebook style. cs1|2 have assumed their own style, I see no need to add a switch to [mimic Bluebook]; we did that experiment with MLA which produced spaghetti code – since removed.
|work=
→ |reporter=
) is emphasized via italics|title=
|chapter=
|article=
, etc. → |opinion=
) is distinguished via quotation marksThis edit request to Template:Cite magazine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could it be explained in the documentation that magazines with a two-month date range should be hyphenated? Example: August/September 1996 should be written as August-September 1996. The current system gives an error when you input a date with a forward slash, although this is the industry standard format (at least in the USA). I had to search through the talk archives to figure out a hyphen was required.
Actually, it would be helpful if the cite template would accept a date with a slash between two months anyway, since most people won't notice it gives an error much less track down the template to find out how to fix it. A hyphen makes sense when it spans three months, ie October-December 2012, but it's not very intuitive otherwise, and people are most likely to simply copy/paste from the source (see example) and move on their way. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
((csdoc))
controls most of the parameter-level documentation for all of the cs1|2 templates so remember that when you edit it with one particular template in mind your changes cascade to the other 20-ish templates.Hello, I'd like to request that the EThOS id was added as a parameter for use in Template:Cite thesis. There are nearly 500,000 PhD theses in the E-Theses Online Service (EThOS) and it would be good to cite them properly. Examples include
As of 8 November 2017[update] these can only be added as a seperate identifer outside the cite thesis template e.g.
<ref name=dawkins>((cite thesis |degree=DPhil |first=Richard Clinton|last=Dawkins |title=Selective pecking in the domestic chick |publisher=University of Oxford |date=1966 |url=http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/OXVU1:LSCOP_OX:oxfaleph020515491 |website=bodleian.ox.ac.uk)) ((EThOS|uk.bl.ethos.710826))</ref>
Having them included in cite thesis would allow the following (neater) citation style:
<ref name=dawkins>((cite thesis |degree=DPhil |first=Richard Clinton|last=Dawkins |title=Selective pecking in the domestic chick |publisher=University of Oxford |date=1966 |url=http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/OXVU1:LSCOP_OX:oxfaleph020515491 |website=bodleian.ox.ac.uk| EThOS=uk.bl.ethos.710826))</ref>
As of 8 November 2017[update] the latter citation style gives Unknown parameter |EThOS= ignored
for example: Dawkins, Richard Clinton (1966). Selective pecking in the domestic chick. bodleian.ox.ac.uk (DPhil thesis). University of Oxford. ((cite thesis))
: Unknown parameter |EThOS=
ignored (help)
Pinging @Andrew Davidson: and @Mike Peel: for information, Thanks Duncan.Hull (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
|id=
parameter like so:<ref name=dawkins>((cite thesis |degree=DPhil |first=Richard Clinton|last=Dawkins |title=Selective pecking in the domestic chick |publisher=University of Oxford |date=1966 |url=http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/OXVU1:LSCOP_OX:oxfaleph020515491 |website=bodleian.ox.ac.uk| id=((EThOS|uk.bl.ethos.710826))))</ref>
|ethos=
; cs1|2 doesn't do mixed case parameter names. In all of the examples here, the identifier includes uk.bl.ethos.
Why? Does ethos have other, for lack of a better term, prefixes? This request looks to me like the request we recently had about creating a google-books id. That didn't go anywhere.uk.bl.ethos.
