Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests

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

This page is used to make requests for new features for the Lua based CS1 templates. Please understand that the priority is to update and debug the older templates before implementing new features.

Asian titles[edit]

Main work titles are formatted in italics. This is not appropriate for Asian scripts such as kanji, hangul and the like. Asian titles may also be underlined or placed in brackets 『』 or 《》.

See {{Asiantitle}} for current support. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And such styling should be done with CSS per #Presentation and content. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

See also: Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 11#non-italic titles

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Titles should be wrapped with markup indicating the language. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

How would this actually work? You have some template examples in mind maybe? Dragons flight (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
See {{lang}}. --  Gadget850 talk 23:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me be a bit more specific. First, which elements would you have the |language== apply markup to? Title? Title and Chapter? Title and Periodical? Secondly, do you want to use the existing templates, e.g. actually call {{lang|es|Title}} when getting |language=Spanish? Or is it sufficient to bypass the templates and just add a span and (sometimes) a category? Also, is there a automated way of knowing that "Spanish" maps to "es", etc.? Dragons flight (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I was looking at that. We will have to roll our own, as I don't see a template that converts the full language name to the ISO form. Or, we could create a new 'lang' parameter that uses the ISO and overrides 'language'. I would think we could apply dir="rtl" where applicable. Might be best to do this in a separate module that could be used elsewhere. --  Gadget850 talk 00:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I habitually enter, say, |language=es, then have to go back and change it :-( Your proposed new |lang= parameter would be much appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I think this ought to wait until someone converts the language template tree to Lua, so we have a good list of code-to-language mappings. What's needed basically already exists, but as presently implemented its scattered across hundreds of lang subtemplates, which isn't very usable for us. Dragons flight (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "the language template tree" is, but there's already a language name library available in Lua: {{#invoke:Sandbox/Liangent/LanguageName|languageName|es}} -> Spanish. Liangent (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this request has been implemented. Example:

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | language=es | title=La Casa de Mi Padre | author=Will Ferrell }}
Old Will Ferrell (in es). La Casa de Mi Padre.
Live Will Ferrell. La Casa de Mi Padre (in Spanish). 

Jonesey95 (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The code to language conversion is done, but not the language markup.

The above example, renders as (less COinS):

<span class="citation book">Will Ferrell. ''La Casa de Mi Padre'' (in Spanish).</span>

What we need is:

<span class="citation book">Will Ferrell. ''<span lang="es" >La Casa de Mi Padre</span>'' (in Spanish).</span>

See {{lang}}.

--  Gadget850 talk 13:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Presentation and content[edit]

The CSS styling for <cite> has been defaulted, so it now formats the contents as italics, while adding the semantic meaning of a title. Thus the current use of italics to format the main work title can be replaced by <cite>...</cite>.

Markup Renders as

--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  • What a contorted way to confuse everyone everywhere: Everyone knows that most titles are to be placed in quotation marks, as article titles which far outnumber others. Historically, book titles were underlined, because in handwritten documents, the cursive script is somewhat italicized, and the underlined text was obviously a book/film title. In the search for distinctive vocabulary, we have been calling each "{{cite_web|...}}" with the term "cite" as the markup used to display a citation. Then we introduce a cite-tag "<cite>" which forces the rare use of italic text, to all text, within <cite>...</cite>. Naturally, most normal humans will begin to associate the term "cite text" with the styling as italic text. What a contorted way to confuse everyone, everywhere. I have a strong hunch the cite-tag will not be very much help in the long run. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
<cite> would be used internally in the template, so I am confused as to how anyone would be confused. It has an HTML semantic value indicating the title of a work.[1] If we want to add the semantics for an included work title which is marked in quotes, then we can easily style the tag. And with almost half a million uses of cite book alone, I would not call the italic title rare. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this the problem the IP was discussing earlier, where we're really using the "title" paremeter for multiple semantic functions? Choess (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I refactored the original proposal to indicate that by title I meant the main work title. Currently, we have no separation of presentation and content. That is, the format of the main work title is always italics, and the included work is always in quotes. This presentation should be moved to CSS. Wrapping the main work title in <cite>...</cite> will present the title in italics by default. We can add a class to present the included title in quotes.
Since this would be a new feature, I will be moving this to Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
To expand on separation of presentation and content: currently the templates include both content and presentation, that is the markup used to style the content as italics, in quotes or bold. Hard coding the presentation means that readers cannot style citations as they desire and it limits template portability. Presentation should be done in CSS. Currently the <cite> tag has a default style of italics and has the semantic meaning of a title.
For an included work title that is presented in quotes, we can create a class with CSS styling. For example the class includedtitle:
.includedtitle:before {font-style: normal; content: '\22';}
.includedtitle {font-style: normal;}
.includedtitle:after {font-style: normal; content: '\22';}
Then you simply wrap the content in <cite class="includedtitle">...</cite> causing the font to show as normal and the content wrapped in quotes.
The HTML classes discussion does not include a class for the included work title, so I made up an illustrative class. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This allows the style to be customized per Wikipedia language version. In the CSS above, \22 is the hex code for the standard quote mark. This can be replaced with other marks: see Non-English usage of quotation marks. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Name suffixes[edit]

