Category talk:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

More pages in category[edit]

The number of pages in this category has jumped from around 30 to around 200. Does this mean someone is going around using the accessyear and related parameteters, or does it mean the definition of the category has been changed to pick up more cases? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


As of recently, the detection of unusual accessdate parameters has been added to other templates than just {{Cite web}}. Furthermore, this is a list of the articles (or even more general - pages) that use certain parameters, not of templates. So Category:Pages with unusual accessdate parameters would be a better name. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the category is not ideally named, surely there's not much point in changing it? It is by definition transitory: no article should be included in it for very long. And it's hidden anyway. I wouldn't worry about it. Happymelon 13:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This category has been around since February. And I think we should keep it indefinitely, or for another half year at least. To track those editors that will not right away know that some parameters have been deprecated. And it is not "not ideally named". It is misnamed in two aspects: that it is not only Cite web, and that it is not a category of templates butof articles/pages. Debresser (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters . Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Add access-date too[edit]

Can we add access-date too please. Rjwilmsi 13:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean with a dash between "access" and "date"? No problem here. BTW, I think that if we do something, we should do it well. Therefore I would like to add "dateformat", and this new "access-date" to all other citation templates as well. For a list, see User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Other_citation_templates. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this seems reasonable to me. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC).
'Tis done. I started removing dateformat from articles, but it will have to wait a few days now. Eventually (maybe a couple months after clearing out) these deprecated parameters should be removed entirely from the templates. Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC).
Thank you. |accessmonthday= and |accessdaymonth= were already removed. I would have liked to remove other parameters as well, but the fact that this category is used for so many parameters at once, part of which are still in use, makes it impossible to do the right follow-up. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what use the dateformat parameter is either - if we are going to format the date, best to hard-code it in. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Other parameters[edit]

Is this category intended only for the parameters listed at the top of the category page, or can others be added as well? For example, the {{London Gazette}} cite template has two deprecated parameters, linkeddate and notarchive which are still in widespread use. Should I add those instances to this category? RobinHood70 talk 22:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This category is meant for any and all deprecated parameters. The list at the top of the page is adjusted as needed by editors adding new parameters. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've re-added the logic to the template for those parameters and I'll document it on the category page. RobinHood70 talk 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help cleaning up remaining four articles[edit]

I cleaned up all but four of the articles in this category by leveraging WP:AWB/RTP. Could someone please look at the remaining articles to see what I'm missing? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done All six current instances were caused by a |day=. Three articles had them directly - [1]; [2] (two instances); and [3] (two). As for Ithaca Chasma, Odysseus (crater) and Tethys (moon), the problem was actually in two of the {{cite doi}} subtemplates - [4] and [5]. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Redrose! I never would have thought to look in the cite doi subtemplates. GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for help with an article I'm editing[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia as a student in the Wikipedia Ambassadors program. I'm editing Groundswell (book), and I think I have cleaned up the references within the parameters. Could someone check out the page and let me know if I'm missing anything? Thanks for the help! Ambland (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really the best place to ask, because this page has very few watchers; also, it's the page for discussing the category Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters itself, and not its members. General help is normally obtained via one of the links shown at Help:Contents.
Anyway, to your specific question. Articles show up in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters when they use certain parameters within certain citation templates. Some (but not all) of these templates are listed at the top of the category page, and for each one, most (if not all) of the parameters which trigger this category have been listed.
Groundswell (book) is in this category because it's using the |dateformat= parameter within {{cite web}}. This parameter is also misused, but the misuse won't trigger any categorisation - it's simply the presence of this parameter which does that. Between 2008 and 2009, the |dateformat= parameter was used to indicate the order of the three components of a date: |dateformat=dmy indicated day-first; |dateformat=mdy indicated month-first; and |dateformat=ymd indicated year-first; none of these are necessary nowadays, so the parameter has been deprecated.
As to the misuse: this parameter has never been intended to hold an actual date, which is how you've used it here (as in |dateformat=July 3 2008 or |dateformat=2008). In each case you should have used either the |date= parameter (where month, day and year are all known); or |year= (when you only have the year). Can I ask where you got the impression that |dateformat= was the place to put the date? It sounds like there is some incorrect documentation somewhere that needs fixing.
Also please note that month-first dates are written with a comma after the day, see WP:DATEFORMAT.
I have fixed up the article, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this has been very helpful, and now I understand what triggered the categorization. I used one of the formats in Wikipedia:Citation_templates under "website." One of my citations didn't have an author, so I used:

cite web
| title =
| url =
| dateformat = mdy
| accessdate =

Underneath, it says:

(Write date as Month Day Year; e.g., July 22 2009. Comma will be added automatically.)

