Help talk:Citation Style 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Transcript parameter for cite podcast[edit]

Can a parameter for linking to a transcript be added to Template:Cite podcast?-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We already have |transcript-url= in the CS1 module, but it appears that it is not currently used in any citations that use the CS1 module for rendering (I could be wrong). It is used in {{cite serial}} and {{cite episode}}, but those still use the old citation/core code. Adding it to cite podcast should be straightforward but would take some new code. Let's see if it works already:
Cite podcast compare
{{ cite podcast | host=Jack Handey | title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 | transcript=Episode 123 transcript | transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript | url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 }}
Old Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123.
Live Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). 
Sandbox Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). 
No, it looks like it doesn't work yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. What is the purpose of local TranscriptAssemble?
  2. Shouldn't we first find out why terminal punctuation isn't present before hard coding the terminal period in the way that you have done it here?
  3. Do you have test cases that show that your changes do no harm when |transcript-url= is missing or empty?
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've tried again; I've corrected the needed modifications and included testcases below. The test citation template is {{cite podcast/sandbox2}}, which invokes the modified Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4, which calls the modified Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3. The only change in the configuration module not documented below is that Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox4 calls Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox3 under function z.citation(frame) rather than Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox. (I was loathe to edit existing sandboxes for fear of disrupting other testcases; I don't know what standard practice is with regard to the sandboxes.)

Two parts of Module:Citation/CS1 need to be modified:

Line numbers 1817–1821

Currently:

   if is_set(Transcript) then
       if is_set(TranscriptURL) then Transcript = externallink( TranscriptURL, Transcript ); end 
   elseif is_set(TranscriptURL) then 
       Transcript = externallink( TranscriptURL, nil, TranscriptURLorigin ); 
   end

Proposed modification: (I added some additional line breaks to make the code more readable.)

   if is_set(Transcript) then 
       if is_set(TranscriptURL) then 
           Transcript = sepc .. " " .. externallink( TranscriptURL, Transcript ); 
       else 
           Transcript = sepc .. " " .. seterror('transcript_missing_url'); 
       end 
   elseif is_set(TranscriptURL) then
       Transcript = sepc .. " " .. seterror('transcripturl_missing_transcript'); 
   else 
       Transcript = ""; 
   end
Line number 1906

Currently:

   local idcommon = safejoin( { ID_list, URL, Archived, AccessDate, Via, SubscriptionRequired, Lay, Quote }, sepc ); 

Proposed modification:

   local idcommon = safejoin( { ID_list, URL, Archived, AccessDate, Via, Lay, Transcript, Quote, SubscriptionRequired }, sepc ); 

Additionally, Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration will need two new error messages in the citation_config.error_conditions section. I don't know what determines whether an error message is hidden or not; I would think these should always show, but I could be mistaken. Note that the category called by the errors doesn't currently exist; if it shouldn't be created, please comment out the category name. (I personally see no harm in having a new error category; it is not likely to ever have very many pages in it, but would be useful in tracking this particular error.) Please let me know if I need to create the category.

Proposed insertion after line 364
   transcript_missing_url = { 
        message = '<code>&#124;transcript=</code> requires <code>&#124;transcript-url=</code>', 
anchor = 'transcript_missing_url',
category = 'Pages with transcripturl citation errors',
hidden = false },
   transcripturl_missing_transcript = { 
        message = '<code>&#124;transcript-url=</code> requires <code>&#124;transcript=</code>', 
anchor = 'transcripturl_missing_transcript',
category = 'Pages with transcripturl citation errors',
hidden = false },

To answer the questions above:

  1. I don't know the purpose of local TranscriptAssemble; it was present in the sandbox I edited; it is no longer part of the proposed modifications.
  2. The terminal punctuation was a flaw in the sandbox I was using. "Clean" sandboxes, with the changes above, eliminate this error.
  3. Here are the testcases:
    1. Includes both |transcript-url= and |transcript= with data in both:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). Episode 123 transcript. 
    2. Omits both |transcript-url= and |transcript=:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). 
    3. Both |transcript-url= and |transcript= are present but empty:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url= |transcript=}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). 
    4. Only |transcript= is present, but empty:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript=}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). 
    5. Only |transcript-url= is present, but empty:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). 
    6. Both parameters are present; however, only |transcript= is populated; |transcript-url= is empty. This now emits an error message:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url= |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). |transcript= requires |transcript-url= (help). 
    7. Only |transcript= is present and populated; |transcript-url= is not present. This now emits an error message:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript=Episode 123 transcript}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). |transcript= requires |transcript-url= (help). 
    8. Both parameters are present; however, only |transcript-url= is populated; |transcript= is empty. This now emits an error message:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript |transcript=}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). |transcript-url= requires |transcript= (help). 
    9. Only |transcript-url= is present and populated; |transcript= is not present. This now emits an error message:
      {{cite podcast/sandbox2 |title=Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123 |host=Jack Handey |url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123 |transcript-url=http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript}}
      Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). |transcript-url= requires |transcript= (help). 

I'm not adept at coding in Lua; I had hoped that someone with more knowledge would springboard off what I had discovered and make any further changes needed to comply with the rest of the template coding. I was trying to help move the process along; I hope this is enough to get the changes made with any additional modifications known to be needed by someone who's adept at this! I'm learning as I go; hopefully, I'll keep getting better at it. (I have experience in other coding languages; Lua/Scribunto is not among them; I've bookmarked the relevant reference manual.) Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 11:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been wondering if idcommon is the correct location of the transcript text. It seems reasonable to assume that the podcast could be archived, could require a subscription (which might make the use of |quote= desirable) would then make this:
Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). Archived from the original on 2014-07-02. Episode 123 transcript. "Quoted text.". (subscription required (help)) 
{{cite episode}} places the transcript after |series= by using {{citation/core}} parameter |Other= (|others=). Perhaps something similar should be considered for {{cite podcast}}. Here I've used |others=[http://www.deepthoughts.org/podcast/123/transcript Episode 123 transcript] to mimic the positioning used by {{cite episode}}:
Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). Episode 123 transcript. Archived from the original on 2014-07-02. "Quoted text.". (subscription required (help)) 
As an aside, I'm thinking that the position of the subscription note should be moved so that it is the last thing rendered in the citation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with moving subscription to the end; I've done so and your example above parses better. Below is an example testing the use of |registration= rather than |subscription= to ensure that it also falls at the end of the citation:
Jack Handey. "Deep Thoughts with Jack Handey, episode 123" (Podcast). Episode 123 transcript. Archived from the original on 2014-07-02. "Quoted text.". (registration required (help)) 
As for the placement used by {{cite episode}}; I dislike that the archive information appears after the transcript; it's less clear what is archived, the podcast, or the transcript?
It occurs to me that the transcript might be archived or require a subscription as well; do we want to go there?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 16:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Trappist the monk Will the changes above be implemented soon?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 13:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps; just now beginning to return from Wikibreak. Is there really a need for the |transcript= requires |transcript-url= error message?
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about the error messages one way or the other; I would like to see the corrections included in the forthcoming update to the code since the original request for this fix was two months ago. What are your obejctions?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 19:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Idea for adding a field called (e.g.) "archiveurl-added-date"[edit]

Sorry if I have come to the wrong place to ask a question, /slash add a "comment" (to suggest an idea). Any help / advice would be welcome, in that case.