The COinS implementation guide specifies that, at least for the first author of a work, it should be possible to separate their name into first name(s), last name, and suffix. When the {{cite}} templates were created, they were regarded solely as presentational, and separate parameters for suffixes weren't thought to be worth implementing. Scanning the ends of first1, first2, editor1,...and so forth for "Sr", "Jr", "II", and "III" should probably pick up most of the citations where suffixes should be moved to their own parameters. Choess (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

We should still add parameters for those oddball suffixes. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I combined two thoughts. We'd need new "suffix*" parameters for names in general, which could be used for any suffix. The scanning I mentioned could be for a (temporary?) maintenance category to identify citations that would need to be edited to use the new parameters. Choess (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
See Suffix (name). We have no guidelines for suffixes, but you are discussing generational suffixes. I need to check some style guides to see if we should include academic, professional, religious or honorary suffixes. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
OpenURL (COinS) only provides a field for "name suffixes", not titles or degrees. Choess (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


Add 'translator' parameters. Should show preceded by "Translated by". --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate this feature. Could you code this in the same way as authors and editors (eg: "last1=|first1=" etc.), as some works have multiple translators. Mindmatrix 03:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Just like 'last' and 'first', there would be an unlimited number. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Internet Archive[edit]

Can someone familiar with this module add code to enable Internet Archive links for books etc. For example, the open library code OL16525337M is the book "A concise etymological dictionary of the English language", which also has LCCN 11035890 and Internet Archive code cu31924008779690. Thanks. Mindmatrix 03:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And Google Books ls_XijT33IUC. What other archive systems are used? --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
at WebCite users can archive single webpages. the Internet Archive also crawls for site/page snapshots and these may follow the rate of change of the originals. Google Books is different, as it may act more like an online publisher than an archival service. (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the id_handler example for LCCN from Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration.

parameters = {'LCCN', 'lccn'}                    How specified in the citation template, i.e. LCCN=
link = 'Library of Congress Control Number'      Wikipage to link to at the ID label
label = 'LCCN'                                   Text to use for the ID label
mode = 'external'                                Indicates an external link (the typical case)
prefix = ''                  Start of the url to use with the ID
suffix = ''                                      Anything to include in the url after the ID
COinS = 'rft.lccn'                               Where to map the data in [[COinS]]
encode = false                                   Whether the ID must be urlencoded
separator = '&nbsp;'                             Separator to use between the ID label and the ID

When given LCCN=123456, this generates output that looks like:

[[Library of Congress Control Number|LCCN]] [ 123456] = LCCN 123456

If you can figure out how to update the fields for Internet Archive, Google Books, or some other ID scheme, then they would be easy to add. A few ID schemes (including Open Library) don't easily map to this format and have to be specially handled, so that is possible too, but it would take more effort. Dragons flight (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Internet Archive has various media (text, audio, video), but they all appear to have the same URL pattern ( Should we create one entry and disregard type, or create separate entries for each, some of which may have subtypes? (For example, some of the audio files could use a handler for Live Music Archive instead of Internet Archive.) I think one handler is probably the better option. Mindmatrix 15:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
In general, I tend to think that less is more in cases like this unless there is a strong reason to differentiate. However, I don't really know much about the Internet Archive, so I'm not really a good person to judge. Dragons flight (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Error message help pages[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Each error message should link to a help page. I will take on the task of creating the help. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Page url[edit]

Editors often link to specific pages in an online book by wrapping a |page= or |pages= parameter in an external link. This practice can corrupt COinS data for the citation. This feature request suggests the creation of a new parameter that allows editors to continue linking to individual pages without corrupting COinS data. Linking to individual pages is supported at the WP:PAGELINKS guideline, which see.

|pageurl=: URL of an online book's page or pages where the cited text can be found. While not required, if provided, |url= must link to the same source as |pageurl=.

Single-page link –
renders as: p. 18.
Page-range link (to the first page in the range) –
renders as: pp. 18–24.
Multiple page links (only with |pages=; urls listed in |pageurl= must follow the same order as the pages listed in |pages=) –
|pages=18–24, 56
renders as: pp. 18–24, 56.
Multiple page links (forces pp. prefix unless |nopp=y; |pageurln= matches the last of |pagen= or |pagesn= or |atn=) –
|pages2=34this parameter ignored because it is followed by |page2=
renders as: pp. 18–24, 56.

While two possible multiple page link handling methods are described, only one should be implemented.


Trappist the monk (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Me gusta This is needed. I think I like the pageurl1, pageurl2, etc version. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been recently wondering if |pageurl= is the wrong solution to the problem. The problem is that urls in |page=, |pages=, and |at= corrupt COinS metadata. Because specifying external links using wiki-markup is standardized, it seems to me that its possible that with the application of a little bit of code, the page numbers can be extracted from the external link wiki-markup for use in COinS without the need for new parameters.
The benefit is that nothing except the template code needs to be reworked.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

website for cite web[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

Add 'website' as an alias for 'work'. Many editors seem confused by the use of 'work' to indicate the website. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Done in sandbox. Dragons flight (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
{{cite web}} documentation updated.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

prearchive for deadurl[edit]

Add |prearchive=yes as an alias to |deadurl=no. Negative logic like setting a parameter to false to enable a feature is foreign to the average editor. 'prearchive' better describes the feature for preemptively archiving the link. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing a number of uses of |deadurl=yes which is meaningless. --  Gadget850 talk 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Move toward uniform parameter name style[edit]

Add these parameter names to the whitelist. These replace their counterparts which are hyphenated, spaced, underscored, or camelcased. Template documentation should be updated to use these parameter names. The purpose is to move toward uniform parameter-name style. Other variants of these names should then, over time, be deprecated (I can always hope).

