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)

    Ending punctuation[edit]

    How do you suppress the period at the end for usage in a string cite? postdlf (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

    By default, the {{citation}} template does not produce a period at the end. Are you perhaps referring instead to the Help:CS1 templates such as {{cite journal}}? If so, the answer is to use |postscript=none. But because their formatting is a little different, those templates shouldn't be mixed with {{citation}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

    Google books[edit]

    Editors could save much tricky syntax with templates like:

    {{cite gb|asdf|ref=harv}}

    and

    {{sfn gb|asdf|p=1}}

    In my dreams the former would work like {{cite doi}}, producing a global, editable reference, and the latter would link both to the cite and separately (using the page number) to the appropriate page number in Google books.

    Please let me know if there is another place to put this suggestion. Thanks. Lfstevens (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

    {{cite doi}} relies on a bot to fill in the citation. --  Gadget850 talk 23:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    A bot which (as I understand it) went down with Toolserver at the end of June. But that aside, please can we avoid creating yet more citation templates? See small-font comment by PBS dated 19:06, 20 September 2014 at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Should we improve ref tags? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Made some comments over there. I don't understand the reticence towards enhancing the best-working part of the ref system—{{cite}}.

    Access date. Again[edit]

    Where was this change discussed? The bit in parenthesis was removed and re-added today, and it appears to be the crux of a small edit-war at St Pancras railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

    I do not recall that text being discussed anywhere. It doesn't make sense to me, and it is inconsistent with the more verbose documentation for |accessdate= that appears farther down:
    "Full date when original URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations; requires url.[date 1] Do not wikilink. Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date. Can be hidden or styled by registered editors."
    I would recommend removing that parenthetical remark unless there is some strong consensus on the Talk page for its insertion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed, and I have done so. (1) In some cases the identifiable date is explicitly a starting point (e.g. "2001 onwards", so even in its own terms the addition isn't correct. (2) There's no way of guaranteeing that user-maintained web sites weren't updated after any stated date – it's easy to forget to change the date. (3) There's also the issue of link-rot; an access date is a useful indicator.
    Actually I think the documentation for |accessdate= is too weak in this respect. I would prefer to see an access date unless there is a clear 'permanent' link such as a doi, pmid, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    The |accessdate= gives context about when that section of article was contributed/revisioned; external websites do change, which is why we have sites like www.newsdiffs.org; |accessdate= is helpful when rescuing and selecting the nearest |archiveurl=. In the age of the web and most sites being in content management systems it is not enough to re-state an apparent publication date. The advice we give to people wanting to cite Wikipedia is to always use a stable URL with |oldid= to a specific revision (ie. the accessdate + time).
    Since |accessdate= is (nearly) always known by the contributing editor, the status-quo with near-universal addition of |accessdate= should be codified more strongly than |date= which may be known. We have had a situation where the present/temporary IP wording has been used as the basis of for widescale removal of |accessdate= from articles; something I would prefer to see unambiguously prevented, if nothing else that simply to prevent needless unhelpful diff-noise and the continued time-wastage from trying to work out what really changed. Yes, I would support a stronger statement. —Sladen (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    While |accessdate= may not always be relevant, removing it is certainly never helpful. My personal opinion is that any web links should include accessdate, as even stable websites change or disappear eventually. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    No, if it's not relevant it's helpful to remove it, because it creates needless clutter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    "Clutter" – possibly, although it's only a small part of a good citation; "needless" – no, as has been explained above. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, if it's truly a document that does not change. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    And will not change its location. Basically this means documents with DOIs or DOI-like URLs. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    Even if it is clutter, having an accessdate is doing no harm. For this reason, I think they should not be removed from citations. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    Clutter is arguably harmful, and if it's doing no good there should be no problem with removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    |accessdate= is highly useful and contextual, both for our editors and for other editors who contribute to an article later in (ie. "doing good"), and so—if I understand your argument correctly—should not be removed. —Sladen (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Nikkimaria. I have never found |accessdate= to be of the smallest use. -- Alarics (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    It is useful when fixing deadlinks, as it is relevant to finding the correct archived snapshot per wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, it comes in handy when it is necessary to decipher which rev of the article the citation was used to support. Editors often change the meaning of assertions (intentionally or not) while leaving the existing citation in place... LeadSongDog come howl! 05:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    And there are editors who believe you need access dates for hard copy sources. And those who will go through an article, check to make the links work and update the access dates. Regardless, this is a perennial discussions and as usual will not end with any consensus. I hide the access dates and don't worry about them. --  Gadget850 talk 13:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    Accessibility and COinS[edit]

    There may be an accessibility issue with the COinS metadata that is appended to citations emitted by the {{citation}} template as well as all the Citation Style 1 templates. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 130#Spurious text on source links. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

    Where to put archive database used to access article?[edit]

    I put in citations in the publisher field: "Accessed via LexisNexis" or "Accessed via NewsBank", as the case may be, to denote where I found the source and where others in the future may access the source if they wish to read that article text.