Background[edit]

While reading the article Von Neumann architecture, I noticed that the first footnote (footnote number [1]) was a "dead link" ("See also" [dead link].) I was able to find an "archived" copy of the dearly departed "deceased" web page (which was previously at the URL http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf ). The "archived" copy was found at https://web.archive.org/web/20130314123032/http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf .

Then, while I was updating the "<ref>...</ref>" tag, for footnote number "[1]", to add some fields such as "archiveurl" and "archivedate" (and "deadurl = yes"), I tried adding a field called "archiveurl_added_date"; but that did not work. (I got some error messages...)! I later decided that maybe "archiveurl-added-date" would be better (minus sign "-" characters, instead of underscore "_" characters), but way before that, I started snooping around, and somehow found my way to Help:Citation_Style_1 ... and I saw that it has an "Elements_not_included" section.

"Great!" [I thought]. I started to an an item to the list there. The existing list says:

  • The total number of pages in a cited source
  • The name of the library that provided access to an electronic copy of a cited source
  • The name of the library that owns a physical copy of a cited work
  • The library record and/or shelf location of a physical copy of a cited work

and I was about to edit that list, there, and add a new item, saying something like:

  • [as of July 28, 2014] The "archiveurl_added_date" -- that is, the date when "| deadurl = yes" and "archiveurl = [...]" and "archivedate = [...]" fields were added to remedy a "[dead link]" situation. This can happen -- [that is, the "archiveurl_added_date" can be (of necessity) different from the "archivedate" field value] -- in a situation where a new "archive" copy (e.g. using webcite) [of an on-line source] cannot be created, with the "archiveurl_added_date" the same as the "archivedate", due to a "[dead link]" situation. ...and since a "[dead link]" situation is a very popular time to add "| deadurl = yes" and "archiveurl = [...]" and "archivedate = [...]" fields, this situation could well arise.

...but I quickly realized that (a) it was getting too long; and (b) it was starting to contain some material that is more appropriate for a "Talk:" page, than for a NON-"Talk:" page. (Is there a correct name for a NON-"Talk:" page? Maybe in this case, it is just [called] a "Help:" page? Sorry...).

So, I tentatively decided to add this question, /slash "comment" (to suggest an idea) here on this "Talk:" page.

But meanwhile, I went back, and modified my revisions to footnote number "[1]" of the article about Von Neumann architecture. The details of my "edit" can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Von_Neumann_architecture&diff=618928560&oldid=616552075 .

Why I thought a new field would be a good idea[edit]

As you can see from my edit, the newly updated "<ref>...</ref>" tag, has an "| archivedate = March 14, 2013" -- because that is the creation date, of the "archived" copy of the "deceased" web page (which was previously at the URL http://qss.stanford.edu/~godfrey/vonNeumann/vnedvac.pdf ).

I did not change the "| accessdate = August 24, 2011", because I thought I was supposed to leave that, as the last known date when the URL shown in the "url" field was used (and worked OK).

Is that my mistake? Should I maybe have changed "| accessdate = [...]", to reflect the date when the "archiveurl" field was added? I could be wrong, but I didn't think so.

Or MAYBE ... no one cares about the date when the "archiveurl" field was added? If so, then kindly disregard this entire comment [section]!

Or MAYBE ... the "temporary" solution I used, should just be used permanently? (That is, the "solution" of documenting the date when the "archiveurl" field was added, but just doing so outside of the "{{citation}}" tag). (See the LINK to the edit I made [also shown above].) If so, then Case Closed. However, I would be surprised.

Any comments would be welcomed. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. If people really need to find out when an |archiveurl= was added, there is always the page history. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the LONG explanation, but your instinct was correct when you guessed that no one cares (while reading the article) when the archiveurl field was added to the article, just as we don't have |citation-added= or |title-added= or |url-added=. The article history suffices if people are sufficiently interested in determining when a specific piece of text was added to an article or its references.
The purpose of a citation is to help a reader locate a source so that they can verify that the source supports a statement in an article. Knowing when an archiveurl was added to a citation does not help a reader do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I normally strip |accessdate= for citations I "wikt:resurrect" by |archiveurl= and |archivedate=, as these two already provide enough information about the measures of link rot prevention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 00:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't do that unless you personally verify that the source says what we're citing it as saying. It's not a safe assumption that a page read and cited in 2005 said then what is says when it was archived in 2013 before disappearing. It may have been edited many times between 2005 and 2013, and if the 2013 version does not have the material that it did in 2005, it may in fact be a dead citation to a source that can never be used for verification and thus which has to be replaced in due course.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of "via" parameter[edit]

I see that in a recent use I made of the "via" parameter in {{Cite news}} that there is no exposed information when the template is rendered; see the diff leading to this version of the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak article. This is contrary to documentation and I'm wondering if the parameter is broken or it is excluded from display due to the presence of another parameter. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't use it as a parameter, just as text in the |publisher= field. I changed it to |via= and it displays properly now.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 15:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Template for primary source document[edit]

The article John Roselli states that Roselli testified before the Church Committee on June 24, 1975, however, the statement is unsourced. I am interested in using a primary source document, [1], as a citation for that material. The document is essentially a transcript typed up by the shorthand reporting company Ward & Paul and I imagine it was obtained via the FOIA. I am unsure as to which citation template to use, and I don't know what to put as |publisher= or if I need to use |archiveurl= and |archivedate=. Any help on this would be appreciated. Thanks! Location (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would use {{cite web}} as follows:
<ref>{{cite web |title=Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli |url=https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1446&relPageId=3 |website=Mary Ferrell Foundation |publisher=United States Senate |accessdate=August 6, 2014 |date=June 24, 1975}}</ref>
Which displays as:
"Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli". Mary Ferrell Foundation. United States Senate. June 24, 1975. Retrieved August 6, 2014. 
If you want to cite a particular page at that site, just include the page number of the document; I would recommend using the url for the first page, however, as above. Hope this helps!—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 21:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! Location (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Location, D'Ranged 1: I wouldn't put "Marry Ferrell Foundation" in the |website= parameter because it's the name of a website published by the U.S. Senate. Rather, I would put it in the |via= parameter to indicate that it's it the entity republishing the report. Actually, the Senate committee should be listed as the author of the report, and the actual publisher (Ward & Paul in Washington, DC) should be listed, and {{cite report}} would be a better option (although it currently doesn't support |via= ). That would give something like:
or
Imzadi 1979  22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that "Ward & Paul" ought to be mentioned. Normally the Senate has its own stenographers (either in the room, or working from a tape recording), and the details of that and who transcribed it, etc., are internal to the publisher (i.e., the Senate). That wouldn't change if the publisher contracted out part of the work. On the other hand, if a non-official party takes notes and transcribes them, it is a different publication and publisher. Seems to me more information is needed to properly document this source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I am a bit confused as to the author/publisher relationship for primary source documents like this. It appears as though the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities is both the author and publisher, and Mary Ferrell foundation is the republisher. How would this relationship be affected if a notable person typed up a letter, printed it, and the recipient placed it on line? Who is the publisher in that instance? Location (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  The author is generally the person who makes the remarks, who is responsible for them. E.g., Mr. Roselli is "author" of his remarks, Sen. Church of his, etc. And where a report is written by committee, that committee would be the author. However, if (say) a reporter quotes Mr. Roselli and Sen. Church in article that you read, then you would cite the reporter as author of the article, wherein the others are quoted. This gets trickier where a committee publishes a transcript of a hearing, which is essentially just a mass of quotation. But as everyone's remarks are all part of a whole, which is under the auspices of the committee, which arranges the transcription and recording, I think it is reasonable to deem the committee to be the responsible "author" of this record. Though I wonder if "editor" might be more appropriate. The publisher, who arranges to make the work publicly available, would be (in this case) the U.S. Senate, or the U.S. Government Printing Office.
  In your example, the "notable person" is the author of his/her remarks, and the party placing it on-line would be the publisher. But publishing usually implies some editorial responsibility (e.g., the publisher is reputable, vouches for the item's authenticity and provenance, etc.), whereas an unknown person's pasting of something onto the wall of the Web is more akin to blogging, and may raise WP:RS issues. This leads into why we are generally enjoined to avoid using primary sources; in a secondary source the information is presumed to have passed another level of evaluation. I hope that helps, and that I haven't stirred up too much mud. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The primary purpose of citations is to direct the reader to the source of the information. Since the source is at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, that information needs to be included; however, it works to put it in the |via= parameter:

<ref>{{cite web |title=Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli |url=https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1446&relPageId=3 |via=Mary Ferrell Foundation |publisher=United States Senate |accessdate=August 6, 2014 |date=June 24, 1975}}</ref>

Which displays as:

"Report of Proceedings; Hearing held before Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities; Testimony of Mr. John Roselli". United States Senate. June 24, 1975. Retrieved August 6, 2014 – via Mary Ferrell Foundation. 

To me, it is less clear that the source is a website in either example I have given; you might want to use "www.maryferrell.org" instead of the name of the foundation. While the report is being cited, the source is the website, not the report, so the {{cite web}} is the correct template. If whoever cited the report did so from a hard copy of it, then you would use {{cite report}}. (I make this same distinction between {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}; I only use the latter if I'm citing from an actual physical copy of an article. If I'm citing something I found on the internet, I use {{cite web}}. Other editors use them interchangeably when citing newspaper articles.) Arguably, you could list the committee name as the author, but the citation as above is sufficient to direct the reader to the source. The publisher is the U.S. Senate, regardless of who transcribed the proceedings—they would have had to release the tape recording from which the transcription was made. While I agree with the comments about primary sources; it would seem in this instance that the source is an actual photocopy or microfiche of the transcription that has been approved for release by the CIA; I wouldn't think that it would fail a reliable sources test.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 21:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so dense about this. Why would Mary Ferrell Foundation or www.maryferrell.org not be the publisher if "publisher" is defined as the entity who disseminates the information or arranges to make the material publicly available? Is it because it was the US Senate/USGPO that ultimately made it available via FOIA request or other records release? RE {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}: Approximately 95% of the material I use is that which I have found via the internet, and I will admit that I use {{cite news}} for everything I find via the GNews archives. I thought this was acceptable, particularly since it includes |url= which it not applicable to a hard copy that I might possess. Thanks to all for the feedback! Location (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a case where the MLA citation style "gets it right", I think. Let's say I'm going to cite a journal article reprinted in a college textbook. In the MLA style, I would cite the original source followed by "Rpt. in" and the full citation information about the reprinted copy. For example:
  • Spann, M. Graham. "NASCAR Racing Fans: Cranking Up an Empirical Approach." Journal of Popular Culture. 36.2 (Fall 2002)L 353–360. Rpt. in Profiles of Popular Culture: A Reader. Ed. Ray B. Brown. Madison: U of Wisconsin Popular P, 2005. 38–45. Print.
This sort of approach satisfies WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT by, well, saying where you got the source, by crediting the book that republished the article, while also properly crediting the original source, which is an article in a scholarly journal. (Any specific pages I'd cite would be based on the pagination used in the book copy, but if a reader could only find the original journal article, he/she could still verify the information with some effort.)
In your case, you're citing a committee transcript reprinted/republished online by a third party. In our CS1 style, the republisher is mentioned through our |via= parameter. This is useful for saying you got the copy of the source through Google Books, Google News, Highbeam Research, etc. and not the original publisher. The U.S. Senate, or the specific publishing company/office, is the original publisher, and they made the original document publicly available. Mary Ferrell Foundation is just mechanically republishing it online. We would never say that a "Microfilm Archival Corporation" is the publisher of an article from The New York Times that I consulted in the library on microfilm, but if for some reason we should credit them, they'd go in the |via= parameter. (The terms of the collaborations with various news archive sources say that we're supposed to credit them.)
@D'Ranged 1: you're improperly making a distinction the documentation doesn't tell us to make. All of the various CS1 templates will support |url= and related parameters for online copies. {{Cite web}} is really for any type of online source where there isn't a more specific template. An online map is still a map, and {{cite web}} does not support the parameters to indicate the cartographer, the scale, etc, which are still items that should be cited for any map, even if you consulted a copy of the map online. How do you properly indicate the wire agency behind a newspaper article in {{cite web}} when |agency= is only found in {{cite news}}? How do you indicate the volume/issue/page for a journal article mechanically reproduced online when {{cite web}} lacks those parameters? Imzadi 1979  02:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I use {{cite web}} for information that doesn't have a specific template; not for everything. In the case of a journal published/accessed online, I use {{cite journal}}, etc. I'm a stickler, however, to using {{cite web}} instead of {{cite news}} for an article from an online version of a printed newspaper, however, regardless of the inclusion of |url= in {{cite news}}. I reserve use of {{cite news}} for printed works. You'll find, also, that the documentation for the Citation Style 1 templates is woefully inadequate and sometimes inaccurate—using |agency= with {{cite web}} works perfectly well:
{{cite web |title=World Gold |date=December 31, 1980 |accessdate=August 8, 2014 |website=nytimes.com |url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D01E1DF133EE532A25752C3A9649D94619FD6CF |agency=The Associated Press}}
"World Gold". nytimes.com. The Associated Press. December 31, 1980. Retrieved August 8, 2014. 
If I were citing a paper copy of the newspaper, it would be different:
{{cite news |title=World Gold |date=December 31, 1980 |publisher=The New York Times |page=72 |agency=The Associated Press}}
"World Gold". The New York Times. The Associated Press. December 31, 1980. p. 72. 
I specifically stated that other editors use the two templates interchangeably; I have no objection to this, but prefer to make the distinction. I think if I were King of the Forest there might be far fewer templates with more parameters available to them. The templates would be based on what the medium being cited was—print, film, web, etc. I realize that specialized templates serve to remind editors of what information they should include in a citation, but there are drawbacks there, too. It's an imperfect world.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 05:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
|publisher=The New York Times is incorrect. It may be |work=The New York Times or |newspaper=The New York Times as you see fit; but according to Contacts and Services - The New York Times, the publisher is Arthur Sulzberger Jr. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64 is correct: the name of a newspaper is never "publisher". One important reason for this is that the names of newspapers go in italics. But in addition to that, I think D'Ranged1 is wrong to make a distinction between the web version and the paper version. When citing the online version we should still use |newspaper=The New York Times, in my view. -- Alarics (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted in the {{cite news}} documentation, the template is "used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web."
  • {{Cite web}} does document |agency=.
  • {{Cite web}} does document |page= and other in-source location parameters.
--  Gadget850 talk 18:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The publisher (title) of The New York Times is indeed Arthur Sulzberger, but the publisher (company) is The New York Times Company. For citation purposes, the publisher (title) is not used; rather iff a publisher is noted, it's the company. This compares to the publisher of books, which is the company, or its imprint, listed on the title page. Imzadi 1979  02:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposing minor changes to the "Cite" box[edit]

I was pointed here from the Help Desk. I've started using the "Cite" form in the GUI editor more and more, in lieu of manually typing {{cite web|blablabla}}. I understand that clicking "Show/Hide Extra Fields" will show probably more fields than most people would use anyway, but there are still some fields that I wish it included. One is subscription=yes/no. I also wish that the format field in the GUI was a dropdown instead of free text, which included some of the most popular formats, such as PDF, DOC or XLS. First, is this the place I should be discussing this? If so, what is the process for making a request and discussing and then making the change?