['authorfirst#'] = true,
['authorlast#'] = true,
['authornamesep'] = true,
['authorseparator'] = true,
['doibrokendate'] = true,
['doiinactivedate'] = true,
['editorfirst#'] = true,
['editorgiven#'] = true,
['editorlast#'] = true,
['editornamesep'] = true,
['editorseparator'] = true,
['namesep'] = true,
['seriessep'] = true,
['templatedocdemo'] = true,
['transchapter'] = true,
['transtitle'] = true,

Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree we are very inconsistent about word separators, either nothing, hyphen, underscore, or space, and moving toward consistency is an excellent goal. That said, I'm not sure that removing the separator actually makes the most sense. For example, would it be easier for users if we consistently supported the use of a hyphen as the preferred word separator in parameter names? I have to think that having some separator is easier to read than having no separator. Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes (and navboxes, IIRC) seem to be standardising, de facto, on an underscore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. This was resolved in favor of hyphenated multi-word parameters in a July 2014 RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

postscript check[edit]

Check for 'postscript' with more than one character. I'm seeing some odd stuff inserted. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My present reaction is that it may be too late for this. There appear to be too many people doing things like |postcript=<!-- None -->, plus User:Citation bot has been putting a message about {{inconsistent citations}} in the postscript. Insisting that it ought to be only one character seems a bit futile at this point. Dragons flight (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps just a hidden tracking category to see what is out there. --  Gadget850 talk 02:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Check for uri scheme in url parameters[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

One of the more common url errors is the omission of the uri scheme in |url=-type parameters.

{{cite web | |title=Missing scheme |accessdate=2013-04-10}}[ "Missing scheme"] Check |url= scheme (help). Retrieved 2013-04-10. 

CS1 can check for this and report an error |url= requires http:// and categorize into Category:CS1 url missing uri scheme errors or some such.

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See Help:External link icons for the list of supported URIs. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"requires http://" would not be appropriate phrasing; as another scheme may apply. Were that not the case, we could programmatically apply http://. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, how about this: |url= missing URI scheme?
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, but it is URI scheme. Note to implementer: news: and mailto: do not require the //. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, changed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Given the reality of URI schemes, I think the best we are likely to do is check that a URL either starts with "//" (protocol relative URLs) or has a ":" occurring in it somewhere. That covers most uses though it wouldn't catch the case of a bad "scheme", like htp:// Dragons flight (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Check added in sandbox. Dragons flight (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Check for wikilink to current page[edit]

If a citation includes a wikilink to the current page, it becomes bolded:

Markup Renders as
{{cite book |title=[[Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests]]}} 
Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests. 

Propose: If the wikilink is to the current page, then remove the linking. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is done, it should be done via CSS. Removing the irrelevant italics, the output is styled
<span class="citation book"><strong class="selflink">Module talk:Citation/CS1/Feature requests</strong></span>
Setting ".citation .selflink { font-weight:normal; }" will remove the bold. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If this is done, then it should apply to all links. I've seen lists of books in author pages where the list is constructed with CS1 templates that include |authorlink=. See Andrew Hunt §Bibliography.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the suggested CSS would eliminate the bolding associated with such links regardless of where they occur in the citation. Adding that (or not) doesn't actually affect the Module, it would need to go in Mediawiki:Common.css (or similar). Dragons flight (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it does. Tested in my common.css and citation wikilinks to the current page aren't <strong /> anymore. I gather that this change needs to be made to MediaWiki:Common.css. Shall I make an edit request there?
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It would make more sense to me to throw an error in these cases for correction, as these items of various types (author/title) probably just shouldn't have the links rather than being removed by the template. Where an error might get messy would be in things like cite doi, which are by their nature not necessarily on the page which is linked. Hmm. --Izno (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to disagree. There is nothing wrong with wikilinks that point to the current page as long as the link is disabled in the citation. This allows editors to reuse whole citations; it allows <section> to transclude text from one article to another with self-linking citations intact. I don't see a need for error messages here.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And citation templates. I agree with Trappist. --  Gadget850 talk 13:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Just exploring another option. I'm not particularly attached to it. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The CSS can deal easily with redirects and wikilinks that occur in places other than link parameters. Trying to accomplish the same breadth of error checking in Module logic would be performance prohibitive. One could check a few of the obvious parameters, e.g. authorlink, but I don't really see how that improves over the CSS suggestion. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that people make a request for this at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Format size[edit]