    Is there another place or another field to place this info?

    I ask because sometimes people with bots or scripts come by and remove the entire "publisher" field, and then my notes on how to access those articles would be lost !

    Any help?

    Cirt (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Use |via= like this:
    {{cite news|title=Jimmy Wales isn't a billionaire; He hasn't capitalized on Wikipedia, but still lives a jet-setter's life|first=Amy|last=Chozick|date=June 29, 2013|work=[[International Herald Tribune]]|page=9|via=[[LexisNexis]]}}
    Chozick, Amy (June 29, 2013). "Jimmy Wales isn't a billionaire; He hasn't capitalized on Wikipedia, but still lives a jet-setter's life". International Herald Tribune. p. 9 – via LexisNexis. 
    Because what you put in |publisher= is included in the citation's COinS metadata, using it to hold information that has nothing to do with the actual publisher corrupts that data. |via= is not part of the COinS.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, wow, thanks very much!!! — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    Now I just gotta find all the places I used "publisher" instead of "via", and fix those before the bots and/or scripts take away those publisher fields!!! — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Might help if we documented |via=. Anyone have a good description of use? --  Gadget850 talk 01:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Yes that would be most helpful! And if it could be publicized to the people who run bots and scripts not to remove it? — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    My mistake: this is documented. --  Gadget850 talk 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    @Trappist the monk:@Gadget850:, can someone please help fix q:Template:Cite news and q:Template:Citation at Wikiquote so they display the via parameter in cites? Thank you so much, — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

    Not that simple. Those templates still use {{citation/core}} while we have switched to Module:Citation. This would need the module and sub-modules copied over, then the templates can be updated. --  Gadget850 talk 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Can you help with that please, Gadget850 ? — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

    Two user script questions[edit]

    Maybe someone here can answer these questions there Wikipedia_talk:User_scripts#Two_questions. — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

    "produces output identical to that of the Cite templates [..] Cite web" - no[edit]

    See my edit. I noticed ", retrieved" in lower case. It was because of "citation" and changed to upper case (and period) when I changed to "cite web". I didn't change all the other cases as I guess it can be "fixed" here (I couldn't figure it out). I'm not even sure if it's preferred to change in pages. comp.arch (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

    Citation Style 1 and {{citation}} are two different styles, so you should use the current prevailing style. The article is now a mix of Citation Style 1, {{citation}} and non-template citations, thus the rendered styles are going to differ. --  Gadget850 talk 18:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)

    {{citation}} uses a comma separator so it is considered, as I understand it, to be a sentence fragment. As such, 'retrieved ...' is not capitalized. The CS1 citation, {{cite web}}, etc use period (full stop) separators so 'Retrieved ...' Starts its own very short sentence. There are those who prefer one way; there are those who prefer the other. Whenever one style is used, the other should not be – use should be consistent throughout the article.
    It is possible to make CS1 mimic {{citation}} by using |separator=, and |postscript=none:
    Author, "Cite Web Title", retrieved 2014-10-11 
    Author, Citation Title, retrieved 2014-10-11 
    and the other way as well:
    Author. "Cite Web Title". Retrieved 2014-10-11. 
    Author. Citation Title. Retrieved 2014-10-11.  – here |separator=. and |postscript=.
    Why? I don't know.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

    PD/WS icons[edit]

    Hello. I was wondering if it would be possible to add a parameter to set an icon (like Template:Cite_DNB) for works that are in PD and/or in wikisource. That way editors can easily spot "free" sources to improve the page. Of course I'm not talking about works that are already incorporated in the article (i.e. Template:Source-attribution). Thanks. -Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

