Help talk:Citation Style 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Cite serial)
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.

Time for a module update?[edit]

Is it time to update the module from the sandbox? It's been about five weeks, and we have a few bug fixes to roll out, along with a few new citation templates to convert to using the module and a few enhancements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I came across my first new arXiv value today, in Percolation threshold. It is marked as an error. The new module code will accept it:
Cite journal compare
{{ cite journal | last=Malarz | title=Simple cubic random-site percolation thresholds beyond Rubik’s neighborhood | arxiv=1501.01586 | year=2015 | first=Krzysztof }}
Live Malarz, Krzysztof (2015). "Simple cubic random-site percolation thresholds beyond Rubik’s neighborhood". arXiv:1501.01586. 
Sandbox Malarz, Krzysztof (2015). "Simple cubic random-site percolation thresholds beyond Rubik’s neighborhood". arXiv:1501.01586. 
One more reason to roll out the bug fixes and enhancements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Real life is about to interfere. Update in February.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Is the sandbox stable enough to move to the main module? If so, someone else with the necessary rights can do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Are we ready to update the module? The arXiv false positives are piling up, and the {{cite conference}} and {{cite encyclopedia}} fixes should be rolled out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

arXiv identifier[edit]

"The canonical form of identifiers from January 2015 (1501) is arXiv:YYMM.NNNNN, with 5-digits for the sequence number within the month."[1] --  Gadget850 talk 23:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the documentation in Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox. I am not good enough with programming to change the error-checking code, but it shouldn't be too hard. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
And I overwrote that change with my first hack at supporting the 1501 form. It basically works but there are other changes necessary to fix lurking bugs:
Cite book compare
{{ cite book | arxiv=1501.00001v1 | title=Title }}
Live Title. arXiv:1501.00001v1. 
Sandbox Title. arXiv:1501.00001v1. 
The live version should be throwing an error with the new form but doesn't ... More tomorrow.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@A930913: ReferenceBot (talk · contribs) is leaving error messages concerning the new arXiv identifier format. This is going to confuse some editors. -- (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a timeline for when this is getting fixed? Erroneous error messages are being generated on user talk pages due to bot notifications of errors generated by Module:Citation when this bug triggers the error routine -- (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

ReferenceBot is still producing error messages, even though this is a valid arXiv ID, so the module is giving editors invalid talk page messages. -- (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Book reviews[edit]

I've written a number of articles that rely on academic book reviews. Databases usually provide their title either as blank, "Review", or the name of the book reviewed. In the journals, they're typically without a proper header or title within a book review section. Is there consensus somewhere on how they should be cited? Of the two examples below, the former is my normal format (i.e., title either "Review: Name of Book" or "Full Name of Book" in quotes, like giving the piece a title) and the latter is what Chicago uses ("Rev. of Title, by Author" without quotation marks in the place where the quoted title would be). The only way to get this second effect without the quotation marks in {{cite journal}} is to add something to the |journal= field, but it's a jury-rigged hack and not a proper solution.

My questions are (1) is there a preferred way to handle this? (2) If not, how can I do the second format without the jury-rigged param? Would it make sense to make a |review= param that would put unquoted, unitalicized text in the "Rev. of X, by Y" format after the title and before the journal params? czar  14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahern, Wilbert H. (2000). "Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited: Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Hampton Institute, 1839-1893 by Robert Francis Engs". The Journal of American History (Review) 87 (3): 1045–1046. doi:10.2307/2675343. ISSN 0021-8723. JSTOR 2675343. (subscription required (help)). 
Adding extra words to |title= or |journal= corrupts the citation's COinS metadata. You can do simple wikimarkup styling in |title= as I have done here because that markup is removed from the metadata. Use |type= to identify this title as a review.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to the style of my second example? And if not, how could I implement it? I feel that would be a cleaner citation since the title of the work (the review) is not actually the reviewed book's title. czar  14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think so because when you write:
|journal=''Rev. of ''Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited'', by Robert Francis Engs. '' [[The Journal of American History]]
all of that ends up in the metadata as:
where the keyword &rft.jtitle (which see) identifies the journal's name as
''Rev. of ''Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited'', by Robert Francis Engs. '' The Journal of American History
when, in fact, the journal's name is:
The Journal of American History
When I followed the doi and JSTOR links, the reviews are identified as:
doi: Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited: Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Hampton Institute, 1839–1893. By Robert Francis Engs. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1999. xx, 207 pp. $32.50, ISBN 1-57233-051-1.)
JSTOR: Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited: Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Hampton Institute, 1839-1893 by Robert Francis Engs
How are these, or a very close approximation as you did and as I did, not the correct title?
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk, I completely agree on not using the jury-rigged |journal= param—I was just wondering how else I could have the same effect (see below). As for what JSTOR identifies as the title, if you export JSTOR book review citations, the title fields are blank unless the book review has a unique title. czar  00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
As an alternative possibility to |type=, I've been using |department=Book Reviews (or whatever the journal calls it) for many of these. And your example does indeed call it Book Reviews (look at the table of contents for that journal issue). So your example would come out Ahern, Wilbert H. (2000). "Educating the Disfranchised and Disinherited: Samuel Chapman Armstrong and Hampton Institute, 1839–1893 by Robert Francis Engs". Book Reviews. The Journal of American History 87 (3): 1045–1046. doi:10.2307/2675343. ISSN 0021-8723. JSTOR 2675343. (subscription required (help)). David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Concur with David Eppstein. I was about to give the same answer. --  Gadget850 talk 17:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
All the main citation styles use a variant of the "Rev. of XXX" format (like my second example above). I don't know how CS1 was determined, but why wouldn't it make sense to follow that format? And is there some param that would allow me to have the same effect without implementing something special? czar  00:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The design (if you can call it that) of CS1/CS2 is informed by published style guides, Chicago, APA, etc. CS1/2 is none of those but is what you see: a general purpose tool that more-or-less gets the job done for several million citations throughout en.wikipedia. CS1/2 can't and doesn't do it all.
There is no parameter or set of parameters that will correctly render a citation that looks like your second example – something special would be required: {{cite book review}} perhaps? If it is to be made part of CS1/2, then this new template would require changes to Module:Citation/CS1 to support it. And of course documentation ...
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Would anyone be willing to help implement this in {{cite journal}}? I'm thinking |review=''Summerhill'', by A. S. Neill could produce "Rev. of Summerhill, by A. S. Neill." in-between the title and journal fields, and use the URL if no title is entered. More flexibly, the param could just allow text in-between the title and journal fields, though the former is preferable for the purpose of book reviews. czar  14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I found a workaround by using |conference= (should be okay as that param doesn't use COinS). Only thing is that {{cite conference}} omits |conference='s trailing period and space when there is no |title= present. E.g., the second bullet between Peshkin and Christianity:
Is that an error? czar  18:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it it is an error, not necessarily in {{cite conference}} but in how it is misused: |journal= (or any of the |work= aliases) is not defined for use in {{cite conference}}. Also, the title is not included in the metadata when {{cite conference}} is used in this manner.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk, is there any way to have the title display without the quotation marks? (Surely you know what I'm looking for by this point?) How are/should book reviews (be) supported by the current citation formats? czar  15:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Titles are rendered in quotes or in italics. There is no specific mechanism to render titles without styling though there have been inconclusive discussions on that topic.
At the moment I don't have an opinion about how reviews of the type I think you want to cite should be cited except to suggest the use of either |type= or |department= (this last might benefit from alternate naming).
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