I mistakenly carried this format over to the other citations.Ambland (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it was very much out of date; it explains why I have been finding pages still using |dateformat=mdy or |dateformat=March 29, 2012 three years on. I've fixed it up now. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I've worked out the precise timespan when |dateformat= was in use - it was added to the backend template {{citation/core}} on 12 December 2008 (but not passed through from {{cite web}} until 24 December 2008) and removed less than two months later, on 10 February 2009. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
And it was added to most of the citation templates and documented, but never removed— I think I have cleaned all of the Citation Style 1 templates. There are hundreds of specific source templates and some of these still use dateformat and other deprecated parameters ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-mainspace entries... fix or not fix?[edit]

This tracking category, in addition to articles from mainspace, adds articles from User,, Template, and Wikipedia namespaces and their talk counterparts. Should use of the deprecated parameters be fixed in those pages as well? Many of these entries are archives so it seems like leaving them alone is probably the proper thing to do. In that case, it begs the question if we could somehow sensibly exclude these namespaces so they don't contaminant the category. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead a fixed a ton of these in user space. So far I've left untouched talk archives and sandboxes. I think most of the rest of the pages are fixable too. A handful are more complicated. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I am all for fixing in all namespaces. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The most courteous response would be to alert the user on the talk page.
My irritation would have been avoided if I had known that your destroying semantic information, with the month and year fields, was only apparent, because the interpreter/compiler is able to pull the information from the date field, and maintain the function of the template:harvtxt|author_name|year. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We could do namespace detection and trigger this only for the main namespace. Thus, only articles would appear in this category. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
    |[[Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]
How will this impact transclusion speed? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It adds one #ifeq to each cite template, not core. The other markup to detect deprecated parameters is already in place. I deliberately did not use one of the namespace detect templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course we can add namespace detection, but should we? Debresser (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That is the question I posed. It seems to bother people when pages appear in a maintenance category (had to unfix a help page yet again this morning that had an illustrative error). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment We are down to less than 40 non-main space entries pages in the maintenance category. It used to be somewhere between 300 and 400. With little effort these last entries could also be "fixed". With so few entries, it begs the question if adding the namespace detection is even necessary. If not, it avoids any questions of transclusion speed and so forth. When there was hundreds of entries, it did impact the usefulness of the category: you simply couldn't easily see new main-space entries when they appeared. Now you can. They are popping-up at a rate of about 1 or 2 per day. Non-main space entries are not popping-up at any significant rate. So once this issue is over, it won't really appear again. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Fix the editor[edit]

Why doesn't someone fix the editor so that it no longer includes deprecated templates? --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are over 100,000 of them. But we are working on it! Debresser (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Huh? The editor only offers 4 different cite styles with a limited number of parameters available in each. I think maybe you are talking about the errors actually in articles. My point is that if the editor were fixed, we wouldn't continually be adding to the backlog! --Derek Andrews (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Derek Andrews is referring to RefToolbar.js or a similar tool. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 123#Cite template. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Redrose64. I agree with your comment totally about changes being made without global oversight of the consequences.--Derek Andrews (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, but I didn't mean that you should add to the thread - it's an archive. If you want to revive the discussion, please start a new thread at the archive's parent, which was WP:VPT. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Because no one can actually be bothered to do so. I'm not the only person on this website that knows Javascript, but apparently I'm the only one capable of working on Reftoolbar. Because as soon as I take a few months off from editing, people start complaining about how it's unmaintained and broken. I'm fine with this being a thankless task, but the constant complaining is extremely discouraging. Instead of developing new features or tools, now I have to spend my limited volunteer time appeasing template designers who just arbitrarily decide to declare parameters deprecated. Right now I have a lot of other things I'm working on for Wikipedia, mostly related to the forced migration from Toolserver to Labs. Since there's actually a deadline for that, it's a bit of a higher priority (the fact that people are more appreciative than critical regarding those tools certainly doesn't hurt either). So hopefully I can get to the coauthors thing in a month or so. If people want it done faster and to have the right to complain that I'm not working hard enough or that my contributions aren't good enough, feel free to start paying me. Mr.Z-man 01:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel for you if you are the only person working on this. If there isn't already, maybe there should be something like a wikiproject for all this background stuff. My argument isn't so much with developers like you as with whoever made the premature decision to deprecate parameters before the tools were in place to deal with them. As I said above there seems to be a lack of oversight, communication, or commonsense, and far too many instances where someone makes a relatively minor change for largely bureaucratic reasons which then has global consequences, and then leaves other people to sort out their mess. As someone who just wants to edit and improve articles, I find myself wasting time fixing my work that is being flagged as having errors, then when I try to figure out why, I am stuck in the middle of a conflict.--Derek Andrews (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)