Template talk:Citation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Template:Citation:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

    CGNDB Discussion[edit]

    I thought some page watchers might be interested in a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk)


    Some change has been made so that chapter field is being ignored, and producing an error. eg

    I can't see any good justification for this, it has made many good references now produce errors, and even this page's own documentation shows errors. Was there a reason for this change, or unforced error? Please change this back/explain. Thank you. (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

    I don't read French, so it is difficult to pick out this example. What is "La traction électrique férroviaire" the title of?
    As the help page notes, if you use |journal= or an alias, then |chapter= is ignored. Journals have articles, not chapters.
    And the example on the template page is not well formed:
    • {{Citation | last = Klingensmith | first = Philip | contribution = Affidavit | date = September 5, 1872 | place = Lincoln County, Nevada | title = Mountain Meadows Massacre | editor-last = Toohy | editor-first = Dennis J. | journal = Corinne Daily Reporter | publication-date = September 24, 1872 | publication-place = Corinne, Utah | volume = 5 | issue = 252 | page = 1 | contribution-url = http://udn.lib.utah.edu/u?/corinne,5359 }}
    Klingensmith, Philip (September 5, 1872), written at Lincoln County, Nevada, Toohy, Dennis J., ed., "Mountain Meadows Massacre", Corinne Daily Reporter (Corinne, Utah, published September 24, 1872) 5 (252): 1  |chapter= ignored (help)
    It looks like this is trying to cite a section within a news article, specifically an affidavit, which forms the bulk of the article. --  Gadget850 talk 12:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think that the original example really refers to some kind of report rather than a journal article. As I understand it, La revue 3E.I is a series of reports, of which the one numbered 19 is titled La électrique férroviaire, then pp. 23–34 within it are the chapter/section "La BB 36000, une locomotive 'passe frontières'". If this is correct, it should be set it up like this:
    • {{citation |last1=Jeunesse |first1=Alain |last2=Debruyne |first2=Marc |date=December 1999 |chapter=La BB 36000, une locomotive 'passe frontières' |language=French |series=La revue 3E.I |issue=19 |title=La traction électrique férroviaire |pages=23–34 |chapter-url=http://www.thierry-lequeu.fr/data/ART168.HTM |issn=1252-770X}}Jeunesse, Alain; Debruyne, Marc (December 1999), "La BB 36000, une locomotive 'passe frontières'", La traction électrique férroviaire, La revue 3E.I (in French) (19), pp. 23–34, ISSN 1252-770X 
    Peter coxhead (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    The issn suggests that La Revue 3 E I : enseigner l'électrotechnique et l'électronique industrielle [Review 3 EI: teaching electrical engineering and industrial electronics] (google translate) is a periodical. The linked web page, apparently not associated with La Revue 3E.I lists the title as "La BB36000 la locomotive 'Passe - frontières'" with a date of December 1999, issue 16. That same web page lists 'Source' as "La traction électrique férroviaire", December 1999 but issue 19. Which issue number is correct?
    Is it possible that 'La traction électrique férroviaire' [Railway electric traction] is a department in the journal? If so, then the citation can be rewritten:
    Alain Jeunesse; Marc Debruyne (December 1999), "La BB 36000, une locomotive 'passe frontières'", La traction électrique férroviaire, La Revue 3 E I : enseigner l'électrotechnique et l'électronique industrielle (in French) (19): 23–34, ISSN 1252-770X 
    If the source being cited is the website thierry-lequeu.fr, then the citation reduces to this:
    "ART168". Thierry-Lequeu (in French). Retrieved 2015-01-13. 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

    Is is possible that this undiscussed change be reverted. It's not a single problem - take a look at the references in the high importance page USB - I count 4 examples of this error. I am seeing this in many places. (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