I miss a parameter "Wikidata". Imho we need three:

a) "wikidata-book" if the book has an item on Wikidata (example: d:Q15220486)
b) "wikidata-journal" if the journal has an item on Wikidata (example: d:Q217305)
a) "wikidata-article" if the article has an item on Wikidata (example: d:Q7110639)

Even if we don't import the data right now, these parameters will save use a lot of work later. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There is some sort of not-very-active project to use wikidata items as citations. I can't muster a lot of enthusiasm for wikidata because its entirely human-unfriendly queries and properties are entirely meaningless to human readers. If I understand your post, in edit mode, a journal citation might look like this:
{{cite journal |wikidata-article=[[d:Q7110639]] |wikidata-journal=[[d:Q217305]]}}
Of course you'll counter that we use ISBN and doi identifiers which are equally human unfriendly, and you'd be right. They are human unfriendly when read in isolation. Because of that we shouldn't use {{cite doi}}, {{cite pmid}}, etc.
I'll be more likely to support wikidata when access to the bits, pieces, and parts of data that it holds are accessible by natural language methods. Until then, I'm not ready to support wikidata items as elements of CS1/2 citations.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about Wikidata today, but in the future it will be the main database anyway. So why not give users the possibility to add {{cite journal |wikidata-journal=Q217305}}? This unique identifier could be used for Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, helps finding typos etc. If we don't start now the only advantage is that we will have more work later. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
In theory Wikidata could act like {{cite doi}} does now, but better: provide a central place to store information on each citation (rather than having to copy it to multiple articles with the associated likelihood that the copies will have diverging information and that mistakes in one article will spread to others and be difficult to eradicate), but allowing per-article formatting options (e.g. CS1 vs CS2, full author names vs initials) compared to the strict formatting of cite doi. And in addition unlike cite doi it could be used across different languages of Wikipedia rather than being restricted to en. So I agree with Kolja21 — I think in the long term it's a win and in the short term it may already be time to start trying to move towards it. As for whether the data format is human-readable: I don't think this is important. I currently format most of my citations by copying the bibtex from MathSciNet and converting to {{citation}} format, so as long as tools for that sort of automatic conversion are possible the ability for humans to directly edit the data is secondary. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW: First tests how to use Wikidata items for citation are already made, see d:Template:Cite item. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kolja21. It's a matter of when, not if. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Undocumented parameter?[edit]

In World War II References there is a Cite book param I never heard about: authorformat. What about possible values, or «scap» is the only one? Carlotm (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

At the next update to Module:Citation/CS1, |author-format=scap will become non-functional. This because that styling is in conflict with MOS:SMALLCAPS. After the update, the only valid parameter value will be |author-format=vanc which renders last/first author and editor lists in Vancouver style. See Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#Separator parameters.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
How widely used is that? |vanc=y is more concise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I see 14 pages using of |authorformat=vanc and |author-format=vanc.[2][3] With {{vcite2 journal}} it is rather redundant. --  Gadget850 talk 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
insource:authorformat=vanc and insource:"authorformat=vanc" are less restrictive searches than insource:/authorformat=vanc/ and both of them find a few more instances.
I misspoke in my earlier post. At the next update |author-format= and |editor-format= will be deprecated in favor of |name-list-format=. All of |author-format=scap, |editor-format=scap, and |name-list-format=scap will be non-functional.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
As discussed here, a much better long term solution would be to add support for |vauthors= directly into Module:Citation/CS1 and make {{vcite2 journal}} redundant. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Cite journal - review article vs. non-review[edit]