    • Is this a standard internationally recognized icon or something we made up?
    • The icon is currently not accessible; that is, it has no meaning to our readers who use screen readers. --  Gadget850 talk 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    Can we? Yes. Should we? No. Adding icons to an already dense collection of text, numbers and punctuation, is just unnecessary clutter.
    Unlike the pdf icon that is added by css, the icons at templates like {{cite DNB}} can easily and so should have alt text added to them.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    Anthropomorphism#Notes is an example of something like that already happening. It doesn't seem cluttered to me. - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I see a blue ladybug on ref 7 and a cents symbol on 8. --  Gadget850 talk 12:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    That seems more like an issue with the way those templates deal with icons - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    Anyway, I see your point and I'm all for alt text of course. - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    Formatting of journal article title[edit]

    Has the formatting of |title= in journal articles formatted by {{citation}} changed recently or has it always been broken? It should be in an upright font, in quotation marks, but instead it comes out italicized (like the title of a book). Example:

    • Cite journal, formatted correctly (except for the separator being a period):
      • {{cite journal|title=Womp Rats|journal=Journal of Exobiology|volume=66|year=2013|page=1138|first=Luke|last=Skywalker}}
      • Skywalker, Luke (2013). "Womp Rats". Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138. 
    • CItation with |title=, formatted incorrectly (title in italics rather than quoted):
      • {{citation|title=Womp Rats|journal=Journal of Exobiology|volume=66|year=2013|page=1138|first=Luke|last=Skywalker}}
      • Skywalker, Luke (2013), "Womp Rats", Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138 
    • CItation with |contribution=, formatted correctly:
      • {{citation|contribution=Womp Rats|journal=Journal of Exobiology|volume=66|year=2013|page=1138|first=Luke|last=Skywalker}}
      • Skywalker, Luke (2013), Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138  |chapter= ignored (help)

    There are a lot of examples of {{citation}} of journal articles that use |title=, and our documentation says to use |title= in this type of citation, so I'm pretty sure this is indeed a bug and not just a bad choice of input parameters. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    It does seem to have changed, yes. This might be the same issue as Help talk:Citation Style 1#Titles of journal articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think this also affected |trans_chapter=. For journal articles, one would set |title= and use |trans_chapter= but now one must use |trans_title= instead. Many editors have done clean up, so now I think all the |trans_chapter= params have been changed. I don't know if that was the intended result. Glrx (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm confused. The correct use of |trans-title= has always been with |title=; |trans-chapter= with |chapter=. The formatting issue described by Editor David Eppstein with regard to {{citation}} has been fixed in the sandbox.
    Skywalker, Luke (2013), "Womp Rats", Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138 
    Making of changes based solely on current live module's improper formatting of {{citation}} |title= parameters is strongly discouraged.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Template talk:Citation/Archive 6#trans_title broken for journal articles Glrx (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Now I'm even more confused. Why are you bringing up an old conversation from when citations used {{citation/core}}? I have lifted a citation from that conversation that was described as not working properly. Here is a side by side comparison of the old {{citation/core}}, the live Module:Citation/CS1 and new Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:
    Citation compare
    {{ citation | last=Erdős | year=1962 | title=Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról | first=Pál | journal=Matematikai Lapok | url=http://www.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1962-22.pdf | trans_title=Some remarks on number theory, III | mr=0144871 | volume=13 | pages=28–38 | language=Hungarian | authorlink=Paul Erdős }}
    Old Erdős, Pál (1962), "Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról" (in Hungarian), Matematikai Lapok 13: 28–38, MR 0144871, http://www.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1962-22.pdf
    Live Erdős, Pál (1962), "Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról" [Some remarks on number theory, III], Matematikai Lapok (in Hungarian) 13: 28–38, MR 0144871 
    Sandbox Erdős, Pál (1962), "Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról" [Some remarks on number theory, III], Matematikai Lapok (in Hungarian) 13: 28–38, MR 0144871 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    Is anything happening with moving this from the sandbox to the live template? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

    Because Module:Citation/CS1 is used in almost 2.5 million pages I try not to make multiple incremental changes to the live module. Unless the problem is a showstopper (the module uses up all of its allotted time, there is a fatal error, etc) incremental changes are made to the sandbox. After enough changes have accumulated, then I will update live module. Because there are several changes in progress, the sandbox in not ready to do an update.
    This has not been forgotten.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks. I'll just continue to wait patiently then. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

    Issues from 29 November 2014 update[edit]

    Good to see the formatting of journal articles using the Citation template fixed!

    A couple of issues which I think are in response to the latest update.