That function is Wikipedia:RefToolbar. --  Gadget850 talk 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore error message style[edit]

This change to the css styling for the <code>...</code> tag has, in my opinion, buggered up the error messages emitted by Module:Citation/CS1. The new css is at skins/common/commonElements.css.

Before the change, CS1 error messages had this look:

|accessdate= requires |url=

After the change, the same error message looks like this:

|accessdate= requires |url=

With a small modification to override the text color (<code style="color: #cc0000;">...</code>), we could get this:

|accessdate= requires |url=

I think that we should return to the previous styling. There is no need to draw little boxes around the parameters displayed in error messages. To do that, I will replace <code>...</code> in error messages with <kbd>...</kbd> which seems to be the most appropriate tag; see The kbd Element.

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Good. I've also proposed the change at {{para}} which is oft used here.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. I think the old styling was clear and uncluttered, while the new styling is too cluttered. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Or use <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;"> as recommended at VPT, to preserve the semantic meaning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is wrong; we don't abandon use of the correct markup to get around a style issue; just fix it with CSS. <kbd>...</kbd> is for examples of user input (i.e. the values of parameters), not the parameter= code! It's semantically incorrect to use kbd this way. Use Jonesey95's CSS fix, above.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's debatable. <code> is appropriate in that the parameter names and values are a kind of source code. But the problem was probably created by an editor typing incorrect or incomplete information on a keyboard, and will need to be corrected by an editor typing the appropriate information on a keyboard. By the way, where are these tags documented anyway? Jc3s5h (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
<kbd>...</kbd> is documented at w3c.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Not Jonesey95's CSS fix - mine. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 129#Displaying 'code' font text and search for "inherit".
@Jc3s5h: The HTML 5 documentation begins here and the various HTML elements concerning semantics are described in section 4.5 Text-level semantics. This includes: 4.5.12 The code element; 4.5.13 The var element 4.5.14 The samp element 4.5.15 The kbd element. If you examine the source for that page, you'll see just how often the <code>...</code> element is used. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Okay; I'm just going by what I see, above, where it was posted by Jonesey95.
@Jc3s5h: It's not "kind of" source code, it is source code, just at a different level than that code in the "Template:..." page itself. By way of analogy, Javascript is source code, but it's not the same source as that of JS interpreter written in Java built into a Java-based browser. The element is for marking up literal keyboard input that is not source code. Even wikitext markup like This is italic, while this is bold is source code (we call it wikisource and source-view editing for a reason), and definitely not within the intended uses of <kbd>...</kbd>, except in quite peculiar circumstances. E.g., perhaps if I were explaining on Simple Wikipedia, "How to make text italic: First type '' (two single-quote characters in a row)), then the word or words you want to make italic, then finish by typing '' again". Even then purists would say to use <code>...</code> because the input in question is the input of source code, and kbd does not mark up source code.
Anyway, the real question before us is whether to override the changes to <code>...</code> at all in this particular case. I'm in favor of doing so, because the boogering of this template's error message output is an unintended consequence of CSS changes to the element.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox I have overridden the default commonElements.css definition for <code>...</code> to <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">...</code>.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | accessdate=1 September 2014 | title=Title }}
Live Title. 
Sandbox Title. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Error in templatedata for Cite news template[edit]

In the templatedata for {{Cite news}}, the phrase "forth author", which occurs in three parameters, should be "fourth author". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Now fixed. Actually, though, you could have fixed this yourself - the TemplateData is at Template:Cite web/doc, and is unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Indroducing "print year" in addition to "year"[edit]

(noticing that I have been redirected to this talk page via the talk page of Template:Cite journal, the following refers to articles in academic journals)

A number of bibliographic databases have introduced the parameters "print year" and "online year", due to the increasing problem of articles being originally published electronically one year and then published in print one or two years later. A journal article is considered published in the year it was first published (usually electronically these days), but that year might be a different year than the year the print issue appears. I suggest we add at least "print year", to be used with volume, issue, pages etc, when the electronic version that the doi usually refers to was published in a different year.

Example: If I published the article "The reliability of Wikipedia articles" in the Journal of Wikipedia Studies, that started publication with Volume 1 in 2014, it would usually first appear only electronically, and be cited as:

  • Bjerrebæk, J. (2014). "The reliability of Wikipedia articles". Journal of Wikipedia Studies. doi:10.2307/1321160. 

But then, a year later, in 2015, the editors would finally manage to squeeze the article into the print issue Vol. 2, Issue 1, and then we have, according to the current template:

  • Bjerrebæk, J. (2014). "The reliability of Wikipedia articles". Journal of Wikipedia Studies 2 (1): 50–65. doi:10.2307/1321160. 

Here we would need a parameter to indicate that the print version (Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 50–65) appeared in 2015, not in 2014. Changing the "year" parameter from 2014 to 2015 would not be acceptable, because the work originally appeared in 2014 and may be cited as such by other literature. Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just use year for the publication being cited, and orig. year for the earlier distribution. Clarify the /doc on this specific use case. No need for yet another parameter, very real as the problem is. I've used precisely this method to resolve it before, with no issues being raised.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to "say where we got it?" If I use the print version of your article, I would cite it pretty much the way you did except that I'd use |date=2015 and possibly |origyear=2014:
Bjerrebæk, J. (2015) [2014]. "The Reliability of Wikipedia articles". Journal of Wikipedia Studies 2 (1): 50–65. doi:10.2307/1321160. 
|origyear= (and |doi= or other online links) may not be appropriate if there were editorial changes made to facilitate the hardcopy format. You can also use |type= to distinguish between versions
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If there were editorial changes that affected the content in a meaningful way, they are for WP purposes different sources, just like different editions of a book. If they didn't affect the content, then we don't need to care. This is too hair-splitty. Agreed we can use |type= in a case this "delicate", and then just move on. Any time spent agonizing over this kind of source massaging is time not spent on adding more sources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree. |publication-date= might be applicable in some instances.
Markup Renders as
{{cite book |last=White |first=T. H |title=[[The Book of Merlyn]] |year=1941 |publication-date=1977 |publisher=University of Texas Press}}
White, T. H (1941). The Book of Merlyn. University of Texas Press (published 1977). 
--  Gadget850 talk 15:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|publication-date= should not be used because it is not mentioned in Help:Citation Style 1. Thus, no one knows what it means or when it should be used. Maybe it is only intended for internal communications between templates. Maybe it is deprecated and is only supported to keep from breaking old citations that have not been updated yet. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
|publication-date= is documented on most, if not all, CS1 template documentation pages which, I think, should be the first place editors should go for template parameter information.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Help:Citation Style 1 updated. --  Gadget850 talk 17:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"At=" and "pages=" should NOT be considered redundant to each other for Cite Book[edit]

They have an obvious use case when citing a chapter from a book (which has a page range), but also one wants reference a particular page within e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuroda_normal_form&oldid=621483103 JMP EAX (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My workaround insofar for stuff like this was to use {{rp}} in addition to the citation, but it tends to clutter the page. And I don't really want to use the two-level notes/references system, because it's so unwieldy. JMP EAX (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the example in question, I have no clue what is meant by |pages=175–252 and |at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190.