I think it is pretty important when citing a peer-reviewed journal article to be able to indicate whether the source is a review article or an original research article. Is there a parameter in the cite journal template which would serve to support indicating this distinction? If not, would folks entertain the notion that maybe a new parameter "review=yes" be added which would ... maybe add "Review: " before the title in the presentation of the citation? Thanks for considering this. I did a brief search of archives to see if this had been discussed before and did not find an indication that it had been. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can this be handled with |department= or |type=? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
According to the documentation |type= refers to the media type and therefore is probably not appropriate. |department= refers to a "regular department within the periodical" which comes closer. I take "department" to mean a regular section of a journal like communications, full articles, and reviews. Perhaps the department parameter documentation should be clarified so that it is clear that the parameter can refer to publication type (e.g., communication, full article, review, etc.). Boghog (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been bold and added the following to the "department" parameter description:
  • Examples include "letter to the editor", "communication", "full article", "original research", or "review".
Boghog (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The intent of department is for the name of a regular column in a periodical. Many periodicals have Letters to the Editor or From the Editor; The New York Times has Lives; Scouting has Bryan on Scouting. When the field was introduced, it was intentionally not named column as not to confuse it with physical layout. --  Gadget850 talk 11:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Individual issues of many journals are divided into sections (i.e., "departments"). For example, the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry is divided as follows:
  • Editorial
  • Perspectives (i.e., reviews)
  • Articles (i.e., original research)
  • Brief articles (i.e., communications, original research)
Clearly the intention of these sections is to group articles of the same type together. Hence it would be appropriate to use this parameter to identify a source as primary (original research) or secondary (reviews). Boghog (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
How is a source specifically identified as primary or secondary? --  Gadget850 talk 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
As with any source, distinguishing primary from secondary takes some judgement. If a journal has section marked as "reviews", "perspectives", etc., then the articles in that section are almost certainly secondary. PubMed identifies articles by their Publication Types and is a good source to consult when in doubt. Boghog (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1[edit]

The documentation also says that |type= isn't displayed when |work= or an alias is set. That appears to have once been true:

Cite journal compare
{{ cite journal | journal=Journal | title=Title | type=Type }}
Old "Title". Journal.
Live "Title". Journal (Type). 

I don't know when that changed, or if we should 'fix' the module to match the documentation or fix the documentation to match the module. Is there a reason that |type= shouldn't be available when citing journals and other periodicals?

I don't know that |type= couldn't be used to distinguish a review article from an original research article. We set |type= for {{cite AV media notes}}, {{cite DVD-notes}}, {{cite mailinglist}}, {{cite podcast}}, {{cite pressrelease}}, {{cite report}}, {{cite techreport}}, and {{cite thesis}} more as a visual indicator of what the citation is than as an indicator of the citation's media type. So, if we keep |type= handling in Module:Citation/CS1 as it is, then I see no reason why |type=Review couldn't be used for this purpose.

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the documentation, the |type= contains "Additional information about the media type of the source". Furthermore the value of |type= appears after the journal name and not title. Hence |type= appears to refer to the journal, not the article. While some journals only publish review articles it is much more common for journals to publish a mix of original research and reviews. So unless the output were modified so that type appears after the title instead of the journal name, I don't think |type= would be a good solution for this particular request. |department= does appear after the title:
Cite journal compare
{{ cite journal | department=Department | type=Type | title=Title | journal=Journal }}
Old "Title". Department. Journal.
Live "Title". Department. Journal (Type). 
Other than the odd name, |department= is a good solution to this request. Perhaps a new alias |article-type= for |department= should be added. Boghog (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I chose 'department' quite deliberately. Per Chicago 16: "14.202 MAGAZINE DEPARTMENTS. Titles of regular departments in a magazine are capitalized headline-style but not put in quotation marks." --  Gadget850 talk 01:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Chicago MOS refers to magazine "departments". Sections of journals are rarely if ever referred to as "departments". The National Library of Medicine Style Guide refers to an optional Article Type that if present should appear in brackets after the article title. Likewise both the APA and MLA styles require that citations of reviews and letters to the editor be designated as such after the title. In short, the designation "departments" may make sense for magazines but less so for journal articles. For clarity, I think there should be an alias of |department= called |article-type=. Boghog (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I think that the last comment from Boghog sums up, that |department= would be appropriate, but that an alias more akin to Journal structure, that being |article-type=, should be added. Would this be added to the common code for Citation Style 1 or would it be specifically added to the code for {{Cite journal}} as it is only (at this time) relevant to that citation case (as well as to {{Citation}} when used for journal article citations, though). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the scope of |article-type= should not be limited to journal articles. It equally applies to other types of publications including magazines. Furthermore we should not expect that editors are familiar with Chicago MOS nomenclature. The meaning of a parameter should be immediately clear from its name. |article-type= fulfills that requirement. |department= does not. Boghog (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
|department= is the formal name of a regular column/department. |article-type= as you define it appears to be a description of the article based on the editor's judgement. --  Gadget850 talk 10:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If the journal/magazine is subdivided into sections, then |article-type= refers to how the journal/magazine defines it (or alternatively how PubMed Publication Types define it). Boghog (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I can see that we are not going to agree on this. If I added an example that The New York Times has a department/column named Lives, I expect you will change it to something generic. What you want is not the intent of this parameter. Done with this. Out. --  Gadget850 talk 11:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The scope of {{cite journal}} includes not only magazines but also journals. A department in a magazine is exactly analogous to a section of a journal. For journals, we can use the exact term the journal uses (e.g., perspective, invited review, analysis) to describe the section or use a more generic term like "review" that covers them all. Furthermore the APA, MLA, and NLM all specify that the article type be included after the title. This is exactly where |department= places its contents. So we can have either two separate parameters, "department" for magazines and "article-type" for journals, or have one an alias of the other. Since the two parameters are highly analogous and have identical output, it makes more sense to use an alias. To insist this parameter only be named "department" and only follows the Chicago MOS while ignoring APA, MLA, and NLM is not rational. Boghog (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • One additional note. It appears that the |department= parameter is not extensively used (1,120 results and a good number of these are false positives). WP:MEDRS is an important guideline that stresses secondary sources are strongly preferred to support medical claims. Adding |article-type= parameter that distinguishes between primary and secondary sources would be of significant value to the WP:MED (and other) projects. Boghog (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is exceedingly useful to note whether or not an article is a review or a primary source when it comes to medical content. Pubmed as mentioned does a good job of listing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2[edit]