, maybe they'll add new prefixes later (its future proof). Also, Google isn't a National library so the British Library can't be usefully compared with it @Trappist the monk:. The workaround of id=((EThOS|uk.bl.ethos.710826))
will be ok as an interim solution Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)When the quotation is not in English, should the argument to the quote parameter be in the original language or translated? The title parameter has a trans-title counterpart and so perhaps quote should have a trans-quote equivalent. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
|quote=
it is important enough to have its own end note and that end note cited. So, from that, I would say: quote in the original language and provide a reliably sourced translation in the same end note then cite both. Last time I was paying any attention to the topic of translations, the consensus was that machine translations are not considered reliable. Others will likely disagree with me.|quote=
was a convenience for providing the exact text of the source that is being paraphrased (here, translated) in the article. I have two problems with that. First, as Trappist says, if it's that important then it should be presented (perhaps even discussed) in the note. (As to "its own end note", I guess you're thinking of the original and the translation. But both sources can be, and should be, handled in the same note. See below.) But quotations of text should not be in the full citation, because that is about the source, not whatever part is being used in the article. In that sense,
|quote=
is an unuseful parameter, and ought to be deprecated. It derives from this deep confusion and confounding of "note" with "citation".|trans-title=
because a title does identify a source, and either the original foreign language title of an English translation, or an English translation of the foreign language title, is important for identifying a source.) ... class<ref> {cite|...|quote=Klass}</ref>
" is better handled as " ... class<ref> {cite|...} "Klass".</ref>
". Or for citing both a translation and the original, where short cites are being used: " ... class<ref>{Harv|Smith|2000|p=84}. "Klass" in the original.{Harv|Ivanoff|1988|p=76}.</ref>
" ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)|quote=
parameter, we should also provide optional parameters |script-quote=
and |trans-quote=
in order to support editors in the best possible way.|quote=
parameter and want to give both the original text as well as a translation, I am at present forced to put both into the |quote=
parameter. My personal style is to append the translation to the original text and put it in [square brackets] - similar to how |title=
and |trans-title=
are rendered. However, I am not happy with this solution as it lumps together two distinct pieces of information, and since the formatting is left to the editor rather than the template, it does not follow the fundamental principle of keeping content and presentation separate, and it makes it impossible for machines to properly parse the contents (and possibly process the original and the translation differently) later on. (Some reasons for why it might be useful to process strings differently might be down to future user preferences to mute translations if the reader is able to read the original language, to support screen readers, or to ease the reuse of quotes in external databases.)editors find [|quote=
] convenient, useful and suitable.
I do not think that these same editors have ever really thought about it; it is there, they use it, and I would guess that they do this in the belief that we have thought about it.Citation error of access date seen on following help pages on English wikipedia Template:Cite_web & kannada wikipedia kn:Template:Cite_web, in reference we get Check date values in: |access-date= (help) , we getting error on kn:Category:CS1_errors:_dates at kannada wikipedia, does some one know how to fix it. this issue with access date only. ★ Anoop / ಅನೂಪ್ ✉ © 13:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
|access-date=((date|((date))|mdy))
=mw.ustring.match ('೨೨ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭', '%d%d%s+%a+%s+%d%d%d%d')
%a+
should match one or more unicode letters so apparently ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ (U+0CB8 U+0CC6 U+0CAA U+0CCD U+0C9F U+0CC6 U+0C82 U+0CAC U+0CB0 U+0CCD) has stuff that isn't letters in it. This worked:
=mw.ustring.match ('೨೨ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ ೨೦೧೭', '%d%d%s+[%D%S]+%s+%d%d%d%d')
[%D%S]+
matches one or more of anything that isn't digits and spaces.elseif 'access-date'==k then -- if the parameter is |date= -- good_date = check_date (v, nil, true); -- go test the date; nil is a placeholder; true is the test_accessdate flag
good_date
false
which causes the access-date test to fail even if |access-date=2017-09-26
is used. So, fix that first.Today I copied the live en.wiki module suite to the kn.wiki sandboxen. I have discovered that in the process of validating |access-date=
at kn.wiki (and presumably other wikis whose local languages do not use the Western digit set [0-9]) that the timestamps created by calls to mw.getContentLanguage():formatDate()
are returned as text strings in the local script. In order to compare a string of character digits to the number that defines the start of Wikipedia, the new timestamp strings must be converted to numbers. At en.wiki tonumber()
does the trick. But, at kn.wiki, tonumber()
returns nil
which causes a huge red script error. I have added an alternative for use on kn.wiki and others that may require it.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
%a+
character classes in the patterns that are used to detect the date formats. But, as noted above, %a+