{{cite book |last1=Mateescu | first1=Alexandru |last2=Salomaa|first2=Arto |editor1-first=Grzegorz| editor1-last=Rozenberg|editor2-first=Arto| editor2-last=Salomaa |title=Handbook of Formal Languages. Volume I: Word, language, grammar |publisher=Springer-Verlag |year=1997 |pages=175–252 |chapter=Chapter 4: Aspects of Classical Language Theory |isbn=3-540-61486-9|at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190}}

--  Gadget850 talk 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a obvious use case. If |pages=175–252 defines the page range occupied by |chapter=Chapter 4: Aspects of Classical Language Theory then one or the other of those two parameters is redundant. In this case it would seem that |at=Theorem 2.2, p. 190 concisely identifies the location of the material that supports the claim in the article.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think a slightly different case would be a good case to look at. The |chapter= parameter is intended treating a chapter in an edited book (which has an overall editor and chapters written by different authors) as a separate publication. But if the entire book is written by one book, and a particular claim is supported by an entire chapter of the book, as well as a few pages from another part of the book, you could use at = Chapter 5, Whatchamacallits | pages = 219–30 but the reader couldn't tell if you are citing Chapter 5 and pages 219–30, or you are indicating that Chapter 5 occupies 219–30. It would better to write at = Chapter 5, Whatchamacallits, also pp. 219–30. Unless we want to create permanent rules on template developers (fat chance) about how to combine |at= and |pages=, the results will be unpredictable and the results may confuse readers, either now, or the next time the template gets changed. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I could make an ad-hoc rule to add the chapter page range as chapter=Chapter title (pp. XXX-YYY). It would be better if there were a chapter_pages parameter. JMP EAX (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Not recommended. |chapter= is intended to hold the chapter heading; not the chapter heading plus some other stuff. Also, adding other stuff to |chapter= will corrupt the citation's COinS metadata. How would |chapter-pages= be used? How would the value assigned to |chapter-pages= render in a citation?
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Update to the live CS1 module week of 2014-08-24[edit]

After the end of this week I propose to update:

Module:Citation/CS1 to match Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox (diff)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to match Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox (diff)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to match Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist/sandbox (diff)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation to match Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation/sandbox (diff)

This update changes the things: in Module:Citation/CS1:

  1. Normalize LCCN values before validation (discussion)
  2. Identify and categorize citations with |firstn= / |lastn= mismatch (discussion) Undone. See discussion.
  3. arXiv validation (discussion)
  4. change |CitationClass= tests to require unspaced class names for {{cite DVD notes}} and {{cite AV media notes}} (discussion)
  5. fix bug in |vanc= handling (discussion)
  6. instances of four consecutive spaces converted to tabs

in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration:

  1. Identify and categorize citations with |firstn= / |lastn= mismatch
  2. Add hyphenated parameter name aliases (discussion)
  3. instances of four consecutive spaces converted to tabs
  4. override <code>...</code> css formatting for error messages (discussion)

in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist:

  1. Add hyphenated parameter name aliases

in Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation:

  1. Add support for "Winter YYYY–YY" (discussion)
  2. Add support for whole date range validation (dmy - dmy and mdy - mdy formats) (discussion and discussion 2)

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! Our last update was at the end of March. A reminder that, after the update, if you see pages that still show an error message for something that should no longer show an error message, try purging (to refresh the display of the page) or null editing (to remove category membership) the page to fix it. There is more information in this VPT thread. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Trappist the monk I'm trying to modify the sandboxes to include the corrections for {{cite podcast}}; what's the problem?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 19:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It has been my practice to freeze new changes to the sandbox from the time I announce the update to the live module so that new changes don't disrupt seemingly settled changes. It also gives editors another chance to point out my failings before an update affects untold numbers of pages. As you can see from your post below, that last bit works.
Because you hadn't replied to my last post at Transcript parameter for cite podcast by the time I announced this update, I left it out.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Additionally, the current Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox is rendering |id= erroneously as a Usenet ID; |publisherid= was deprecated in favor of using |id=. Wouldn’t it be easier to create a new |usenet= parameter?—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 20:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons
Template Markup Renders
Example 1
  live {{Cite AV media notes |title=Artist Live! |others=[[Artist]] |year=2000 |url=http://www.example.com |first=Malcolm |last=Johnson |page=1 |type=Liner notes |publisher=Arid Publications |id=Catalog no. K2145 |location=Los Angeles |accessdate=July 2, 2014}} Johnson, Malcolm (2000). Artist Live! (Liner notes). Artist. Los Angeles: Arid Publications. p. 1. Catalog no. K2145. Retrieved July 2, 2014. 
  sandbox {{Cite AV media notes/sandbox2 |title=Artist Live! |others=[[Artist]] |year=2000 |url=http://www.example.com |first=Malcolm |last=Johnson |page=1 |type=Liner notes |publisher=Arid Publications |id=Catalog no. K2145 |location=Los Angeles |access-date=July 2, 2014}} Johnson, Malcolm (2000). Artist Live! (Liner notes). Artist. Los Angeles: Arid Publications. p. 1. Catalog no. K2145. Retrieved July 2, 2014. 
Example 2
  live {{Cite AV media notes |title=Artist Live! |titlelink=Album Title |others=[[Artist]] |year=2000 |first=Malcolm |last=Johnson |page=1 |type=Liner notes |publisher=Arid Publications |id=Catalog no. K2145 |location=Los Angeles}} Johnson, Malcolm (2000). Artist Live! (Liner notes). Artist. Los Angeles: Arid Publications. p. 1. Catalog no. K2145. 
  sandbox {{Cite AV media notes/sandbox2 |title=Artist Live! |title-link=Album Title |others=[[Artist]] |year=2000 |first=Malcolm |last=Johnson |page=1 |type=Liner notes |publisher=Arid Publications |id=Catalog no. K2145 |location=Los Angeles}} Johnson, Malcolm (2000). Artist Live! (Liner notes). Artist. Los Angeles: Arid Publications. p. 1. Catalog no. K2145. 
The Usenet problem appears to be caused by new code in Configuration/Sandbox that starts with ['USENETID'] = {. Also in the Module itself, search for the new code beginning with -- special case for cite newsgroup which uses |id= for a usenet article or post idJonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion about migration of {{cite newsgroup}} was archived without answering the question of whether to use a new parameter, |message-id=, instead of |id=. Maybe that new parameter is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, forgot about this half-done change. Thanks for the reminder. I think that I'll comment-out the relevant portions so that the rest of the update can proceed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. In the process I discovered that the documentation for the old style arxiv identifiers does not mention versioning as the new style identifiers do. So, I wrote the original test so that versioning was only allowed in the new style. Turns out that old style identifiers may have versioning. I've fixed both the sandbox and the live versions of the module to correct this error.

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Documentation needed[edit]

We need documentation sections on Help:CS1 errors for the new arXiv and first name / last name errors. Does anyone have a sandboxed version of those new sections yet? If not, I'll start drafting them in commented sections on the page.

The styling change for the error message means that we will need to re-style the error messages on the Help page as well. Is there a clever way to do this for the whole page, or do we need to edit each instance of code individually? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

On my list of things to do before the update but I won't turn away willing help. I am unaware of any clever tricks except a change to common.css (which I don't think will fly). So, each <code>...</code> in the example error messages in Help:CS1 errors has to become <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">...</code>.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Error message style in Help:CS1 errors done.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I have added commented documentation to the Help page. I think it will look right when it is uncommented, but I am not sure. Feel free to tweak my wording if it does not make sense; consider my work a first draft. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
And I've rather heavily edited them. I split the author/editor list errors into two descriptions because they really are two separate conditions. I'm wondering if they shouldn't also have separate categories. Have a look.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Your edits look fine to me. I might tweak the wording a bit after it goes live and I can see it in context, but I do not expect to make major changes.