Ceyockey asks about distinguishing peer-reviewed articles from articles not peer-reviewed, but then confuses matters by referring to review articles -- such as review the current state of a topic, or perhaps recent developments -- as distinct from original research reports. Most journals have the reports of original research in a designated section, which could be deemed a "department". Review articles are usually separate, possibly identifed as a review article, but this is usually not any separate "department". Moreover, review articles are also peer-reviewed. So there are two divisions here, either of which might warrant identification. However, marking articles to show they are reviews, or are peer-reviewed, seems distinctly novel; I am not aware this has ever been done.
In the end I think this comes down to how an editor might indicate the quality of a source. Peer-review is, of course, only one factor edtiors should consider in evaluationg a source, and we hope they will consider all relevant factors. But we don't expect an editor justify his assessment in the citation. (If there is some special case, that is covered in a note in the text.) Nor does standard citation practice (or the relevant authorities) have any provision for providing such evaluations in the citation.
Regarding the specific notion of having a |review= parameter: I think it would tend to get used for reviews of books, shows, and other material of no special authority, and thus would be confusingly inconsistent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: Just to be clear, Ceyockey wanted to distinguish original research articles (primary) from review articles (secondary), not peer-reviewed articles from articles not peer-reviewed. Please note that peer reviewedreview article. These two concepts are often confused, but are really quite separate. In medicine and science, for a source to be considered reliable, it must be peer reviewed. Reliable sources include both published original research articles (primary sources) and published review articles (secondary sources). Books written by experts and reviewed by expert editors are also considered reliable secondary sources. WP:PSTS is a policy that applies to all of Wikipedia and states in part that primary sources can only be used with great caution while secondary sources when available are strongly preferred. The WP:MED project as explained in WP:MEDRS is constantly making judgement as the the quality of sources. WP:MEDRS in a nutshell states that medical claims ideally should be supported by reliable secondary sources. Primary sources, even if they are peer reviewed are not normally sufficient. Peer reviewed secondary sources (review articles or books) published by high quality publishers do absolutely have special authority. As summarized in {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} there are objective third party authorities that can be used to establish whether medical sources are secondary or primary. Furthermore the definitions of primary and secondary sources in WP:MEDRS are precise and can be applied very consistently. Ceyockey's request for a field to designate if a source is secondary is very reasonable. Boghog (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nor does standard citation practice (or the relevant authorities) have any provision for providing such evaluations in the citation – As stated above, the National Library of Medicine Style Guide refers to an optional Article Type that if present should appear in brackets after the article title. Likewise both the APA and MLA styles require that citations of reviews and letters to the editor be designated as such after the title. Boghog (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at those last two examples from Boghog, that reminds me of how I've been indicating that a source published in a newspaper is actually an editorial using |type=Editorial in {{cite news}}. That follows the advice on the CS1 help page, which says: type: Specifies the type of work cited. Appears in parentheses immediately after the title. ... Other useful values are Review, Systemic review, Meta-analysis or Original article. Compare:
  • "Welcome Center Plan Worth Seeing". The Times Herald (Editorial) (Port Huron, MI). August 19, 2013. 
  • "Welcome Center Plan Worth Seeing". Our Views. The Times Herald (Editorial) (Port Huron, MI). August 19, 2013. 
Each example uses |type= to indicate that the source is an editorial, and the second also adds |department=. The output in these cases is the same between {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}}. I'll also note that in both templates, |title= refers to the title of the article within the newspaper or journal, so the documentation implies that the |type= should trail it, and not the newspaper/journal name. In other words, the output of |type= should come immediately after the article title, when a citation is specifying both the |title= and an alias for |work= because we're not citing the full work, but rather a component (article, chapter, etc) of that full work. Imzadi 1979  07:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It is important that editors distinguish between primary and secondary sources, but that does not mean we should record our assessments in articles – that would be original research. The |department= field has the virtue of reporting a distinction made by the publication, and is sufficient for marking editorials, letters, book reviews and abstracts. If a journal has separate sections for surveys and research reports, we can put that in |department=, but we cannot record our own assessments. Kanguole 10:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely right. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If we cannot reliably tell the difference between primary and secondary sources, we are in big trouble. It is in fact not that difficult. Furthermore there are independent third party authorities such as PubMed that have classified articles by type. Can we not record the PubMed assessment? Boghog (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is often obvious from the context that an article is a review (e.g., it is published in journal that only contains review articles or is included in a section entitled "reviews", "perspectives", etc.). In these cases, it is not original research to state that an article is a review. Furthermore it is not original research to state that reviews are secondary. Boghog (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I am quite aware of what Ceyockey probably means, but he can best speak for what he means. And I point out that review articles can be peer reviewed. Also, reports (of original research) often start with a review section which amounts to a secondary source, and which, if done by a noted authority, can be just as notable as a stand-alone review article.
Boghog accurately stated my intention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I am also quite aware that types of publications -- such as letters, editorials, abstracts, thesi, etc. -- should be indicated. However, while some types of publication imply peer-review, I do not see that there is any standard biblographic convention for explicitly identifying sources as peer-reviewed (or not). That a source is peer-reviewed is (as I said above) one of several factors an editor may consider in assessing a source (which is not OR, because editors should assess their sources). But (following Kangoule) an editor's assessment of a source is (generally) not appropriate in the citation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue is not peer review. The issue is primary vs. secondary. Also, can we not record the PubMed assessment using the NLM bibliographic convention? Boghog (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #3[edit]

You and Ceyockey keep throwing out "peer reviewed" and "original research", so no wonder I was a bit confused on that point. It's fine with me if you want to focus on the PubMed article type, but that has no mention of peer review or original research. Nor of the primary/secondary source distinction you just mentioned, which is more of a Wikipedia thing. So what should we be discussing here:

  1. Ceyockey's original request for a |review= parameter (which is only a single article type)?
  2. A more general parameter for indicating article types?
  3. Or some way of indicating in a citation whether the source is primary/secondary/tertiary?