Add 'formatsize' to indicate the size of the linked document. This should show right after 'format' and in the parenthesis. There is already a bot filling in PDF sizes for another template, so it can be repurposed to detect if 'format' is defined, then add 'formatsize' if it isn't already defined. --  Gadget850 talk 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(format, formatsize)? (Feature request brought to you by Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Template:PDFlink.) --Izno (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

|formatsize= presumably to be filled in for known file types (PDF, XLS, ...), and not for things not in the list like |format=hardcover, handout, etc. For streaming media, the file size is rarely known up front, unless it's hosted as a file (such as on Commons), so perhaps not filled in for |format=video, but perhaps for AVI, MP4, etc. --Lexein (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
video is not a format, but a medium, and should be inserted as a value for type (per the so-called documentation). video formats are: (various) tape formats, (various) disc formats, film etc. AVI, MP4, etc. are not video formats: they are digital file formats and should be used with the appropriate (digital) type = webcast/e-video/downloadable media etc.
the confusion begins with type, a parameter name that only a geek would love, since it can mean anything. apparently, aliasing it with "medium" would be too obvious for some people.
get yer stories straight! (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we might alleviate some of the confusion going forward by aliasing |format= as |fileformat= to emphasize that we are talking about a digital file. If that were done, a new size parameter could be called |filesize=. Dragons flight (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
'urlformat' might be better, since it indicates that it modifies 'url', since there seems to be confusion. Then 'urlsize'. --  Gadget850 talk 16:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about 'urlformat' (as opposed to 'fileformat'). My initial reaction is that 'urlformat' suffers much the same problem as 'format', in that people may be inclined to assume it means the format of the work described at the other end of the URL and put things like "book" or "video" in there. 'fileformat' seems closer to the intended use. Dragons flight (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Date: error checking[edit]

Currently, and invalid date shows as entered:

Markup Renders as
{{cite book |last=Drucker |title=Book |date=Flubtember 2013 |ref=harv}} 
Drucker (Flubtember 2013). Book.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

But the year is not extracted and inserted into the anchor as expected. There is no error message on this, so the editor is not aware of the issue.

I don't know how much checking can be done on 'date', but at a minimum if |ref=harv and the extracted year is blank, then an error message should be generated. --  Gadget850 talk 15:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it also an error if |ref=harv and no date / year is given at all? Dragons flight (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. --  Gadget850 talk 22:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
What about websites and other resources where the date of publication may be not obvious or missing? Even if there is no date, I believe that {{sfn}}, etc. will still work as long as the year is also omitted from the footnote template. At the moment, I'd lean towards reporting an error when date is present and it can't figure out the year, but not report an error if date is blank. Dragons flight (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
One problem is if the author has more than one publication, then the id is going to be duplicated. --  Gadget850 talk 18:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You mean if there are multiple works by the same author(s) and several different works lack dates? That seems like a rare edge case. Dragons flight (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It is quite common for dates to be in the format that is not recognised by the date parameter. eg date=January-March 2013, the work around for that is to include a year=value as well as a date parameter. The date displays and the year does not, but the year parameter is used in the CITEREF generated by ref=harv. For author publications in the same year the usual solution is to use year=2013 in the first one year=2013b in the second etc. Another method (which works for no date) is to set ref={{SfnRef}} to whatever is wanted as a CITEREF. Also ff no year or date is set, but either author or last is set then an error should not be generated as harv will work on just author. -- PBS (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cite wikisource[edit]

Could anybody move it to Lua? --DixonD (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

it has some novel parameters, including the unique facility of editor-specified page section links (|anchor=). in the doc, this parameter perhaps belongs under "In-source locations" rather than under "Title"? while useful, the parameter name anchor is confusing and should be more user-friendly.
i also like that any or all wikisource-related icons can be hidden.
the doc also misidentifies type: this parameter does not provide "additional information about the media type of the source". the medium is fixed for all wikisource sources: it is a digital, online host, formatted as a wiki. as documented at the template page, type provides information about the work classification or work type of the source. (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I've done a few more conversions this last weekend. I've been handling these roughly in order by number of transclusions. The 1100 uses of cite wikisource is roughly in the middle of the list of what is left. We'll probably get to it eventually, but it will likely be months before all of the 20+ minor templates are converted. Dragons flight (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


We should add an ORCID parameter for each author (and possibly one for ISNI) as discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 2#ORCID Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the proposal is to create a parameter for each author that could specify their associated ORCID, and if there is no local wikilink for that author then to add an external link from the author's name to the associated ORCID database entry? Dragons flight (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Why would it be dependent on the authorlink? If the page is ported to another site, that link may not exist. --  Gadget850 talk 02:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
If there is an article about an author, then the ORCID link will be on that page. It seems unnecessary to include it in every reference, but I'd be content that we did, if that's what others want. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

HTML classes[edit]

We should add HTML classes, identifying the various parameter values, by way of a microformat, as discussed at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 6#HTML classes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


See also above #Template:Cite wikisource

The {{Cite wikisource}} is not used for many of the templates that call wikisource (See for example {{EB1911}} -- There are currently over 12,000 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica of which over 3,000 link to wikisource).