    I have fixed those poorly-formatted citations, along with other citation errors in the USB article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    It's not just poorly-formatted citations. I continue to be incredibly frustrated by this damage to the citation templates by User:Trappist the monk and his refusal to undo it even after having its bad effects pointed out. I just had to hack around this problem for several previously-working citations on Andrew M. Gleason, in which an obituary article published in a journal had different subsections with different authors (writing about different aspects of the subject's life). Instead of formatting it in the obvious way with |title=The title of the obituary and |contribution=The subsection with different authors I apparently had to redo all of those to use |title=/|department= because Trappist somehow became convinced that it would never be a good idea to cite smaller units within a journal article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein: the problem is that the workaround results in an incorrect citation, since it uses e.g. department=Andrew M. Gleason 1921–2008 when clearly "Andrew M. Gleason 1921–2008" is not a department within a journal. Fortunately the department doesn't appear in the metadata generated for such a citation (at least at present). Let's hope no-one decides to error-check the values of |department=... I'm frustrated by this and some of the other changes made to the citation templates, and find myself converting some existing uses to plain text to avoid "error" messages for what I regard as perfectly correct citations. I wonder if converting to plain text may be better in these cases too. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    Is this going to be fixed or not? This is a problem literally everywhere - the same problem has been introduced into cite journal eg Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Template:Cite_conference_fails_to_display_title_and_chapter
    Hyndman, A. W.; Liu, J. K.; Denney, D. W. (1982). "Sulfur: New Sources and Uses". ACS Symposium Series 183. pp. 69–82. doi:10.1021/bk-1982-0183.ch005. ISBN 0-8412-0713-5.  |chapter= ignored (help)
    These uses are legitimate, and I know that it worked before for both CS1 and CS2. Try to get someone to understand that their good faith edits broke something and it would be really cool for them to undo those edits. (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    I would use {{cite book}} for any source with an ISBN.
    Hyndman, A. W.; Liu, J. K.; Denney, D. W. (1982). "Sulfur Recovery from Oil Sands". Sulfur: New Sources and Uses. ACS Symposium Series 183. pp. 69–82. doi:10.1021/bk-1982-0183.ch005. ISBN 0-8412-0713-5. 
    I have been working my way through the "chapter= ignored" category, and I have found that the majority of the articles are easy to fix. There are some instances of {{cite journal}} that I haven't figured out how to fix, so I have left them for further investigation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    There is a small but nonzero number of instances that are impossible to "fix" because they are not broken. It is very frustrating that the maintainers of these templates have refused to even admit this. The only resort I have found to work in some cases is to move parts of the citation information out of the template and format it manually instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    I believe you. I think that I have come across {{cite journal}} templates that are attempting to cite a section of a long journal article. I can't locate one at the moment, but that seems like a legitimate use of the template that should be available to editors.
    Based on my reading of the documentation and your example above, it looks like {{citation}} is also unable to cite a section of a long journal article, but that is not entirely clear to me. The |contribution= parameter and its function are not currently listed in the documentation for {{citation}}, except in an example (copied above) that currently generates an error message (and which presumably used to work fine).
    It might be best to start a new discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 to ask how to create a citation with the title of a work, the title of a chapter or article within that work, and the title of a section within that chapter or article. A clear-cut and specific example from an actual article would be useful to show the need for such a citation. It seems to me that {{cite book}}, {{citation}}, and {{cite journal}} should all support that sort of citation.