If we could have some clarity on this it would avoid a lot of uneeded discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • #3 (primary/secondary/tertiary) is equivalent to either #1 |review=yes (secondary/tertiary) or #1 |review=no (primary). Ceyockey was not (I think) asking for #2. Boghog (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • PubMed article type ... has no mention of peer review or original research – Exactly. Most of what is in PubMed has been peer reviewed. Scientific publications that have not been peer reviewed are generally not appropriate for either PubMed or Wikipedia (with limited exceptions as noted by WP:SCIRS). All primary sources in PubMed are by definition original research. Per WP:PSTS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:SCIRS, primary original research sources should only be used with caution. Per WP:SCIRS, non-peer reviewed sources are only appropriate if they are written by experts in the field. Secondary sources as designated in PubMed include "Meta-Analysis"and "Review". Tertiary sources include "Textbooks". Boghog (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be absolutely clear, if a scientific source is not peer reviewed, it is not worth talking about. The |review=yes/no parameter assumes that the source is peer reviewed. Boghog (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 My #1 is Ceyockey's original question about adding "a new parameter "review=yes" ... able to indicate whether the source is a review article or an original research article" (emphasis added), perhaps by adding "Review:" before the title. My #3 is not equivalent to #1, because while "review articles" (as commonly found in scientific journals) are generally secondary sources, that is not an adequate criterion for determining primary/secondary/tertiary: many secondary sources are not such reviews, and many primary sources (orignal research) contain a certain amount of review which is secondary in nature. And this criterion says nothing about tertiary sources.
 You state: "All primary sources in PubMed are by definition original research." By whose definition? As I said before, PubMed makes no distinction of peer review or original research (nor, I might add, of "primary" or "secondary" sources) let alone any definitions; these interpretations are entirely your own. PubMed article types that by WP definition are primary ("close to an event") but not original research in the scientific sense (and most certainly not peer reviewed) include Abbreviations (lists of), Account Books, Addresses (Lectures), Advertisements, Anecdotes, Annual Reports, Autobiography, and many more. QED, your statement is incorrect.
 Finally, you are quite wrong to state that "if a scientific source is not peer reviewed, it is not worth talking about." Looking at just Science and Nature, there many "pieces" written by scientists and very knowledgable science reporters (usually in the form of "news" or "commentary") which are not peer reviewed, yet are most excellent secondary sources. As you already said, the issue here is "not peer review", so I would suggest not raising it.
 If we can't determine what the topic here should be, and clarify the applicable (or otherwise) concepts, this discussion is not going to reach any fruition. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is going around in circles. One last attempt to clarify:
  • It is important to note that the medical/scientific fields use a more restrictive definition of secondary compared to most other fields. "News" or "commentary" pieces may be useful to help establish notability and document basic facts such as when a discovery was made. But these types of sources cannot be used to support the reliability of the results or conclusions of original research. For this, review articles are required.
  • Links to "news" or "commentary" in medical/scientific journals would be appropriate to included in |laysummary=, but they are not marked as review articles in PubMed (see for example PubMed) nor are they considered reliable secondary sources by WP:MEDRS. Only review articles published in medical/scientific journals would qualify.
  • PubMed makes no distinction of peer review or original research – Again, you are confusing these two concepts. Both original research and review articles are peer reviewed. The distinction that needs to be made is between primary and secondary, not between peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed. If PubMed marks a publication as a review (or meta-analysis), it is by definition secondary. If it is not marked as a review (or meta-analysis), it is not secondary. The template {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} relies on this distinction. When this template is transcluded into an article's talk page, it provides links to citations in PubMed about the subject of the Wikipedia article that have been designated as review articles and hence secondary / WP:MEDRS compliant.
  • To summarize, if PubMed says a citation is a review, then it would be appropriate to designate this with |review=yes. Boghog (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • PS: As explained in MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Selection, journals are selected for inclusion into PubMed based in large part on the "quality of editorial work" and "especially on the explicit process of external peer review". Hence any PubMed publication type marked as "Journal Article" is highly likely to have undergone peer review. A "Journal Article" that is also designated a "Case Report", "Clinical Trial", or "Research Support" (NIH, non-governmental, etc.) is a peer reviewed primary source. Any PubMed citation that is marked as "Review" or "Meta-Analysis" is peer reviewed and secondary and likely to be WP:MEDRS compliant. Citations that are marked "Monograph" or "Textbook" are also secondary and often are excellent sources but may not have undergone external peer review and therefore may need to be treated a little more carefully. The use of a |pmid-publication-type= parameter would remove any possible disagreements about interpretation. Boghog (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • PPS: PubMed makes no distinction of peer review or original research – as stated above, PubMed is selective as to what journals it chooses to include and as a general rule, these need to be peer reviewed. Hence PubMed does not need to to designate individual "Journal Articles" as peer reviewed, this is a given. Furthermore PubMed does mark review articles, and these are by definition secondary. In addition, articles that are marked as "Case Report", "Clinical Trial", or "Research Support" are primary.
  • many primary sources (orignal research) contain a certain amount of review which is secondary in nature – these "mini reviews" that are in the introduction of original research articles are not generally regarded as reviews and they certainly are not WP:MEDRS compliant.
  • these interpretations are entirely your own – these are logical conclusions that follow directly from definitions provided by PubMed and WP:PSTS. It is not original research to state that a PubMed citation marked as "Review" is secondary. It is also not original research to state that a PubMed citation marked as a "Case Report", "Clinical Trial", or "Research Support" is primary. Boghog (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
To report the article type PubMed has assigned to an article is one thing. However, to "directly follow" a line of inference to a logical conclusion is "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" — to " join A and B together to imply a conclusion C" — is indeed your own interpretation, and constitutes WP:synthesis. Even worse, these "definitions provided by PubMed" don't seem to exist (the article types being descriptions, not definitions, and not at all mentioning peer review or original research).
And you just couldn't refrain from throwing out "peer reviewed" another dozen times, even though you have admitted (above, 04:41 23 Jan) that "[t]the issue is not peer review." Well, it seems to me you are the one that keeps kicking this dicussion around in circles. As you can't figure out which issue you want to discuss I'm done with this.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The issue is whether we can use PubMed to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. As demonstrated by {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} template, we can. Also interpreting a PubMed citation that is marked "Review" as secondary is not original research, it is compiling facts and information and in particular "Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names". The only reason I keep bringing up peer review is your insistence that PubMed descriptions do not at all mention peer review Again according to MEDLINE/PubMed Journal Selection, journals are selected for inclusion into PubMed based in large part on the "quality of editorial work" and "especially on the explicit process of external peer review". Boghog (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Try this little experiment: go to the PubMed "Publication Characteristics (Publication Types) - Scope Notes" page, then use your browser to search for "peer". Did you get any hits? Any mentions? I think not. (Or if you did: show us the text, from that page.) I insist on the point because it is a demonstrable truth,
What you have totally missed is that while PubMed's journal selection criteria imply that a selected journal has peer reviewed research, it by no means "defines" any article type as peer reviewed.