    • The example of a conference paper in the Citation template documentation needed to be changed. It was:
    {{Citation |last=Sullivan |first=D.B. |contribution=Time and frequency measurement at NIST: The first 100 years |year=2001 |title=2001 IEEE Int'l Frequency Control Symp. |url=http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1485.pdf }}
    which used to use |url= as the link for |contribution= but now uses it as the link for |title=. I've updated the example to the now correct |contribution-url= but any citation using the previously recommended parameters will now be slightly wrong, with no error message.
    • Using {{cite web}} it's possible to get a citation with just the title in double-quotes:
    {{cite web |title=Some website |url=http://www.somewebsite.com |accessdate=2014-11-29}} → "Some website". Retrieved 2014-11-29. 
    There seems to be no way to achieve this using the Citation template; you have to have |website= to get this formatting of the web page title:
    {{citation |title=Some website |url=http://www.somewebsite.com |accessdate=2014-11-29}} → Some website, retrieved 2014-11-29 
    {{citation |title=Some website |url=http://www.somewebsite.com |website=SomeWebSite.com |accessdate=2014-11-29}} → "Some website", SomeWebSite.com, retrieved 2014-11-29 
    Ideally changing "citation" to the appropriate "cite XXX" would produce the same output.

    Peter coxhead (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    Yep, saw your corrections to the citation template documentation. |contribution-url= (or any of the |chapter-url= aliases) is the correct fix. The 29 November update consolidates all of the chapter parameters.
    I'm pretty sure that {{citation}} without |work= didn't quote the title before the 29 November update. There isn't enough information in a title and url for Module:Citation/CS1 to know because that same cite could be a book title with link to a scanned copy at archive.org.
    Here is a comparison between the old {{citation/core}} version of {{citation}} and the current Module-based version
    Citation compare
    {{ citation | url=http://www.somewebsite.com | title=Some website | accessdate=2014-11-29 }}
    Old Some website, http://www.somewebsite.com, retrieved 2014-11-29
    Live Some website, retrieved 2014-11-29 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ah, but in the past you could use |contribution= to produce the effect that you can with {{cite web}} as per this comparison:
    Citation compare
    {{ citation | contribution=Some website | url=http://www.somewebsite.com | accessdate=2014-11-29 }}
    Old "Some website", http://www.somewebsite.com, retrieved 2014-11-29
    Live "Some website", http://www.somewebsite.com, retrieved 2014-11-29  Missing or empty |title= (help)
    My point is that there should be always be some way to produce CS2 versions of CS1 styles if CS2 users aren't to become even more of second-class Wikipedia citizens than they are now. One answer would be to allow |website=none, which provides the required information. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I see a difference between |website=none and |website=Some Website (it is the name, not the domain name: Wikipedia not Wikipedia.org). Adding the |website= parameter is something that users of both CS1 and CS2 should be doing. CS2 has the same 'problem' with journal and news cites when |journal= or |work= is empty or omitted}}:
    Journal article 
    Newspaper article 
    When making these types of cites, editors should include |journal= or other |work= alias regardless of whether they use CS1 or CS2.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    There's a difference between websites and journals or newspapers. The latter always have a sensible value for the "work" parameter. Websites certainly don't always have a "name" for the website as a whole. I see that some misguided editor used a web page I maintain as a reference at Sutton Coldfield, with the citation:
    Coxhead, Peter. "The Pools of Sutton Park". Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society. Retrieved 14 September 2010. 
    which (supposing it counted as a reliable source) looks a reasonable citation. How can this be set up using {{Citation}}? What would you use for |website=? Articles about places or popular culture are full of citations to websites which don't have clear overall titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Where did the section edit link go for this topic?
    Like this?
    {{citation |last=Coxhead |first=Peter |title=The Pools of Sutton Park |url=http://www.sp.scnhs.org.uk/lakes.html |website=Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society |accessdate=14 September 2010}}
    Coxhead, Peter, "The Pools of Sutton Park", Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society, retrieved 14 September 2010 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    I was going to suggest using |publisher= instead of |website= so "Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society" is not italicized...
    {{citation |last=Coxhead |first=Peter |title=The Pools of Sutton Park |url=http://www.sp.scnhs.org.uk/lakes.html |publisher=Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society |accessdate=14 September 2010}}
    Coxhead, Peter, The Pools of Sutton Park, Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society, retrieved 14 September 2010 
    ...but I don't think that the title should be italicized either. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    "Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society" isn't the name of the website; it isn't the title of any published work. So it shouldn't be italicized. As GoingBatty notes, it's the publisher. The individual web page title shouldn't be italicized as it's only a component of the un-titled website. The best that can be done with {{Citation}} is probably something like:
    • {{citation |last=Coxhead |first=Peter |title=The Pools of Sutton Park |url=http://www.sp.scnhs.org.uk/lakes.html |website=sp.scnhs.org.uk |publisher=Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society |accessdate=14 September 2010}}Coxhead, Peter, "The Pools of Sutton Park", sp.scnhs.org.uk (Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society), retrieved 14 September 2010 
    In reality if I had to use a citation like this in an article using CS2 I would now have to use {{cite web}}:
    • {{cite web |last=Coxhead |first=Peter |title=The Pools of Sutton Park |url=http://www.sp.scnhs.org.uk/lakes.html |publisher=Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society |accessdate=14 September 2010 |separator=, |postscript=none }}Coxhead, Peter, "The Pools of Sutton Park", Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society, retrieved 14 September 2010 
    But this is not acceptable in my view; some way must be provided for users of {{Citation}} to produce correct citations in cases like these. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, one might do this:
    {{citation |last=Coxhead |first=Peter |title=The Pools of Sutton Park |url=http://www.sp.scnhs.org.uk/lakes.html |website=Sutton Park |publisher=Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society |accessdate=14 September 2010}}
    Coxhead, Peter, "The Pools of Sutton Park", Sutton Park (Sutton Coldfield Natural History Society), retrieved 14 September 2010 
    The banner image at the top of the left column identifies the target page as part of the Sutton Park web site. This I think is preferable to using sp.scnhs.org.uk which requires that readers decode it to understand it.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    But now you've just invented a website name – a plausible one certainly, but still your invention. The fundamental problem remains: I don't need to invent a website name if I use {{cite web}}; I do now if I use {{citation}}. I'm not persuaded that this is right. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    • In some cases it will be more seriously wrong, with an error message. See Category:Pages with citations having wikilinks embedded in URL titles for 1200+ pages with problems, many of which (all the mathematics ones I checked) are caused by this change: they had a wikilinked title, and an external-linked (with |url=) contribution or chapter, but this change caused both links to be placed on the same text, causing multiple problems: (1) the wikilink coding is shown visibly rather than creating a wikilink, (2) the external link is in the wrong place, and (3) we get a red error message. My suspicion is that with so many of these errors, there are bound to be many many more harder-to-find errors where this change caused the link to be placed on the wrong text but there wasn't something else there causing a visible error. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    I moved your post out of Editor Peter Coxhead's post to here. Except for its position, your post is unmolested.
    I acknowledge that there will be / are new errors that arise from this change. For the long term though, editors will benefit from the more rational way that CS1 and CS2 deal with the chapter (and alias) parameter set: |chapter=, |chapter-url=, |trans-chapter=, |chapter-format= all work together as a suite. This in comparison to the promiscuous |url= of old which would abandon |title= and |trans-title= if |chapter= were present and not escorted by |chapter-url=. No more. Now, |url=, in keeping with its documented function, is bound to the title parameter set: |title=, |script-title=, and |trans-title=; it must compete with |title-link=.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    You've broken a lot of existing citations, broken the software I've been using to format citations, and (by using longer and harder-to-remember parameter names) made the templates more complicated and more difficult for human users to format. That doesn't seem like progress to me. Where is the discussion of and consensus for this big change? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    I am never silent about what I do. The discussion about |chapter= was at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 6#Chapter and its associated parameters.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    So in other words it was never discussed at a talk page relevant to this template. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein: you are quite right; the discussion has been overwhelmingly directed at CS1, and problems that the changes have caused to CS2 don't seem to matter. As I noted above, I cannot now achieve the same citation style with {{citation}} that I can with {{cite web}}, yet I see no consensus for this change. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

    Why is contribution level parameter now being ignored[edit]

    I couldn't follow the discussion above, so this may be a duplicate, but the recent change to this template has been detrimental to some existing citations. Based on the documentation for this template, and former functionality, we could specify a contribution level parameter (ie chapter, contribution, entry, article, section) in addition to title & work, but that is no longer working, such as in this example:

    • {{citation |contribution-url= http://www.lds.org/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng |contribution= Baptisms for the Dead |title= Gospel Topics |work= LDS.org |publisher= LDS Church }}
    • "Gospel Topics", LDS.org (LDS Church)  |chapter= ignored (help)

    It works slightly different if I just use the url parameter; previously that would default to the lowest level (ie contribution if defined; if contribution not defined then title), but the template is still not displaying the contribution level:

    • {{citation |url= http://www.lds.org/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng |contribution= Baptisms for the Dead |title= Gospel Topics |work= LDS.org |publisher= LDS Church }}
    • "Gospel Topics", LDS.org (LDS Church)  |chapter= ignored (help)

    I assume this is a bug, but I'm not completely sure; can this be fixed if it is, and if this is somehow a new "feature", could someone explain the reasoning for this? Asterisk*Splat 19:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

    One possible workaround is to use |series= instead of |work=:
    • {{citation |url= http://www.lds.org/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng |contribution= Baptisms for the Dead |title= Gospel Topics |series= LDS.org |publisher= LDS Church }}
    • "Baptisms for the Dead", Gospel Topics, LDS.org, LDS Church 
    I note that |website= gives the same problems as |work=. Possibly this is the same issue as the one being discussed for {{cite conference}} at Help talk:Citation Style 1? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    {{citation}} needs to be able to figure out how you want the rendered citation to appear. It makes this determination based on the content of various parameters, most notably |work= (or any of its aliases: journal, newspaper, magazine, website). When {{citation}} templates use |work= or any of its aliases, the |chapter= parameters are ignored because periodicals and websites don't, as a general rule, have chapters. When this occurs, |title= contains the title of the article or web page, |work= is the journal or newspaper or magazine or website name.
    You could do this:
    {{citation |url= http://www.lds.org/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng |title= Baptisms for the Dead |work=LDS Church}}
    which gives:
    "Baptisms for the Dead", LDS Church 
    Editor David Eppstein's suggestion to drop |work= and use |series= 'works' because |work= when empty or omitted, tells {{citation}} that it is to render the citation as a book. This looks ok but produces less that ideal metadata because the cited website is not a book nor is the not-book part of a series.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Where did this dogmatic view of what periodicals can't possibly ever do come from, and who endorsed putting it into the template code? Periodicals absolutely do have two-level structures to some of their publications: individual pieces within a regular column, papers within a journal special issue, individual headlines within a news roundup, individual problems within a mathematics journal's problem column, etc. We need some way to refer to these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Is Gospel Topics a regular column? If so, use |department=. --  Gadget850 talk 21:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Gospel Topics a reference work that is similar to, but not the same as an encyclopedia. The individual entry in the example I gave is "Baptisms for the Dead", the collection of entries is called "Gospel Topics" which is located on "LDS.org" and is published by the "LDS Church", and without all four of these elements the citation is incomplete. For many years we've been able to accommodate this structure using the contribution, title, work, and publisher parameters, and I still don't understand why suddenly this has to break &/or is no longer supported. Asterisk*Splat 20:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Editor David Eppstein: Do you have real life examples? Editors can also use |at=.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    All of the examples I listed are real-life. The proceedings of SIGGRAPH are published as journal issues: how are we supposed to format the journal, the fact that it's the proceedings of a conference, and the title of an individual paper in a single citation without abusing |series=? We cite many problems from the problems column of the American Mathematical Monthly; the first one I found in a quick search was in Erdős–Mordell inequality, which just lists the problem number and the journal, but this will probably eventually cause problems for software like User:Citation bot because the actual title of the publication as listed by JStor is "Problems for Solution: 3739-3743" and we want to pick out one component from within that title. For many citations to subheadings within a roundup of news articles published within a journal that were all properly formatted a month ago when I added them and broken by this change, see ICTP Ramanujan Prize. Note also that in the last example, ignoring |contribution= means that the authorship is attributed incorrectly: each subheading of the "Mathematics people" article is individually signed (or not), so when these instances of {{citation}} have authors the author should be indicated as having written the contribution, but instead they are incorrectly indicated as having written the entire "Mathematics people" article. This incorrect attribution cannot be fixed by your suggested abuse of the |at= parameter. You might as well suggest we write the whole citation in the |id= parameter and not structure our data properly. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

    department: Regular department within the periodical. Displays after work and is in plain text.