    BTW, I have come across plenty of {{cite journal}} templates using |chapter= and |journal=, which are rightly flagged by the module as erroneous. I have been changing |chapter= to |title= to fix those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    If you're collecting examples of different types of journal article citation that need both a title and a lower-level subunit within the title, here are three:
    • This diff (a self-citation) is to a section within a published journal article. The author's online copy of the article has separate urls for each section, so the recent change to make url= go to the title and not the contribution also broke the placement of the link. I could find no good way to properly format this one using the now-broken citation template and resorted to partial hand formatting, which of course completely loses the metadata.
    • Many of the citations in Andrew M. Gleason are to articles published within a special section of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society; this section had its own editors (different from the journal editors). Prior to this change to the citation template, they were cited as contribution=individual article (with author referring to the author of each article within the section) and title=the title of the special section (with editor referring to the editors of the special section). That has been changed to use department= for the name of the special section, but that generates the wrong metadata because it is not really a department, and the wrong formatting because the editors are placed at the level of the individual articles rather than the name of the whole special section.
    • The proceedings of the Eurographics conference are regularly published as special issues of Computer Graphics Forum, a journal. So it used to be possible to use contribution=Name of paper in the proceedings, title=Eurographics, journal=Computer Graphics Forum. But now the best way to format this is to pretend that Computer Graphics Forum is a book series instead of a journal, but this generates the wrong formatting as well as the wrong metadata. See for example the (not templatized) first entry in the selected publications section of Bernhard Preim.
    David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I am also seeing this issue on Explorer II#References. The revision is inconsistent with the documentation for this template, so one or the other needs to be addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    Write DeVorkin like this:
    {{Cite conference | first1 = David | last1 = DeVorkin | editor1-first = Sallie | editor1-last = Baliunas | editor2-first = John L. | editor2-last = Richard | title = Robotic Observatories: Present and Future | chapter = Social Determinism in Space: Depression Era Apollo | conference= Proceedings of the 1990 11th Annual Smithsonian/Fairborn/I.A.P.P.P Symposium on Automatic Photoelectric Telescopes | publisher = Fairborn Press | pages = 3–9 | year = 1991 | mode = cs2 | location = Mesa, Arizona | url = http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/HistoryOfComputerizedTelescopes/Baliunas.1991.Robotic.Observatories.1.pdf | accessdate= 2013-04-20 | postscript= . }}
    DeVorkin, David (1991), "Social Determinism in Space: Depression Era Apollo", in Baliunas, Sallie; Richard, John L., Robotic Observatories: Present and Future (PDF), Proceedings of the 1990 11th Annual Smithsonian/Fairborn/I.A.P.P.P Symposium on Automatic Photoelectric Telescopes, Mesa, Arizona: Fairborn Press, pp. 3–9, retrieved 2013-04-20. 
    I changed the template to {{cite conference}}, changed |work= to |conference=, added |mode=cs2 to be stylistically consistent with the other citations in the article, and removed |isbn=3642297188 because that refers to Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (Special:BookSources/3642297188).
    For Froes, et al.: remove |work=Magnesium Technology: Metallurgy, Design Data, Automotive Applications which, if one is to believe the Google books cover image, is not the title and is superfluous to the citation because |work=, and its aliases, force {{citation}} to treat the citation as a journal citation not as a book citation:
    {{Citation | first1 = Francis H. | title = Magnesium Technology: Metallurgy, Design Data, Applications | last1 = Froes | first2 = Dan | last2 = Eliezer | first3 = Eli | last3 = Aghion | editor1-first = Horst E. | editor1-last = Friedrich | editor2-first = Barry L. | editor2-last = Mordike | chapter = Magnesium Aerospace | publisher = Springer | page = 608 | year = 2006 | isbn = 3540308121 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=2z4UrFgJ2mkC&pg=PA608 | postscript= . }}
    Froes, Francis H.; Eliezer, Dan; Aghion, Eli (2006), "Magnesium Aerospace", in Friedrich, Horst E.; Mordike, Barry L., Magnesium Technology: Metallurgy, Design Data, Applications, Springer, p. 608, ISBN 3540308121. 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