You have also mistated the use of the {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} template: it only provides "links to possibly useful sources of information". It does NOT "distinguish between primary and secondary sources", as you stated. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The criteria for indexing a journal by PubMed is that it should be peer reviewed. If the journal is peer reviewed, then all the regular articles (i.e., articles other than "letters to the editor", "editorials", and "news") within that journal are peer reviewed. Peer review does not need to be explicitly indicated on a per article basis. An article inherits this property from the journal it is published in. The disclaimer in the {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} template covers cases where a review article may be either inadequate or inappropriate. For example, the source may advocate a minority view that conflicts with the majority view as documented by other reliable secondary sources. In addition, the search query is based on the Wikipedia article name and because of alternative meanings may return false positive hits. The hits are still reviews, but may not be relevant to the subject matter of the Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Your conclusion ("... then all the regular articles ... within that journal are peer reviewed") is false, arising only from your own erroneous intepretations. But I weary of trying to explain this to you. For the record, I find your faulty understanding and invalid logic insufficient to support any proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
One thing that is absolutely clear and there should be no controversy whatsoever is that if PubMed designates a citation as a "Review" or "Meta-Analysis", it is by definition secondary. This conclusion is not original research.
arising only from your own erroneous interpretations – You clearly do not understand how scientific publishing works. If a journal has a policy of peer review, it will apply that policy uniformly to all regular articles (i.e., articles that are not "Comments") published within that journal. No reputable journal would ever peer review some regular articles and not others. Furthermore it is relatively straight forward using PubMed's classification to distinguish those secondary articles within a journal that are subject to peer review (those marked as "Meta-Analysis" and "Review"). Other articles that are marked as "Case Report", "Clinical Trial", or "Research Support" are peer reviewed primary sources. Articles marked as "Comment" are not subject to peer review. Boghog (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Boghog: You so don't get the point. Even allowing that PubMed can be used to identify journals that are peer reviewed, NO WHERE does PubMed (nor, I think, NIH) identify any article type as peer reviewed. You derive that connection solely from your own understanding of "how scientific publishing works", and your expectation of which "regular" articles will be peer reviewed. No? Then tell me: in a peer reviewed journal, are the contents of a "Letters" section peer reviewed, or not? More importantly: how do you know that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
By "Letters" I assume you mean "Letters to the editor". These are classified as opinions/commentary, relatively short, and may or may not be reviewed (see for example Science Magazine: How to Submit a Letter to the Editor). Because it is not known if they are peer reviewed, it is assumed that they are not. In contrast, if the journal does use peer review, short communications, full research articles, and review articles are without exception subject to peer review. The types of articles that are subject to peer review should be clearly defined in each journal's "Instruction to Authors" (see for example Science Magazine General Information for Authors). Boghog (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
You are right in one regard: you assumed that I meant "Letters to the editor". You overlooked that what would be consdered Reports in Science are called "Letters" in Nature (being considered a letter to the editor). That ambiguity is not resolved at PubMed. That we accept one "Letters" as peer reviewed, and the other as not, depends on information not provided in PubMed's article types. If anyone was so benighted to question whether the the one case is and the other not (a point I would consider rather "blue sky") it would, of course, be readily resolved by referring directly to the particular journal. PubMed's description (not definition!) of a given article type is not only not necessary, it is entirely not relevant on the point of peer review. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think things are being over-thought here. We currently have |type= to indicate the type of a source, and if I was dealing a with "Review" or "Meta-Analysis" article in a journal, I'd just add |type=Review or |type=Meta-Analysis. All this discussion of peer-reviewed status is really not required to resolve this situation. At most, we may need an |article-type= parameter or discuss moving where in the order the output of |type= appears. Imzadi 1979  08:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Boghog (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, no: the |type= field has a clear definition, "additional information about the media type of the source", and we should keep that clarity. A |pubmed-type= field would avoid the original research problem, but it seems unjustifiable for Wikipedia to innovate in that way when no-one else does it. Kanguole 12:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kanguole: type: Specifies the type of work cited. Appears in parentheses immediately after the title. Some templates use a default that can be overridden; example: {{cite press release}} will show (Press release) by default. Other useful values are Review, Systemic review, Meta-analysis or Original article. That's what Help:Citation Style 1 says for documentation on the parameter. As for the "immediately after the title", that's why I wonder if the output of |type= shouldn't be right after the title of a journal article. As for your comments about "additional information about the media type of the source", I think you're talking about what we use |format= for. Imzadi 1979  12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The default placement of the |type= in {{cite journal}} is after the journal name (see "Cite journal compare" example above), not the article title. The documentation is misleading and probably should be changed. |department= is placed after the article title. What we need is an |article-type= and/or |pubmed-type= alias for |department=. Wikipedia's places a unique emphasis on the importance of review articles that does not exist with other types of publications and therefore this innovation is justified. Boghog (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In {{citation/core}} |department= becomes |TitleNote= and in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration becomes metaparameter TitleNote. |type= becomes |TitleType= and metaparameter TitleType. I think that this suggests that an alias for |department= aka TitleNote might be appropriate. Position of the metaparameters TitleNote and TitleType might also be addressed. Where do they belong in a rendered citation? Which comes first if both are present? What formatting should be applied to them?
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of an issue with maps printed in atlases. Compare the following two situations for a moment:
  • Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan". The Road Atlas (Map).
  • Michigan Department of Transportation (2014). Official Transportation Map (Map).
Each indicate that the ultimate source is a map, and through the lack of intervening punctuation, each joins that indication to an italicized title. However, the indicator that the source is a map comes after the title of the atlas, yet the atlas isn't the map, the component map is. Ideally, we'd have that first example output like:
  • Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas.
For a journal article that's a review, using |type= to indicate that gives us:
  • Author (February 2015). "Article". Important Journal (Review). 
but because the Important Journal isn't the review, we should get:
  • Author (February 2015). "Article" (Review). Important Journal.
If the department of the journal were indicated:
  • Author (February 2015). "Article" (Review). Department. Important Journal.
The documentation says that the type follows the title of the source, and in this case, the article within the journal is the title of the source being cited, not the title of the journal. Another reason I think these placements need refinement is that the type indication is joined to the title by the absence of a period to separate them. The Road Atlas (Map). and Important Journal (Review). parse as a single unit as if the content of the parentheses is modifying the title, yet in those cases, it should be modifying the title of the component of the encompassing work.
Boghog's alias idea seems appealing at first glace, but it fails in a consistency sense because |department= is not rendered with in parentheses, yet for maps, press releases, etc, the indicator of the type of the source is rendered that way. Also, it fails to allow an editor to specify the name of a department and the type indication. Imzadi 1979  14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: I was quoting the documentation of {{citation}}. It's unfortunate that the two are inconsistent. Kanguole 16:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A proposed new error to detect: URL in |title=[edit]