I don't think we need separate categories. In both cases, |lastn= is missing. That's the fundamental error. Now that there are two sections, however, to which section will the "help" link direct editors?

I do think that a missing editor should report "missing |editor-lastn=" instead of "missing |lastn=". The current error message is "missing |lastn=", which is confusing and not strictly accurate.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | editor1=Editor 1 | editor4=Editor 4 | title=Title | editor2=Editor 2 | displayeditors=29 }}
Old Title.
Live Editor 1; Editor 2 (eds.). Title. 
Sandbox Editor 1; Editor 2; Editor 4 (eds.). Title.  Missing |last3= in Editors list (help)


Is that difficult or easy to modify? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That's why the error messages identify the particular list where the error was found and also why I added the blurb about the error messages using a bit of shorthand. I'm sure that we can tweak the error messages to get what we want but I'd rather not do that just now. We can certainly refine them before the next update.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Rendering problem with right-to-left language and trans-title[edit]

Trappist the monk and others who might know the details of the Lua code: please see the following thread at VPT: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Citations with title parameter in rtl language.2C beginning with numbers: Display issue and workaroundJonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

self-referential authorlinks[edit]

Is there a guideline which recommends using the authorlink parameter to refer to the same article that the cite book tag appears in? In this edit summary, Damiens.rf contends, "this parameter IS to be used even in the case of the subject's being the author. It would give an error otherwise." I don't see why this would be the case, as such a usage does not fall within the normal recommendations on self links. Nick Number (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The link is optional in all cases, and is merely a convenience link. --  Gadget850 talk 18:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is neither recommended nor not recommended; certainly not required as Editor Damiens.rf seems to imply. No errors will be incurred in either case. Including |authorlink= can be a minor benefit when editors copy CS1 templates from one article to another. I see no other benefit or harm.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I double checked: The one issue is that a link to the current page is bolded:
Help talk:Citation Style 1. title. 
I am sure we discussed adding CSS to fix this. --  Gadget850 talk 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikilinks that point to the page you are reading are bolded and not linked. I don't know where or when that stylistic decision was made, but it seems to me that we should not override it in one small place in the project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jonesey95:, you mean that article should use the bolded and not the linked version, right?
@Trappist the monk:, I see the bolding itself as a benefit, since it works as a useful interface hint. It points out that the reference's author is the subject of the article. --damiens.rf 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that either linking or bolding is useful. By using the |authormask= parameter, the citation templates can show a pair of em-dashes instead, see John Marshall (railway historian)#Selected publications by John Marshall. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
|authormask= can only be used in bibliographies or shortened footnotes where the order of the list can be controlled. --  Gadget850 talk 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So, should we use authorlinks for the article subject or avoid it? --damiens.rf 03:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing name detection in author/editor lists revisited[edit]

See this discussion. Because of that bug, the missing name detection is currently disabled in Module:Citation/CS1. I think that I have fixed the problem and at the same time improved, in a minor way, the performance of the missing name detector code. In the previous version, whenever |firstn= was missing |lastn= the test stopped at the first 'hole'. Now, the test continues until it fails to find |lastn= and |lastn+1=.

these produce correct CITEREF ids
  • Last1, Title 
  • Last1. Title. 
  • Last1; Last2; Last3 et al. (eds.), Title 
  • Last1; Last2; Last3 et al. (eds.). Title. 
missing |last2=, |last4=, |last6=
  • Last1; Last3; Last5; Last7, Title  Missing |last2= in Authors list (help); Missing |last4= in Authors list (help); Missing |last6= in Authors list (help)
  • Last1; Last3; Last5 et al. (eds.). Title.  Missing |last2= in Editors list (help); Missing |last4= in Editors list (help); Missing |last6= in Editors list (help);
|first2= and |first3= without |last2= and |last3=
  • Last1, First1; Last4, First4, Title  |first2= missing |last2= in Authors list (help); |first3= missing |last3= in Authors list (help)
  • Last1, First1; Last4, First4 (eds.). Title.  |first2= missing |last2= in Editors list (help); |first3= missing |last3= in Editors list (help)

What this also does is it creates more complete author/editor lists. Previously, the author/editor list would end at the first 'hole'. Similarly, the CITEREF id will now use the first four last names in the author/editor list whereas previously it would stop at the 'hole'.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | editor-first3=First3 | editor-last4=Last4 | editor-first2=First2 | editor-first1=First1 | title=Title | ref=harv | editor-first4=First4 | editor-last1=Last1 }}
Live Last1, First1 (ed.). Title. 
Sandbox Last1, First1; Last4, First4 (eds.). Title.  |first2= missing |last2= in Editors list (help); |first3= missing |last3= in Editors list (help)


Trappist the monk (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. The "missing name" category contains a few hundred articles that were added before the erroneous code in the module was found and disabled. I have looked at a few, and they do appear to contain missing author or editor names, so they are available for fixing by interested editors. Once the code above is re-enabled, I expect that we will see many more articles join this error category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite web (archive-url, archiveurl, archive-date, archivedate)[edit]

The horizontal and vertical full parameter sets use "archive-url" and "archive-date", while everything else on the page, including the TemplateData parameters and examples use "archiveurl" and "archivedate". It's fine if the template accepts both variants, but in my opinion, the page should either only use the variants with hyphen-minus or only those without. Opinions? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RefToolbar uses without hyphen, so that should be the preference. --  Gadget850 talk 20:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There was a recent RFC that approved addition of hyphenated parameters for all multi-word parameters (e.g. access-date, a new parameter alias). The changes were just implemented a couple of days ago, so you may see some inconsistency in the documentation.
One problem with using |accessdate= instead of |access-date= is that inexperienced editors see a red line under |accessdate= and "correct" it as a spelling mistake, leading to a citation error (Example edits of this type: [2] [3] [4]). Moving toward hyphenated multi-word parameters as the default choice could help editors avoid this confusion and reduce the number of citation errors that gnomes need to fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I knew this would happen. They are aliases; they are equally valid. Don't change the unhyphenated form to the hyphenated (or vice versa) without good reason. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Time to show date error messages?[edit]

Currently, errors categorized in Category:CS1 errors: dates are hidden, pending fixing of as many as reasonably possible by a bot. The hiding decision was a result of this RFC.

BattyBot task 25 has been processing Category:CS1 errors: dates periodically for about eight months now. When BattyBot is not running, date errors are added to the category at a rate of hundreds per week, maybe more. The category population was about 100,000 when BattyBot started running; it is about 60,000 now, and would be tens of thousands higher than 100,000 if not for the bot's work.

I have been working with GoingBatty, the bot's operator, to add more patterns to the list of bot-fixable errors. You can see the latest round of proposed fixes on GoingBatty's talk page, and there are many previous rounds of this exercise in that page's archives.