    • {{citation | last = Bankoff | first = Leon | author-link = Leon Bankoff | journal = [[American Mathematical Monthly]] | page = 521 | title = An elementary proof of the Erdős-Mordell theorem | issue = 7 | jstor = 2308580 | volume = 65 | year = 1958 | department= Problems and Solutions}}
    Bankoff, Leon (1958), "An elementary proof of the Erdős-Mordell theorem", Problems and Solutions, American Mathematical Monthly 65 (7): 521, JSTOR 2308580 

    --  Gadget850 talk 01:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

    This doesn't address the fact that in the example I gave, I want to cite "Problem 3740" and the title of the article it appears in is something else, "Problems for Solution: 3739-3743". The department that you list is yet another level of subdivision intermediate between the article title and the journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry. No more ideas. Out. --  Gadget850 talk 02:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    I do want to thank you for the |department= idea. It seems to be working well as a workaround on the Ramanujan prize examples. At least until a bot comes along and changes the |title= back to what the journal says the title is. Or until Trappist the monk gets it into his head that of course scientific journals can't have departments, disables that parameter for citations that have |journal=, and forces us to use |newspaper= instead as another workaround. (And if you think that example is ludicrous, see over on CS1 where suddenly {{cite conference}} is deprecated, conference proceedings citations don't exist any more, and they're all being made to be formatted as if they were encyclopedia articles.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    Re SIGGRAPH: Perhaps follow the example I found here where there is a bibcode structure that looks like this:
    @article{fakscm_metarep_sig14,
    AUTHOR = "Noa Fish* and Melinos Averkiou* and Oliver van Kaick and Olga Sorkine-Hornung and Daniel Cohen-Or and Niloy J. Mitra",
    TITLE = "Meta-representation of Shape Families",
    JOURNAL = "Transactions on Graphics (Special issue of SIGGRAPH 2014)",
    YEAR = "2014",
    numpages = {11},
    note = {* joint first authors}
    }
    Except for numpages which we don't support, that translates to this to which I've added |url= and |format=:
    {{citation |first=Noa |last=Fish |first2=Melinos |last2=Averkiou |first3=Oliver |last3=van Kaick |first4=Olga |last4=Sorkine-Hornung |first5=Daniel |last5=Cohen-Or |first6=Niloy J. |last6=Mitra |title=Meta-representation of Shape Families |journal=Transactions on Graphics (Special issue of SIGGRAPH 2014) |url=http://vecg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/Projects/SmartGeometry/metarep/paper_docs/metaRepresentation_sigg14.pdf |format=pdf |date=2014}}
    and that renders into this:
    Fish, Noa; Averkiou, Melinos; van Kaick, Oliver; Sorkine-Hornung, Olga; Cohen-Or, Daniel; Mitra, Niloy J. (2014), "Meta-representation of Shape Families" (pdf), Transactions on Graphics (Special issue of SIGGRAPH 2014) 
    Alternately, using |conference=SIGGRAPH 2014:
    Fish, Noa; Averkiou, Melinos; van Kaick, Oliver; Sorkine-Hornung, Olga; Cohen-Or, Daniel; Mitra, Niloy J. (2014), "Meta-representation of Shape Families" (pdf), SIGGRAPH 2014, Transactions on Graphics 
    From JSTOR:
    3740
    Paul Erdös, L. J. Mordell and David F. Barrow
    The American Mathematical Monthly
    Vol. 44, No. 4 (Apr., 1937), pp. 252-254
    Published by: Mathematical Association of America
    Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2300713
    Using the above with |at=3740 p. 252 we get:
    Erdös, Paul; Mordell, L. J.; Barrow, David F. (April 1937), "Problems and Solutions", American Mathematical Monthly 44 (4), 3740 p. 252, JSTOR 2300713 
    Taking away |at= and using |department=Problems and Solutions and |title=3740 we get this:
    Erdös, Paul; Mordell, L. J.; Barrow, David F. (April 1937), "3740", Problems and Solutions, American Mathematical Monthly 44 (4): 252, JSTOR 2300713 
    Similarly, |department= is an appropriate parameter for the ICTP Ramanujan Prize:
    Jackson, Allyn (February 2008), "Lauret Awarded ICTP/IMU Ramanujan Prize" (pdf), Mathematics People, Notices of the AMS 55 (2): 265 
    I notice that the |department= documentation says: Displays after work and is in plain text. This is incorrect. It should read: Displays before work and is in plain text. I'll fix that.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    A subheading of an article or department could be specified with |at=, since it is location information. However, the page number, if needed, would have to be put into |at= since |at= and |page= are mutually exclusive. Example
    {{citation|journal=Spectrum| department=News |at ="A better test than Turing", pp. 20–1 | date = October 2014}}
    • , News, Spectrum, October 2014, "A better test than Turing", pp. 20–1 
    But this example illustrates that giving a department name without giving a title for that department doesn't work right. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    Why would you do that? The article title is "A better test than Turing", why put it in |at=? Suppose you wanted to cite the box at the end of the article, you might do this:
    Ackerman, Evan (October 2014), "A better test than Turing" (pdf), News, Spectrum, Anatomy of an AI Test, p. 21 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    Magazines and journals don't have metadata that says "This is an article, it begins at this spot and ends at this other spot." They just arrange text and leave it to the reader to decide what is an article and what isn't. I decided "A better test than Turing" is a section within the News department. Chicago (14th ed. § 14.202 says "Titles of regular departments in a magazine are capitalized headline-style but not put in quotation marks." An example is given that has both a department title, Talk of the Town (Ink) and a title, "Isn't it Romantic?" But looking at the New Yorker website they seem to have one topic per issue in the Talk of the Town (Ink) department, while Spectrum has several topics per issue in their News department. So I don't think there is any clear-cut way to decide if one heading among several in a magazine department counts as an article. I'm sure it won't be obvious to editors using the Citation template.