doesn't work because kn script has additional 'character modifiers'(?) that tweak how a character is rendered. These character modifiers are not %a+
so the mw.ustring.match()
stops looking when it discovers these character modifiers. To get round that, kn.wiki now uses %D
which matches any character that is not %d
(digits). So, instead of writing:
mw.ustring.match(date_string, "^[1-9]%d? +%a+ +[1-9]%d%d%d%a?$")
mw.ustring.match(date_string, "^[1-9]%d? +%D- +[1-9]%d%d%d%a?$")
%d
but it is not possible do math (೨+೭
) with these characters. To get round that, I've created a table of 'local language' digit characters and their ASCII equivalents. A line of code in check_date()
uses that table to convert 'local digits' to ASCII so that the module can properly evaluate the numbers that are part of all dates supported by cs1|2.Have we reached the point with Wikidata where we can have the citation template auto-magically link the publication's dedicated WP article (if one exists) based on the citation's ISSN parameter? (E.g., if the publication param is not already wikified, lookup ISSN at Wikidata; if affiliated with a publication that has an enwp page, link said enwp page.) This would save writers like me a whole lot of lookup time. czar 20:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The documentation for Cite journal seems incorrect. It describes the possibility of wikilinking the title parameter, but not the journal parameter. But Wikipedia is far more likely to have an article about a journal than an individual article from a journal. I would think the same would apply to Wikidata items. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Not related to cite templates, but Czar's question reminds me of an old project idea to create redirects in the form "ISSN nnnn-nnnn" for all articles about journals for which we know the corresponding ISSNs. Likewise, for all articles about books, we could create redirects in the form "ISBN n"* (in the various established formats with and without hyphens) for all known ISBN numbers associated with the corresponding book. This would allow users to enter an ISSN or ISBN into the search box and be redirected to the corresponding article. Obviously, this task would have to be bot-assisted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
ISSNs are not limited to journals. Several other types of serial works may use the identifier. Also, journals may have different ISSNs depending on media (print/digital etc.); different Series of the same journal (or other work, but journals are more likely to have distinct Series) may have different ISSNs. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Imzadi, above. Also: wikilinking a publication every time it is cited would surely be over-linking, right? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links", without quantifying "excessive". At the bottom – at MOS:DUPLINK – it says that "
[g]enerally, a link should appear only once in an article" (emphasis in the original), then makes exceptions for footnotes (etc.), but not bibliographies. (Nor "references".) So how is having to hunt through a bibliography for the first mention of a publication any different than having to hunt through the entire article for the first mention of a related topic? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
((cite book))
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help) is ok?Nigel Ish (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)|auto=y
or |wikidata=y
. Hell, it'd be really nice to even pull the ISSN if there are no conflicting publications by that name on Wikidata: |journal=Your Sinclair |auto=y
=> Your Sinclair (wikilinked). ISSN 0269-6983. czar 04:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)|auto=
parameter rather than being prone to misusing it. In any event, if there is agreement that there should be some way to leverage Wikidata link support in citations, it would be more efficacious to build it into CS1 than for me to run some browser script to do the same in my browser. czar 22:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)|issn=
parameter, "auto-magically link the publication's dedicated WP article ...." It's that "auto" part that I (and others) object to. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
|df=
date format) are set. There's a difference between being a CS1 default and an optional aid to editors. As I said, the alternative is writing a userscript to the same effect, which seems like a waste when it's both easier to integrate and of greater public benefit to write the function as an optional CS1 param. If the phrase |auto=
is a distraction, call it |wikidata=
? The "auto" part is that the editor sets a specific parameter to let Wikidata provide the publication's wikilink rather than setting the link manually. It's simple and it keeps the link current. I don't see any reasonable capacity for error, abuse, or need for editor review apart from simply not trusting Wikidata. czar 22:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)"auto" part [where] the editor sets a specific parameter' (your emphasis), such as setting "
|issn=1011-9999
". (I don't object to automatic placement and styling because involves no alteration or extension of the data.) What I object to is the extrapolation of an ISSN to an entirely different data item which is then automatically inserted without editorial preview or confirmation. Note that this does not mean that wikilinking must be done manually, only that there should be an expressed approval to continue.editor review apart from simply not trusting Wikidata." But not trusting Wikidata is also valid. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Haven't looked at it in detail, but it doesn't even do basic stuff like support |first1=
|last1=
, etc., only a single monolithic |author=