I believe that we have reached a point of diminishing returns with the bot, and that the bot has "run to sufficient completion" (quoting the RFC closure decision). I believe that the date error messages should be exposed by default to editors when the live version of the citation module is next updated. Thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's unlikely we'll find many more patterns that will significantly reduce the number of errors, although suggestions will always be appreciated. I think our next task is to prepare ourselves (and others) for the onslaught of questions and concerns that will be raised when these errors are visible to all.
  • People will see a "(help)" link in the article, which will take them to Help:CS1 errors#bad date. Are there any improvements needed here, such as:
    • Maybe mentioning why other text in the date field is bad, and providing a link to a simplified explanation of WP:COinS with examples?)
    • A link to Wikiblame to help research accessdates?
  • From there, people will see a link to Wikipedia:Help desk. We should announce there (and where else? WP:VP/T?) when the errors are scheduled to be turned on, and ensure we have extra people checking there.
  • People may also follow the link to Help:Citation Style 1#Dates. Are there any improvements needed here?
  • What guidance will we give people who have valid dates that are flagged as false errors?
Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you know of any valid dates that are being flagged as errors?
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Seasons (e.g., winter 2013) are being flagged as errors if they are capitalized, but seasons should not be capitalized. This is actually a subtle issue. If the separator between citation elements is a period, and each clause separated by a period is punctuated as a sentence, and if the season is the first word in one of these elements, then it should be capitalized. But if the separator between elements is a comma, or if the season is not the first word in the element, it should not be capitalized. Finally, neither our dates nor the date element in the APA style, is properly punctuated as a sentence, so it isn't clear that seasons should ever be capitalized. I'll poke around to see what other styles do. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: seasons that are not capitalized are flagged as errors.
In the CS1 citations, the separator between elements is a period. In CS1 citations, season dates begin with the season. So clearly in CS1 citations, the season portion of a season date shall be capitalized.
So is your question: What should we do in the {{citation}} template citations where the separator between elements is a comma? And as a corollary: what should we do when CS1 citations override the period separator with some other character?
My answer to those is: nothing different. The element should take precedence over punctuation because the element is the important part. The element is not like the element type indicator words 'retrieved', 'archived', etc.
In the magazine and journal world, do those periodicals that use season dating capitalize the season on the cover of each issue? My experience is that they do; excepting those hipster periodicals that don't capitalize stuff for stylistic reasons and just because they're cool.
Seasons in dates in CS1 citations are roughly synonymous with months in dates. As such they should be treated in the same fashion.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I checked the APA Style Blog. Their advice is

If the periodical uses a season with the year, put the year, a comma, and the season in parentheses (2008, Early Spring).

But I think this requires some consensus; we don't automatically follow other style guides. The distinction between the period and comma separator still applies. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
APA style dates are not supported by MOS:DATE and in the example you've posted, the season is capitalized.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The last time I asked about unhiding hidden error messages, I got no real support. I remain in favor of showing error messages so I support showing the date error messages at the next CS1 update.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
BattyBot's latest run, which incorporated the new fixes linked above, fixed only 500 articles, out of the 60,000 in the category, and many of those articles had errors introduced between the bot's last run (which finished a few days ago) and this one. I think the bot has reached a point of substantial completion and we have met the conditions of the RFC.
GoingBatty makes some good suggestions above. Let's make sure our documentation is in order before the next code update. I have tweaked the help text a bit already. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal on season capitalization[edit]

Considering:

  • The editors of this documentation decided to incorporate the date rules in WP:Manual of Style and WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.
  • The editors of the {{Citation}} documentation defer to this documentation for publication date format.
  • Those guidelines, and this documentation, only discuss the capitalization of season names in general, as one would find in a dictionary entry.
  • Two prominent citation guidelines, as a special case, call for capitalizing season names in citations. ( APA Style Blog and Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. paragraph 14.180)
  • Several editors involved in the programming of the cite module and the bot that fixes citations to remove citation errors took it for granted that season names should be capitalized in citations.
  • Since Chicago considers it necessary to explicitly state that seasons are capitalized in publication dates, this is not something that "everyone knows" and what we write in this documentation does not apply to all citations, only CS1 and {{Citation}}.

Therefore I propose the following change, with new text underlined on the talk page, but there will be no underline when added to the main page:

Prescriptions about date formats only apply when the date is expressed in terms of Julian or Gregorian dates, or which use one of the seasons spring, summer, autumn or fall, winter. Sources are at liberty to use other ways of expressing dates, such as "spring-summer" or a date in a religious calendar; editors should report the date as expressed by the source. Although the seasons are not normally capitalized, they are capitalized when used as dates in CS1 templates, and the capitalization of the season stated by the source may be altered to follow this rule.

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC), modified to link to WP:SEASON at 20:16 UT.

Support. Thanks for taking the time to think this through thoroughly and write up the above. We might consider linking "are not normally capitalized" to WP:SEASON so that people will understand the basis for that use of "normally". – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Support with a minor change of using "CS1" (without a space).
Suppoert—this mirrors how citations are done in the outside world. Imzadi 1979  01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. I made the change described. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Date in a religious calendar"[edit]

I'm adding this as a separate topic so I don't muddy the season topic. If an editor uses CS1 citation templates to record a "date in a religious calendar", how would they do so properly so they don't get an error? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There are some things the error checking can't recognize. So the error message would just have to be tolerated. There are other dates the error checking can't handle, such as 43 BC. Limitations of the error checking code must never be used as an excuse to exclude a source, nor should bibliographic information be changed to a form that may make it more difficult to find the work in question, just to avoid error messages. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

et al.[edit]

This section Help:Citation Style 1#et al. currently says: It is used to complete a list of authors of a published work, where the complete list is considered overly long. The term is widely used in English, thus it is not italicized per MOS:FOREIGN. However, MOS:FOREIGN first says: Foreign words should be used sparingly. and then Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English. I suspect that WP:MOS#Foreign words was the intended target, but that says: Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Et al. is not common in everyday English, while is it common in scientific and academic citation. There does seem to be a US/UK split in usage of italics for et al. See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#et al. revisited. --Bejnar (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed this before:
  • Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. p.365: says that commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized, and lists "et al." as an example.
  • APA states that "et al." should not be italicized.[5]
FYI: The Shortened footnotes templates also do not italicize et al. I should create a help subpage to detail this. --  Gadget850 talk 18:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The italic form of et al. in Citation Style 1 citations was discontinued with this edit to {{citation/core}} on 9 March 2011. This change appears to have been made without objection. Since then, Module:Citation/CS1 continues to render et al. without italics markup.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This change appears to have been made without much discussion. As least I could not find it. All I found was this: Wikipedia talk:Manual of_ Style/Abbreviations/Archive 2#Et al.. --Bejnar (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are more specific references:
  • The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., section 7.73: "Roman for Latin Words and Abbreviations: Commonly used Latin words and abbreviations should not be italicized. ibid., et al., ca., passim."
  • The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 6th ed., p. 105: "Do not use italics for: foreign phrases and abbreviations common in English (i.e., phrases found as main entries in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2005). a posteriori, et al., a priori, per se, ad lib, vis-a-vis."
  • MHRA Style Guide (2008) p.35: "Certain Latin words and abbreviations which are in common English usage are also no longer italicized. For example: cf., e.g., et al., etc., ibid., i.e., passim, viz."
--  Gadget850 talk 23:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
MOS:FOREIGN is clear on this issue; it looks like the OP missed this section: "Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English—Gestapo, samurai, vice versa—do not require italics. A rule of thumb is not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in major English-language dictionaries." – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Slight tweak may be helpful in LCCN code[edit]

The LCCN syntax guide says "The prefix is optional; if present, it has one to three lowercase alphabetic characters." It looks like our current code does not, but should, display an error message when upper case letters are used in the prefix.