For wikisource to be used for templates such as {{EB1911}} it would need to be refocused. The reason why it is not used very much is because not all the articles in these large encyclopaedias have been ported to Wikisource. So we need two parameters one to handle the case were the text is available on wikisource and one where it is not. As over time more more encyclopaedias and other large works will gradually be made available on Wikisource, this problem of gradual availability will not go away in the foreseeable future.

The way this problem is currently handled is to use {{cite encyclopaedia}} and place a wrapper around it (I have [User:PBS/Notes#List of PD Templates|list of dozens] on my notes page), most of which use as a de facto standard:

  • title= — is used for non-wikisource articles
  • wstitle= — is used for wikisource articles

The different scripts wrapped around {{cite encyclopaedia}} handle the specific requirements, but most are similar (and some of these parameters are hard coded):

  • iconstr — can be one of two icons Wikisource-logo.svg and PD-icon.svg depending on whether wstitle is set.
  • noicon — to turn off the display of the lead icon.
  • prescript — for handling attribution as per WP:PLAGIARISM. In most cases this string is "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain"
  • inline — alters the wording of the prescript from "This article" to "One or more of the preceding sentences"
  • wstitle — if the title is on wikisource, otherwise use "title="
  • prewstitle — needed for the wikisource prestring starts [[s:...
  • postwstitle — needed for the wikisource poststing ends ...]]
  • display — used as a display in place of "wstitle=" so that things like disambiguation extensions can be hidden.
  • Sometimes the handling of the Wikisource string, involves including other parameter(s)such as {{{year}}} or {{{volume}}} or whatever into prewstitle or postwstitle — see for example {{Cite PSM}}. Most of the templates that use "wstitle=" will only set the "url=" it "title=" is set.

It seems to me that it should be fairly easy to incorporate these requirements into this module and allow much of the code in the current scripts could be junked as it would allow all the other parameters standard to be passed in without the need to do so explicitly (as had to be done previously). -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Chapter and section[edit]

Why is there a restriction on using "chapter" and "section" at the same time? It seems to me there are legitimate need for the two to be used at the same time.Here is a book which has volume, sections and chapters:

  • Bowen, Dr. Henry Lee; 1953; "Chapter 9. Victory in China"; The Army Air Forces in World War II; Volume V The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki June 1944 to August 1945; Section II, Aid to China: The Theater Air Forces in CBI; University of Chicago Press.

-- PBS (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

'section' originates from {{cite manual}}. When I merged it into {{cite book}}, I made 'section' and 'chapter' aliases. See below for more. --  Gadget850 talk 17:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that is not the best way to go. I have shown you above an example of where a book uses sections and chapters. -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


A part= parameter would be useful, see for example:

-- PBS (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Also useful would be column (col.), paragraph (para.); track; hours, minutes and seconds; act, scene, canto, book, part, folio, stanza, back cover, liner notes, indicia, colophon, dust jacket, verse and probably a lot more. But this is why we have the catchall 'at' field where you can add free text where 'chapter' and 'page' don't exactly fit. --  Gadget850 talk 17:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
By that argument volume may as well be removed! A difference is made between chapter and page. A similar difference needs to be made between volume and part. In parts page numbering often restarts. Most of the items you have listed in your first sentence are attributes of the same physical book (and are other ways of pinpointing information within a physical book). Part is different, it frequently describes a physical book with its own page numbering. -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Separator suppression[edit]

If the value ends in punctuation, then suppress the separator/postscript to prevent extra punctuation. Example:

Markup Renders as
{{cite AV media |title=[[Whaam!]] |last=Lichtenstein |first=Roy}} 
Lichtenstein, Roy. Whaam!. 

--  Gadget850 talk 14:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Check for missing authors[edit]

I posted this on Help talk:Citation Style 1 in a section on a similar error (coauthors without authors). This is a separate error from "coauthors without authors". I believe that it should be detectable.

The general case is that in a list of authors or editors, if one is missing, the remaining authors are not displayed, even though the intent of the editor creating the citation is usually for all of the authors or editors to appear.

Example 1: If there are multiple authors but no "author1" or "last1", no authors are displayed. Like this:

Example 2: The same thing happens with editors as well:

Example 3: If you include author1 and leave out author2, the remaining authors are omitted:

I expect that there are additional variations on this parsing as well.

As for what to do about it, it is clear that the editor adding the citation intended for authors to appear, but they are not appearing. I suggest the following:

  • Easy: Display an error message (or leave it hidden by default, I don't care, but definitely place the articles into a maintenance category that some of us can monitor) saying something like "Missing author parameter".
  • Easy: Change the documentation to reflect the fact that author2 etc. or first2/last2 etc. require author1 or last1, and that each subsequent author requires the previous one.
  • More Difficult: In addition to the changes above, change the citation module so that the other authors are displayed. This would be the flexible thing to do, though it may be challenging to code and would lead to citations with screwy syntax. It may also lead to strange corner cases with respect to "displayauthors" and other parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. This request has been implemented in the CS1 module, as you can see from the error messages above. The documentation has been mostly updated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Check for author first names without last names[edit]

When a "firstn" parameter is present in a citation without a corresponding "lastn" citation, no author/editor name is displayed for that author/editor. Either the citation's creator wants something to appear there, or there is some other kind of error that should be resolved. An error message will help editors resolve this problem.