I recently came across a URL in a |title= parameter, and I got to wondering how many more citations had that error in them. I did a search for insource:/\|\s*title\s*=\s*http/ (for those of you who don't read regular expressions, that's "'title' followed by an equals sign and 'http', with optional spaces") and got between 500 and 1000 results. I suppose that it's possible for the title of a web page to be a URL, but I scanned the list quickly and did not see any such legitimate titles.

I propose that we create an error category, or a least a maintenance category, to flag or track these. If we find that there are titles that legitimately should contain URLs, we may be able to find a way to accommodate them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I at first thought you meant titles that include external links in them, and I wrote something about that, but I now realize you mean actual urls as the sole content of the title. I agree that this is probably an error, although if we're going to flag it as such we should probably have some way of marking it as legitimate just in case it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Having a url as a title doesn't seem to keep the citation from working. If there is no url, the title is linked, and if there is one, the title doesn't seem to override the url. I expect a url is usually a poor choice for a title, but some things may actually properly have url titles. —PC-XT+ 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
1,000 is a miniscule fraction of six million, and there aren't enough editors to handle the error tracking categories we already have. Is it worth it? ―Mandruss  01:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Response 1: A reference that contains a full URL, and only a URL, in both the title and URL parameters, is essentially the same as a reference that contains a URL but no title, something for which we already have an error category. That category won't catch this sort of error, of course. Bare URLs are subject to link rot and therefore not a good idea.
Response 2: We have created error categories for much less. Those error categories, like Category:CS1 errors: PMID‎, help editors avoid creation of references that are incomplete or inaccurate.
Response 3: re: "there aren't enough editors...." The number of articles with CS1 error messages is decreasing, albeit slowly, even as we add new error categories.
Response 4: re: "some things may actually properly have url titles." Hence my alternate suggestion for a maintenance category, or a third option – an error message hidden by default – until we determine if there are any legitimate URL-only |title= parameters. If we find legitimate URLs as title parameters, we could work around the error message via character encoding or some other recommended method (aside from creating yet another edge-case parameter). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems reasonable enough as simply an exploration of possible improvement, if time is found to implement it. I tried some similar searches for an idea of what to expect, but we may be in a better position to discuss with a populated category. I might go ahead and start working on the search results for insource:/\|\s*title\s*=\s*(https?:)?\/\// for the time being... —PC-XT+ 04:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I only found two relative protocol urls. I changed them to urls without titles, first, in these edits: Special:Diff/643775832 and Special:Diff/643775984. Most of the other titles starting with "//" are using it as a separation symbol for crumb navigation menu titles. (That may be a separate issue.) —PC-XT+ 05:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) (That second one, in International Association of EMTs and Paramedics, wasn't relative protocol, but a url with two slashes in front. That page uses urls for most of its titles, but doesn't have a url parameter set in those cases.) —PC-XT+ 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


On a related note, I regaulry see traineess enter the URL of a cited web page into |wesbite= rather than |url=. Could we trap this, too, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Treatment of a literal "et al." in an author parameter[edit]

[Formerly titled: "|author=Alpha Beta, et al. -> |author=Alpha Beta|author2=et al.". Re-titled to remove templates. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)]