Here's an example of the "same" LCCN that links to the correct book when a lower case prefix is used, but which gives a "LCCN Permalink Error" when an identical LCCN with an upper case prefix is used.

Cite book compare
{{ cite book | last=International Labour Office | first= | publisher=International Labour Office | title=Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations | lccn=l54000004 | location=Geneva | year=1953 }}
Live International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office. LCCN l54000004. 
Sandbox International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office. LCCN l54000004. 


Cite book compare
{{ cite book | last=International Labour Office | first= | publisher=International Labour Office | title=Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations | lccn=L54000004 | location=Geneva | year=1953 }}
Live International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office. LCCN L54000004. 
Sandbox International Labour Office (1953). Indigenous peoples: living and working conditions of aboriginal populations. Geneva: International Labour Office. LCCN L54000004 Check |lccn= value (help). 


I will adjust the documentation for the error message. Can the module sandbox be changed to give error messages for upper case letters in the prefix?

If I am misreading the syntax guide, let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Good catch. I've tweaked your examples.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

not exactly pleased with "origyear"[edit]

Often enough I need to add an original publisher (i.e. different from the present/current edition one). There's no actual field for this and the way this is crammed in the origyear field in the examples makes it look very bad because the whole field is rendered before the title, and you don't normally put the publisher before the title. JMP EAX (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why? The purpose of a citation is to identify where you read or saw a particular fact that supports text in the article. If you read or saw this fact in the current edition, then cite that edition; there is no need to include the publication history. In fact, adding information pertaining to an older edition to a citation referring to the current edition may only serve to confuse readers. If the older edition is important, include it as a separate citation.
If I misunderstand you, an example of where such a combined older/newer cite is required would be helpful.
Trappist the monk (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Some other style guides say you should cite the earlier edition. Some reasons it could be helpful:
  • A reader who possesses the earlier edition will know substantially the same book is being used (depending on what kind of changes were made in the revision process).
  • If the reader has read other works, in addition to the Wikipedia article, which refer to the earlier edition, the reader will know substantially the same book is being used as a source.
  • By giving the earlier publication date, and the original publisher, the reader will realize the ideas in the book may be outdated, and can evaluate the reputation of the original publisher.
Jc3s5h (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Each instance of a Citation Style 1 template is tool to identify one source and one source only. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to divine what editions a reader may possess or may have read. That a source may be out dated is irrelevant. The purpose of a citation is to identify and support statements in article text regardless of currency or factual correctness.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Different versions of a work can vary quite a bit. If there is a compelling reason to cite different versions of a work, then cite them separately. For example, I have the 1989 and the 2001 versions of Baden-Powell and there are a lot of differences. --  Gadget850 talk 12:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not so much a matter of different editions as indicating derivation or descent of an edition. E.g., if you and I are comparing notes from Darwin's Origin of Species the publication dates of my Modern Library edition and your (let's say) Norton edition are likely less significant to each other than that one is from Darwin's fifth edition and the other from his first or second edition. Yes, we WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, but it helps, and doesn't hurt, to where that came from. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, if we are making comparisons, then knowing the publication history of each is important. But it is not the purpose of a citation – any citation, not just CS1 – to make comparisons between sources. The purpose of a citation is to say to the reader, "Look here. This is where I found that fact." Nothing more, nothing less. I think that adding unnecessary publication history to a citation is a disservice to readers.
If it is important to the reader to know about previous editions or other versions of the same work, add another citation. Don't try to pack two or more into one.
(Addendum) Lest we repeat ourselves, we have discussed this before. Trappist the monk (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Chicago Manual of Style 16th ed. paragraph 15.38 disagrees with Trappist the monk. This is part of Chicago's chapter on their author-date system, so the reference list entry given below would be referred to with a parenthetical inline citation that would contain any necessary page numbers. The following citation may be found there as an example of an acceptable citation:

Austen, Jane. (1813) 2013. Pride and Prejudice. London: T. Egerton. Reprint, New York: Penguin Classics. Citations refer to the Penguin edition.

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, Chicago Manual of Style and Trappist the monk don't have to agree. Chicago Manual of Style is not CS1. CS1 is not designed to provide a provenance for each citation. CS1 is designed to meet the requirements established by WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. To meet this particular clause of chapter 15.38, CS1 would need to be modified to support at a minimum |orig-location=, |orig-publisher=, and in-source locators |orig-page=, |orig-pages=, and |orig-at=. This is a complicating path upon which I think we should not venture.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────CS1 is not really designed, full stop. The existence of |orig-year= suggests some desire on the part of template users to be able to provide some information about earlier editions. At present, this could be done by following the citation template with additional text explaining the situation. In any case, Trappist the monk's statement "any citation, not just CS1" just isn't so. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. CS1 is not designed in a formal engineering sense. It has evolved and adapted to the environment in which it exists. So let me rephrase the sentence: CS1 is not designed adapted to provide a provenance for each citation.
Rather than simply saying that [my] statement "any citation, not just CS1" just isn't so, perhaps you could explain why you believe that?
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
In context, the statement was "But it is not the purpose of a citation – any citation, not just CS1 – to make comparisons between sources. The purpose of a citation is to say to the reader, 'Look here. This is where I found that fact.' Nothing more, nothing less." But Chicago says sometimes it is useful to provide information about the earlier edition of a work; presumably the writer citing the source only has access to the later edition, but the front matter of the later edition may allow the citing author to make simple statements about how the original differs (if at all) from the later edition. For example, the later edition might contain the same text but be paginated differently, putting a reader with the original edition on alert that the material of interest may be on a different page than indicate in the citation.
APA style 6th ed. is more emphatic. Section 6.18, "Classical Works", states "When you know the original date of publication, include it in the citation." So two major citation guides say that you may (Chicago) or should (APA) provide information about an earlier edition which you did not consult. Hence the claim "any citation, not just CS1" just isn't so. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You missed the point of my statement entirely. Editor J. Johnson introduced the notion of two editors (he and me) comparing different editions of a source. Comparison of sources is something that we editors can do. Comparison of sources is not something citations can or should do. Neither Chicago nor APA nor CS1 compare sources.
In the Chicago example that you gave, a single citation identifies two sources. It makes no comparison but simply identifies the two sources. In CS1, if both are important, cite them both but cite them separately. In the quote from APA that you gave, APA limits itself to the original publication date. It also makes no comparisons between the original and the cited work. CS1 supports this through |orig-year=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Chicago says that if both an original publication (which was not consulted) and republished version (which was consulted) of a work are mentioned, certain differences should be mentioned, if known. One such difference is whether the pagination is the same. This is a simple comparison. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it just identifies two sources with a single citation. That one is not consulted is poor practice that ought not be condoned.
Aren't we done with this? Clearly, neither one of us is going to convince the other so perhaps it is best to leave off unless there are some new and interesting aspects to discuss. You may have the last word which I shall read; it is likely that I'll decline to respond.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Use[edit]

The current description could use a bit of amplification:

  • origyear: Original publication year; displays after the date or year. For clarity, please supply specifics. For example: |origyear=First published 1859 or |origyear=Composed 1904.

Reading Chicago and APA, the intent of 'origyear' is to include the date of original publication for a reprint or modern edition of a work. In my collection, I have:

  • Handbook for Boys (Reprint, Applewood Books) (1st ed.). Doubleday, Page. 1997 [Original publication 1911]. 

Here, 'type' seems to work quite well. But again, this would only work for a reprint, not a different edition. --  Gadget850 talk 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)