    More generally, it may be convenient to name a heading with |at= that is unambiguously a section heading, and certainly not an article; this could come up with any kind of article, not just departments. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    At the New Yorker TOC for 1 December 2013, scroll down to The Talk of the Town. There, it would seem, are multiple 'things' with titles so:
    Paumgarten, Nick (1 December 2014), "Ink: Grappling", The Talk of the Town, The New Yorker 
    Alas, no heading in that article. The 'Ink' tag appears to be a semi-regular 'category'; the tag 'Comment' is quite regular, but then they use tags like 'Bob's Boys' from the 8 December 2014 issue. What are we to make of that? |title=Bob's Boys: All natural?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    For me, which heading to use the title of a journal article is usually unambiguous: it's what the journal's web page for the article lists as a title, and what appears in the table of contents. The supposed formatting for the solution to problem 3740 above is ok, for instance, because that's what it lists, but it again misses the point, because the reference that I was having trouble formatting is not that one (where the solution was published) but the earlier one where the problem was posed. And |at= is usable as a catch-all in case the existing parameters fail to work, but doesn't seem to have any way of having a url attached to it, and the inability to use both |at= and |pages= is again problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've occasionally wondered if there isn't some way to allow either |page= or |pages= and |at=. I've never reached a determination. |at= can be linked. This is the previous example with |at=[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2300713 3740] p. 252
    Erdös, Paul; Mordell, L. J.; Barrow, David F. (April 1937), "Problems and Solutions", American Mathematical Monthly 44 (4), 3740 p. 252, JSTOR 2300713 
    I guess I'm not understanding what it is you're looking for. How would citing problem 3740 be different from citing solution 3740?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    They are two different publications in two different issues of the journal. Problem 3740 (the one in which the problem was posed) is part of a larger set of problems; the set of problems has a jstor id (or doi) and a title referring to the whole set, but I want to actually refer only to one problem within that set. (In particular, I want to give authorship credit to the person who posed that problem, and not to the other people listed as aggregate authors of the set of problems). The solution to problem 3740 is a separate citation for a later issue of the journal where a solution was published; it has (or could have) different authors than the original problem statement, it certainly has different volume/issue/page data, and in this case is less problematic because it happens to be listed by jstor as its own separate publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I have to say it is ludicrous that we can no longer specify something as basic and as essential as a chapter in a long document. Take Motion picture rating system#cite note-66 for example, which specifies a chapter in a 30-page document (which is divided by chapters). I am sure there are hacks to get around this, but i) that's a lot of unnecessary fixing and ii) you should be able to specify the chapter in the chapter parameter. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    You can, but that citation isn't clearly citing the document. The chapter and title belong to the document in the window and the url points to the web page that has the document and a video and a twitter feed and some other stuff.
    Consider these, first as {{citation}} and then as {{cite publication}} (a redirect to {{cite book}}):
    "Chapter IV – Movie, Television and Trailer Classification" (pdf), 2004 Implementing Rules and Regulations, Philippines: Movie and Television Review and Classification Board 
    "Chapter IV – Movie, Television and Trailer Classification" (pdf). 2004 Implementing Rules and Regulations. Philippines: Movie and Television Review and Classification Board. 
    or your example citation, unchanged except that instead of {{cite web}} it is {{cite publication}}:
    "Chapter IV – Movie, Television and Trailer Classification". 2004 Implementing Rules and Regulations. Phillipines: Movie and Television Review and Classification Board. Retrieved 24 April 2014. 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)