Example 1: "first1" but no "last1". No author is displayed.

  • {{cite journal|last1= |first1 = John |title=Sample title |journal=Journal of samples|date=March 2009|pages=6–8|volume=8|issue=2}}
  • "Sample title". Journal of samples 8 (2): 6–8. March 2009.  |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)

Example 2: "last1" but no "first1". Author's last name is displayed. This is fine; no error should be displayed.

  • {{cite journal|last1= Doe |first1 = |title=Sample title |journal=Journal of samples|date=March 2009|pages=6–8|volume=8|issue=2}}
  • Doe (March 2009). "Sample title". Journal of samples 8 (2): 6–8. 

Example 3: Same as Example 1, but with "editor-last1" missing while "editor1-first" exists.

  • {{cite journal|author1=John Doe| editor-last1= |editor-first1 = Mary |title=Sample title |journal=Journal of samples|date=March 2009|pages=6–8|volume=8|issue=2}}
  • John Doe (March 2009). "Sample title". Journal of samples 8 (2): 6–8.  |first1= missing |last1= in Editors list (help)

Recommended behavior:

  • Display an error message (or leave it hidden by default, I don't care, but definitely place the articles into a maintenance category that some of us can monitor) saying something like "Missing author last name parameter".
  • Change the documentation to reflect the fact that firstn requires a corresponding lastn, and that the name of an author/editor with only one name (e.g. Sting or Bono) should be placed in "authorn" or "lastn" (or editorn/editor-lastn). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
In my travels through Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author, I am finding a number of articles with |first= followed by |coauthors=. It appears that editors thought that |first= was for the "first author", but it ends up displaying nothing. It would be useful to show an error message for these cases.
Examples from actual articles:
1. "| first = Christopher D. K. Herd | coauthors = Alexandra Blinova, Danielle N. Simkus, Yongsong Huang, et al. " from Tagish Lake (meteorite). – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
2. "|first=Thiruvalluvar |coauthors=Rev.G.U.Pope (translation) " from Tamil literature.
These are easy to fix, but without the "coauthors without author" error message, which appears only because |coauthors= is used, citations like these will languish invisibly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these errors out in the wild. Here's one I just fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ontology and or schema for Citation template parameters to and from COinS, BIBO?[edit]

I'm interested in extending Diberri's citation filler to use Metadata or COinS information in it's cite web generation, to provide appropriate cite web, news, journal, book, ... output. Wikipedia:Scripts/Perl scripts/ is a sketch that does ok on some journal articles. Is there an ontology or mapping of citation parameters to COinS data that generates the code or is it interleaved in the Lua? EutilsRDF Web Service: an RDF interface to NCBI Entrez Utilities could be interesting for NLM resources, building on the Bibliographic Ontology (BIBO). BIBO mentions projects using it at Worldcat and the UK National Library. Obvious mappings are

bibo:asin       Citation/core:ASIN ?
bibo:doi == prism:doi   Citation/core:DOI
bibo:edition == prism:edition Citation/core:Edition
bibo:isbn == prism:isbn Citation/core:ISBN
bibo:issn == prism:issn Citation/core:ISSN
bibo:issue      Citation/core:Issue
bibo:lccn       Citation/core:LCCN
bibo:oclcnum    Citation/core:OCLC
bibo:pmid       Citation/core:PMID
bibo:uri        Citation/core:URL
bibo:volume == prism:volume     Citation/core:Volume

(not quite to leaf nodes since (bibo:eissn == prism:eissn) is a bibo:issn, similarly with isbn10, isbn13 (Note that my understanding of this is at the little knowledge is a dangerous thing stage.) More table driven citation generation tools could be useful. RDBrown (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

See Template:Cite_book#Syntax for a list of parameters that are included in the COinS metadata. Or, search Module:Citation/CS1 for the term "OCinSoutput" (without quotes).
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
See Module talk:Citation/CS1/COinS. --  Gadget850 talk 21:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Editions in cite map template[edit]

This entry is to track a request made on the Help Talk page: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Editions_in_cite_map. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Consistent date location[edit]

This is a reminder, in case it hasn't been implemented yet, of the RfC re consistent date location, Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_3#RFC:_Consistent_date_location. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Support for day and year ranges[edit]

Support for day and year ranges? Examples of valid day and year ranges were provided in this discussion and this discussion.

Trappist the monk (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done in the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Add the new "Draft" and "Draft Talk" namespaces to the module[edit]

Minor feature request for the sandbox after this week's updates (I would put it in directly, but I don't want to interfere with this week's migration of code to the live module):

There will soon (December 17, 2013, at this writing) be a "Draft" namespace, with an accompanying "Draft Talk" namespace, in Wikipedia. We need to include it in the list of namespaces that are not included in the CS1 error categories. Errors should be shown in those namespaces but not categorized.

We'll need to update the module itself, along with the module's documentation. I think it makes sense to wait until after this week's module updates before making any changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY Done in the sandbox and in a comment on the Help:CS1 errors page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Done through {{broken ref}}. --  Gadget850 talk 21:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Detect and report wikilinks in author parameters[edit]

Our documentation says not to use wikilinks in author parameters. We could create a hidden error message and category for articles that have wikilinks in author parameters. It may be possible for a bot to then convert these links to authorlink parameters.