, and it seems to be missing various other basic "modern" WP citation template features. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
((cite journal))
and |vauthors=
so that part of cs1|2 would seem to be ok. It duplicates the url from one of |doi=
or |pmid=
in |url=
which amounts to overlinking. The template also misuses definition list markup for pseudo-headings.|vauthors=
is easy to undo, as are the missing parameters and the bad markup. I guess this question is whether to have it continue to be such a wrapper, with fixes, or its own real template calling the CS1 module. The former is easier though less "elegant" I suppose. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
|vauthors=
when the ((cite journal))
template was added.Why such a complicated template? Why not just do something like
((Academic peer reviewed |journal=Journal of Foobar |review=https://... |citation= ((cite journal|vauthors=...)) ))
This way you have citation style flexibility, and don't have to worry about maintaining this as yet another citation template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm happy to help out in any way I can (given that the original template is largely my mess!). However, I'm not very familiar with how to implement CS1 elements, which is why I bodged it together using parameters like |vauthors=
that were easy to implement. I'd be thrilled to see it overhauled to use more modern syntax and properly conform with CS1. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I provided a quick fix, by adding a horizontal scroll bar to table in section Template:Cite_book/doc#TemplateData but it's only temporary. As I stated in my edit summary: → currently about 30% of this table disappears without a trace behind the right-hand edge of the standard-size monitor screen. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There are still some parameters that should have been deprecated and removed a long time ago pursuant to this rfc. They are:
|doi_brokendate=
|doi_inactivedate=
|trans_chapter=
|trans_title=
All of these have hyphenated counterparts.
I have deprecated these parameters in the sandbox.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
|template doc demo=
veryproblematic. One of my requests was speedily approved seven or so days after the request. In the mean time another editor had added some code to AWB general fixes so by the time I got my approval, there was no need to run that bot task so it never did. This, I think, is a similar case; add the five parameter names to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters and let all of those editors who run AWB with general fixes turned on, do the fix for us.
|network=
|newsgroup=
|newspaper=
|inset=
|postscript=
|vauthors=
|veditors=
|website=
Alternatively, their hyphenated aliases should at least be added to the auto-suggestion list, I think.
|web-site=
, but I am from the olden times when "website" was a newfangled concoction, and I don't think I have ever seen editors try to use |web-site=
on WP. I have no opinion about vauthors and veditors, but I see your point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
NihlusBOT was able to fix 99+% of pages featuring these four deprecated parameters, and I went through with some regex searches to find and fix a few hundred affected pages. I suspect that there are somewhere between zero and a few hundred pages that slipped through my net somehow, and that they will trickle into the category over the next month or so as the job queue refreshes the affected articles.
I have marked these four parameters as unsupported in the sandbox code, so at the next module update, the parameters will show up in the unsupported parameter category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The citation templates complain when they are given a journal article with no title. It is not that a title is needed for them to be able to format it, but rather that they are built with the assumption that everything has a title and that omitting a title is a mistake. But sometimes it is not a mistake. The case I'm regularly running across is that I am making lists of published reviews of academic books. Almost all the reviews have something resembling the same title as each other, one that would be pointless to repeat each time and that would clutter the citation even to write out in full a single time, something like:
(that's not a citation itself, it's the title of the review). Even JSTOR doesn't give this as the title; instead it lists it as
(something that never actually appears in that form in the journal that published the review). It would work to give the title of the reviewed book as the title of the review,
and in some cases (like JSTOR 2074102, the one I'm copying this from) one could then add a |department=Reviews
to make it clear that it's a book review, but my preference would be to omit the title altogether and instead put something like "Reviews of [book title]" above the start of the list of the reviews. Unfortunately, that is not currently possible with these templates. Is there some way to make it possible? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
|title=[Review of Work]
, though sometimes reviews have real titles you'd want to cite in addition to saying what the reviewed work is (see the examples in my message above). Umimmak (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
|title=none
accomplish what you're trying to achieve if you don't want to show any title? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: untitled periodical (link)It would work to give the title of the reviewed book as the title of the review, and in some cases (like JSTOR 2074102, the one I'm copying this from) one could then add a |department=Reviews to make it clear that it's a book review, but my preference would be to omit the title altogether.