    Where has it been agreed that coauthors ought to be deprecated? -- PBS (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Why do you keep asking this question? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps because it hasn't been satisfactorily answered? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Just found an archived discussion; maybe it could shed some light? → Template talk:Citation/Archive 6#The_coauthors attribute is deprecated. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Let me be clear that I think it's better not to use |coauthors=, so I would support it being deprecated, but I'd like to see where the consensus was reached to do this. The discussion linked above assumes it is deprecated, so doesn't answer PBS's question. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    My concerns on this are two fold. The first is that the programming tail seems to be wagging the dog. For example where is the process that decided this is the correct course of action? The second is practical coauthors is an extremely useful for separating out those authors one wishes to include in a short citation and those one does not, so there is a practical use for coauthors so why ought it to be deprecated as those who do not want to use it do not have to. Now it may be that after a formal process of deprecation it is decided to ditch coauthors. But deprecation and the introduction of new parameters ought to be done through a process which is easily available to editors who are not familiar with the underlying programming languages/scripts. -- PBS (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    PBS, you might be able to find a discussion on an archive page within one or two months prior to this edit, which added |coauthors= to the deprecated parameters category page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    Can't find anything that looks like a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    authorformat smallcaps error[edit]

    The authorformat=scap, producing smallcaps, is now producing an " Invalid |name-list-format=scap" error across a large number of articles. Anyone have any idea why? Simon Burchell (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    |author-format= and |editor-format= have been obsoleted in favor of |name-list-format=. The small caps formatting has been removed in compliance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#All_caps.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    Was this actually discussed anywhere, or is it just another mass change being forced across all articles? It seems drastic. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    This has been in the MOS for years; we're just catching up here. I think the MOS talk page would be the proper place to debate making an exception for author name formatting in references, but that exception is not there now. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    MOS does not apply to citations so it is invalid to use a passage in the MOS as justification for a citation style change. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Jc3s5h: what's the basis for this assertion? It's an important question because seveal changes to the citation templates, including forbidding open-ended date ranges, have relied on guidance in the MOS. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    A discussion started at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 8#Date checking in which it was decided that CS1 would adopt the date formats from WP:MOSNUM. I should acknowledge that there is considerable disagreement about whether MOS can control citations; the compromise so far has been to word WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, and WP:CITE so they don't contradict each other. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Your second sentence suggests that your comment "MOS does not apply to citations" isn't really correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    I just find the constantly-changing parameters tiresome; the citation template isn't at all stable. I am far more interested in writing articles, than constantly running to catch up on parameter usage. I think I'll just stop using the citation templates in future. Thanks for replying, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Trappist the monk, I think you have a script that removes authorformat=scap (and its variations, if there are any) from articles. Maybe it would be worth running it through the deprecated parameter category periodically for the next few weeks until the job queue catches up. That would reduce the amount of easy-to-fix red ink seen by some of WP's most prolific contributors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    I do and have begun to do that.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein The MOS is a guideline and as such changes that affect a lot of pages needs to be discussed to see if there is a consensus for a change (guidelines are far from mandatory). @Trappist the monk The templates are not at all popular with many editors and the last thing that those who like to use them need is for the interfaces to be change on a regular basis. I think you need to take Simon Burchell last comment to heart. -- PBS (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    How long will it take to remove these by script? I spent half an hour trying to figure out why an article is red all over. I don't see the edit or understand it, and until I came to the talk page, I could find no explanation, even though the template mentions another parameter no longer in use. Are there other planned but unexplained and invisible-to-users changes that will be happening? How do I figure out the changes, just see red and assume something changed and delete it?(I know I can just text edit it, but better to know in advance not to use a template that will change a lot.) MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    By script, not very long. But, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Proposed exceptions to general deprecation of Allcaps
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

    See also[edit]

    we should have a see also section somewhere on this page pointing out Template:Cite tweet and anything else useful like this which could cut down on how much code we have to include. Whoever made that is great, I was thinking I'd have to figure out how to do it and it was an intimidating task. Tweet and Twitter are not mentioned on the main template though :( Ranze (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

    The "cite xxx" templates by default implement CS1 style. This template by default implements CS2 style. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

    Updates and improvements to Citation Style 1 module code[edit]

    Some updates and improvements to the Citation Style 1 module code are scheduled for April 18–19. See this discussion for more details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

    pinpoint parameter[edit]

    What in the world is this? It's used e.g. in [1]. EEng (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

    You can see where it appeared in this diff. It does not create an error message because the named ref that is actually rendered is in in the reflist. The contents of the other instances of the named ref are ignored.
    |pinpoint= is a supported parameter in {{Cite court}}. The citations used {{Cite court}} earlier in the article's development; it looks like the editor was trying to cite page numbers but did not succeed. If you want to change them to use Harvard-style refs with page number references, I'm sure it would look nice. Not that my friend EEng would know anything about Harvard.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    You're just jealous because you went to Yale. Thanks for the explanation -- I couldn't find pinpoint in the {{citation}} doc so I thought maybe there was some strange keyword magic going on. EEng (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC) BTW, perhaps you'd enjoy Jonesey.

    Dead link notices in format parameter[edit]

    I don't know if this is a citation bot error or a template error but when Citation bot used to add Template:dead link into the format parameter like here, it would insert the article into Category:ALL ARTICLES WITH DEAD EXTERNAL LINKS and other such articles. Moving it out (like here) moved it into the proper Category:All articles with dead external links. I can't figure out in which template is it going wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    It was wrong, then and now, for Citation bot to add {{dead link}} to |format=. |format= is to be used to identify the electronic file format of the source pointed to by the content of |url=. It is {{dead link}} that adds the category, not Citation bot. The normal output of {{dead link}}, from your example page, is:
    [[Category:All articles with dead external links]][[Category:Articles with dead external links from April 2009]]<sup class="noprint Inline-Template"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Link rot|<span title=" since April 2009">dead link</span>]]</i>]</span></sup>
    The current version of Module:Citation/CS1 unconditionally capitalizes everything in |format=. Because {{dead link}} is processed before {{citation}}, Module:Citation/CS1 capitalizes all of the above which is where the redlinked category arises. At the next update to Module:Citation/CS1, the content of |format= will no longer be capitalized.
    1. none of that stuff in |format= in your example citation should be there because it is in violation of the parameter's definition
    2. Citation bot was in the wrong to place it there
    3. Module:Citation/CS1 improperly capitalizes the content of |format= (this has been fixed in the sandbox version)
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Move the {{dead link}} template outside the {{citation}}, but leave it inside the <ref>...</ref>. Thus, it will be something like ... }}{{dead link|date=May 2015}}</ref> or similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, it didn't match with the documentation for the template at all so that confirms it. I'll make a bug report to the bot in case it does those citations again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)