See discussion at User_talk:Citation_bot#removal_of_authors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Detect and report duplicated parameters[edit]

Duplicated parameters in CS1 citations could be reported so that editors could avoid creating them in error and gnomes could fix them where they occur. I'm not talking about the existing redundant parameters errors. This would simply be reporting where there are multiple instances of e.g. |first= or |url= in the same citation. Duplicated parameters exist for numerous reasons, but only the last instance of the parameter is displayed, which is usually not the intent of the editor who creates or edits the citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, parameters are parsed by the MediaWiki software before they are passed to the CS1 module. By the time it gets to the module, previous parameters are already ignored. There is no way for a template or mudule to do this detection. --  Gadget850 talk 21:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oof, that's disappointing. I don't feel like starting a giant discussion about this, but would there be a valid reason for having two identical parameters in the same template? It seems to my naive self that this would always be an error that should be flagged by the MW software so that editors could fix this inadvertent mistake. Maybe there are some situations in which this arrangement is not an error, and I am just not clever enough to think of any. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Integrate {{sfnref}} into the CS1 templates. This would take two parameters: |sfnref= and |sfnyear=. --  Gadget850 talk 12:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Add "authorn=et al." to a maintenance category[edit]

An idea posted by Trappist the monk elsewhere, recorded here for posterity: "Add code to Module:Citation/CS1 that will put citations with |authorn=et al. into a separate specific category."

I imagine this as a maintenance category rather than a "CS1 error" / "incorrect syntax" category. Let's discuss at some point to see if there are editors interested in filling in the remaining authors, editors who object to people doing so, or other opinions/ideas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Also when et al. is included in |firstn=.
I think its an error condition; et al. is not an authors name, it is simply an indicator that there are unlisted authors. I'm wondering if there shouldn't be some mechanism by which editors can inform the template that not all authors are listed so that Module:Citation/CS1 will add a properly formatted et al. to the citation but that same et al. won't be included in the COinS metadata (as happens now with |authorn=et al.). This is much like |display-authors= except that all of the authors included in the citation template are displayed followed by et al. – perhaps, |etal=yes or something similar.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

arXiv class would be nice[edit]

Currently, supplying a parameter of the form "|arxiv=1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph]" produces a messy error:

Botermann, Benjamin; Bing, Dennis; Geppert, Christopher; Gwinner, Gerald; Hänsch, Theodor W.; Huber, Gerhard; Karpuk, Sergei; Krieger, Andreas; Kühl, Thomas; Nörtershäuser, Wilfried; Novotny, Christian; Reinhardt, Sascha; Sánchez, Rodolfo; Schwalm, Dirk; Stöhlker, Thomas; Wolf, Andreas; Saathoff, Guido (September 2014). "Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed". Physical Review Letters 113 (120405): 1–5. arXiv:[physics.atom-ph 1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph]] Check |arxiv= value (help). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405. 

And trying &#91; doesn't improve it all that much:

Botermann, Benjamin; Bing, Dennis; Geppert, Christopher; Gwinner, Gerald; Hänsch, Theodor W.; Huber, Gerhard; Karpuk, Sergei; Krieger, Andreas; Kühl, Thomas; Nörtershäuser, Wilfried; Novotny, Christian; Reinhardt, Sascha; Sánchez, Rodolfo; Schwalm, Dirk; Stöhlker, Thomas; Wolf, Andreas; Saathoff, Guido (September 2014). "Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed". Physical Review Letters 113 (120405): 1–5. arXiv:[physics.atom-ph] 1409.7951 &#91;physics.atom-ph&#93; Check |arxiv= value (help). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405. 

It would be nice if there were some way to include the arXiv class in new-style identifiers. It's not critical, but it's normally included in arXiv citations in print, and if it's WP:MOS to omit it, a comment in the template docs would be nice.

In Lua, I imagine simply expanding the syntax of legal arxiv identifiers would be simplest, but an additional template parameter in the style of Template:Cite arxiv is also okay. The latter allows a class, but has the problem that it's not possible to list journal, volume, issue, page numbers, etc. for papers that are published peer-reviewed:

Botermann, Benjamin; Bing, Dennis; Geppert, Christopher; Gwinner, Gerald; Hänsch, Theodor W.; Huber, Gerhard; Karpuk, Sergei; Krieger, Andreas et al. (September 2014). "Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed". arXiv:1409.7951 [physics.atom-ph]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.120405.

Thank you! (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is an arXiv class? --  Gadget850 talk 14:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The arXiv classification is explained here and here. The folks at recommend including it in citations, but we do not render it well. It appears to me that it would best be included in CS1 templates as a separate parameter to make validation, presentation, and linking easier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The arXiv used to assign submission identifiers that started with a subject classification. This was annoyig if a paper was originally misclassified; reclassifying it required assigning a new identifier. In 2007, they changed to a system where permanent identifiers were purely numerical, with the classification appended as extra information. It's not essential, but customarily appended as additional information about a paper. (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

UA features[edit]

Create a UAfeatures parameter, where features depended upon by the referenced media to present the referenced information are specified. e.g. Cookies, Javascript, Flash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmill30 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Circa year ranges - CS1 date error at Development of the New Testament canon[edit]

Trappist the monk at Help talk:Citation Style 1 sent me over here.