|department=Reviews
included). I believe that most people will search for an item's review by the item's title, and formatting the citation as suggested in the quote above will make it immediately understandable. A list of reviews with the same title may be visually jarring, but semantically is the way to go. You are citing different works (journal reviews) by different authors (reviewers). It seems to me you are asking for a |title-mask=
parameter. 24.105.132.254 (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
|title-mask=
parameter would also work, but would also require me to make up a title for a review that often doesn't have a real title (the block at the top of the review giving the title of the reviewed work is not really the title of the review). Incidentally, if you want to see many more examples of |title=none
, check out maintenance category Category:CS1 maint: Untitled periodical (which tracks this usage); there are currently around 500 articles in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)On my draft User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Lake Suguta one of the citations is creating an ISSN error, but apparently the ISSN link still works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
See http://zdb-opac.de/LNG=EN/DB=1.1/ and from now on http://zdb-katalog.de/?lang=EN of the DFG-funded online German periodicals catalogue. The ZDB-ID allows to access directly all records of the periodical, which is useful since there are often quite different periodicals which have or had the same name. The number should be translated in a http request for the periodicals record as in the simple template in the German language wikipedia. If possible, the value of the LNG parameter in the call to the ZDB could be dependent on the language of the Wikipedia from which the cite journal is being called. Thanks in advance! --L.Willms (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Zeitschriftendatenbank (ZDB)
The ZDB: what it is
The ZDB is the world's largest specialized database for serial titles (journals, annuals, newspapers etc., incl. e-journals).
The ZDB: what it contains
The ZDB [currently] contains more than 1.8 million bibliographic records of serials from the 16th century onwards, from all countries, in all languages, held in 3.700 German and Austrian libraries, with 15.6 million holdings information. It does not contain contents, i. e. journal articles.
The responsibility for the maintenance and further development of the ZDB lies with the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz and the German National Library.
Often the "edition" of a book is more than just "Nth ed." Right now if I want to cite the edition which calls itself the "Ninth edition with a revised supplement" (distinct from the "Ninth edition"), it automatically puts "ed." at the end, when it oughtn't.
((cite encyclopedia))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)I suppose I could put it in the title, as in:
((cite encyclopedia))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)And this is probably what I'll end up doing and I guess this works, but I don't think one can just put it in the |title=
. It seems like there ought to be like a |
or something like that when dealing with these and similar cases.
Umimmak (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
((cite encyclopedia))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)9 with revised supplement ed.just seems incredibly awkward to me; it's not really how English works, is it? But I guess it is another option. Umimmak (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've been trying to wrap my head around what causes an error in
((cite newsgroup))
: Check |message-id=
value (help)|message-id=
doesn't have < > characters. I'm not sure what "make sure that it contains @ between left and right identifiers" mean however, but |message-id=@bnews.uw-beave.451@
doesn't work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
|message-id=foo@bar
, rather like an email address - foo
being the left identifier, and bar
being the right. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
|ignore-message-ID-error=yes
or like we do in case of ISBN errors that are nonetheless the ones that feature on book covers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
((cite newsgroup))
and adding a special test or exception for this single outlying example seems like a bit of work to little benefit. Until there a lot more examples where this non-standard style of message id is used for messages referenced in article space, I see no real reason to do anything.|message-id=…
to |quote=message-id:…
. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I was surprised to recently learn that it is acceptable MOS to write the date format in two different styles within the same references. Publisher written date and access in digits. Every editor I know picks one style of formatting the date and mainly sticks with it. I see both styles within the same ref so infrequently it was one of the rules of my contest to format dates in one way!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
((cite web |title=Title |publication-date=20 June 1998 |date=August 6, 1977 |url=//example.com |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2017-11-29))
|date=20 August 2009
vs |access-date=August 29, 2013
, or silly things like an access-date older than the date. This could even be bot-assisted (e.g. if ((Use dmy dates)) is used, then convert dates to that format).Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Can an admin change the link(s) to PubMed Identifier (piped in as "PMID") to point directly to PubMed#PubMed identifier (like PMID)? I know the redirect works and all, but it's clearly already piped so it might as well be piped right to the correct spot. This is concerning the Cite Journal template, as well as a few others. Nessie (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)