I’d like to request the support of circa year ranges in CS1, for example "c. 303 – c. 325" (which is the format per MOS:DATERANGE).

The last paragraph of the lead of Development of the New Testament canon contains several CS1 date errors ("Check date values in: |date= (help)". For example, the citation {{Citation | author = Eusebius | title = Church History | at = 3.25.1–7 | year=c. 303–25}} renders as "Eusebius (c. 303–25), Church History, 3.25.1–7  Check date values in: |date= (help)". According to MOS:DATERANGE the preferred form would be "c. 303 – c. 325", although that produces the same error. "303–325" works, but omits the circa. "c. 303" works, but omits the range. I've tried various other combinations without success.

At least for the Eusebius reference, it's a series of several writings, and the approximate range of years in which they were written is known, but not the exact dates. For example, because of the dedication of the last part, it's known to have been completed before 325, but whether it was 323 or 324 is not known. Some of that is covered at Church History (Eusebius). I believe the same applies to the start date. So using circa is reasonable.

Any other suggestions welcome. Rwessel (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I support this request. We get requests related to "c." more frequently than any other date-related request than I can think of (now that ranges are generally supported). In many cases, we suggest using |orig-year= and putting the publication date of the actual publication being cited in |date=, but citation templates are often used to provide a consistent format for a list of publications within the body of an article, in which case |orig-year= is not desirable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
We could use the same date algorithm but simply allow c. and AD before the date and BC, AD, BCE, and CE after the date (if I am reading WP:ERA correctly). --  Gadget850 talk 20:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on when such a change might be implemented, or a possible work-around? Rwessel (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to second Rwessel's last post. This is a serious readability issue for such a long list of references, which is difficult enough to read without the error messages. Texas Dervish (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Improve accessdate checking[edit]

May be we could improve the accessdate checking to rule out improbable dates of access. Probably the date when wiki was started should be an earliest possible accessdate. Have just seen article List of department stores of the United Kingdom with some accessdates of 1914! Keith D (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since |access-date= requires URL (and maybe also requires that Wikipedia existed), we could set a minimum year. The World Wide Web article says that the oldest known web page dates from 1991.
We could also test the access-date for future dates. I believe that we already test the year for dates greater than next year (since publications like magazines can have next year in their date). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
What should be the limit for future access dates? It would seem that the minimum must be current server date+1 because 12:00:00 UTC today is 00:00:00 tomorrow in New Zealand.
  • 2015-01-25T13:06:15 – UTC time when this page last refreshed (Purge)
  • 2015-01-26T01:06:16 – NZST (UTC+12)
  • 2015-01-26T02:06:16 – NZDT (UTC+13)
Accepting current UTC date+1 allows editors to enter their local 'today's' date without error. If they use their local 'tomorrow's' date, there will be an error message for at most 24 hours after which there is no error.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --  Gadget850 talk 22:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Same here. Keith D (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Today+1 is fine with me. I sometimes enter a date that is tomorrow (to me) when it is already tomorrow in the UTC time zone (I know, UTC isn't really a time zone, but you get the idea). – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The current method of checking errors only considers information stored in the template (and could presumably consider the system time). If someone enters a date 2 days in the future, and no one does anything about it, after a day passes the error message will go away. I think that really diminishes the usefulness of the message. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a proposal that is better than the one above? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a better proposal. In a much more restricted editing environment, where the editing software knew that a citation was being entered (as in Microsoft Word) I would block the edit from happening at all, but the Wikipedia editing environment is too flexible for that. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
So what's the current status of this request? If it makes a difference, I'm fine leaving future alone if it will get it moved in faster...Naraht (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

et al.[edit]

Detect "et al." in an author field. --  Gadget850 talk 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And having detected it, what then?
Trappist the monk (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Trigger an error. I have recently found it in author fields for some reason. --  Gadget850 talk 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, so have I. In fact, Monkbot, when it finds et al. in |coauthors=, is guilty of converting it to |authorn=et al. But I guess I was looking for some sort of idea about what should be done instead of simply adding an error message. What do we suggest that editors should do to get CS1/2 to display et al. outside of misusing |author=, |last=, and |first=? Do we tweak the definition of |display-authors= so that when |display-authors=et al the rendered author list has et al. but the COinS data does not. This might also be applied to |display-editors=. We could invent |et-al-author= and |et-al-editor= or some such similar to do the same sort of thing. We'd need to worry about interaction with |display-authors=n when the author list has more than n authors so that |display-authors= and |et-al-author= don't both add et al. to a rendered citation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I usually see |author= or |authors= with multiple authors and et al. --  Gadget850 talk 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Convert dashes in dates[edit]

We currently convert hyphens and em dashes in page rages to the proper en dash. Do so for dates as well. --  Gadget850 talk 19:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Some hyphens in dates, such as in the YYYY-MM-DD format, should stay as hyphens, so the programming will need to have a bit of subtlety. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)