I searched the archive, and the only treatment (implied, at best) of this scenario I found was here, placing et al. in the (deprecated) |coauthors=et al. parameter. My gut says to do |author=Alpha Beta|author2=et al., so that a subsequent |author-link= will be properly displayed, and/or that someone will come along and enumerate the literal et al., but I wanted to check with you guys first.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that the use of |authorn=et al. should be discouraged because et al. is not an author's name and because, Module:Citation/CS1 not being very smart, the non-author et al. gets added to the COinS metadata as if it were an author's name. I have seen cases where other author names have been added after |authorn=et al. which makes no sense. Better, I think, would be to create some sort of parameter that might be used to explicitly add et al. to the author list when there are one or more authors identified: perhaps |et-al=yes or some such. The parameter would display all of the identified authors so its functionality would be distinctly different from |display-authors=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Which do you think has a more likely chance of happening, Module:Citation/CS1 properly removing/never-instating non-author et al. COinS metadata, or |et-al=yes being created?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a feature request for us to do something about et al. in the author list but just what that something is, remains undecided. I choose to not speculate on which of the two things you mentioned is more likely. It could be one, the other, both, neither, perhaps something completely different?
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime, would it be more useful to have |author=Alpha Beta|author2=et al. in the metadata, if and only if 1 author is explicitly named in the original |author= parameter, or for both to be contained in |author=Alpha Beta et al., identical to the n>2 case?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
When et al. is in its own |authorn= parameter, then the author metadata looks like this:
When it's combined, essentially two or more authors in a single |author= parameter, then the metadata looks like this:
To me, this second 'style' corrupts both & and &rft.aulast so the lesser of two evils is et al. in its own parameter.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to reiterate what Trappist said: use of |authorn=et al. should be discouraged. I will also expand: |author[n]= is for institutional or other "authors" whose names do not parse into first/last. Most authors have a definite last name - more precisely, a surname - which is the primary term for identification and sorting. This should be put into |last=, with the rest of the author's name in |first=.

I think it would make more sense if citation template builders made templates that were flexible, intuitive and open to the different ways that editors actually use them, instead of make templates strict and fixed to a number of arbitrary rules and subjective preferences. First of all you cannot expect editors to know the rules you invent or to read the documentation for the templates, and second you dont have any authority to limit or discourage particular ways of formatting references. Using "et al." in the author field is useful (sometimes it is hard and inconvenient to find all the different authornames or fit them in) and it is an intuitive solution for most basic users. It is a usage that is not likely to disappear. It would make more sense to make a template that could accommodate it than to create a rule discouraging i.t·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think most of us would consider "first-name" and "last-name", and even the shortening to "first" and "last", pretty intuitive. Your "arbitrary rules and subjective preferences" presumably refers to standard bibliographical conventions as established by noted authorities (such as The Chicago Manual of Style), and hardly my "invention". Explicitly adding "et al." in a parameter is a misuse of a tool, and breaks the metadata, as Trappist explained above. As for any kind of template that would be flexible enough to accomodates every kind of misuse and misunderstanding: that would require some kind of mind-reading, with a dash of omniscience. I don't think our current technology is there yet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. First of all it is not misuse. Hardly anyone cares about the meta data. What readers and editors care about is the immediate visual output. It is misuse of the template function to build them so that it makes it harder for editors and readers to edit. Secondly you dont need to be mind readers you just need to pay attention to what people actually do instead of trying to establish rules for what you think they should do. My "arbitrary preferences" refer to the arbitrary choices that template editors think they have the right to make on the behalf of content editors which make some reference styles possible and others impossible - instead of accommodating the styles that editors actually use - including adding "et al" as a parameter.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, if you don't like the templates that have been supplied, why don't you write your own? Let's see you develop a free-form template with absolutely no "rules" that always turns out absolutely correct and perfectly formated citations no matter how incompetent the input. I say you're a fool if you think you can do it (but feel free to demonstrate otherwise). And a jerk if you expect that others should. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The only people who care about metadata are the people who use it. That is sufficient reason to not dismiss it out of hand.

I have tweaked Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox so that it detects a variety of forms of 'et al'; italicized or not, with or without a leading comma, with or without a terminal period. When any of the various forms are detected, they are stripped from that parameter before it is included in the metadata and a flag is set. The flag tells follow-on processes to include the static form of 'et al.' (same way that |display-authors= does). The code also handles the case when el al. is used in an editor name list. Et al. is presumed to be the last item in a parameter.

{{cite book/new |title=Title |author=Author, ''et al.''}}
Author et al. Title. 


<span class="citation book">Author et al. ''Title''.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span> <span class="citation-comment" style="display:none; color:#33aa33">CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. ([[:Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.|link]])</span>

other variations:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First, ''et al.''}}
Last, First et al. Title. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |last=Last |first=First |last2=''Et Al.''}}
Last, First et al. Title. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |editor-last=Last |editor-first=First |editor-last2=''et al.''}}
Last, First et al. (ed.). Title. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |author=Akhmet al-Hassan}} – should not find the et al in this (contrived) author name
Akhmet al-Hassan. Title. 

I'm inclined to make these conditions emit error messages and have a couple of additional parameters, perhaps |more-authors= and |more-editors=, which if set to yes or true would add the static 'et al.' text to the rendered citation; the parameters could be categorized so that those editors with the inclination, or a bot, could fill in the rest of the authors/editors.

Trappist the monk (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being forthcoming in this, the problem with a special parameter to do it, is that the people who are likely to add "et al." the wrong place are also the most unlikely to be familiar with those specific parameters.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we put these in a tracking category for now and see what we have? Then we can decide how to go forward. insource:/=et al./ gets 4,026 hits but there are probably more variants. --  Gadget850 talk 19:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I also support a maintenance category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Category:CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Date ranges like "2000–present"[edit]

I have two suggestions:

  • Would it be possible to tweak the template so that a value like "2000–present" (or, alternatively, "2000– ") in the |date= or |year= parameters doesn't generate a CS1 error? This occurs when a serial that is currently being published is cited. It would not be correct to indicate a range like "2000–2014" as that would suggest the serial ceased publication in 2014.
  • Also, what about a parameter called |origdate= corresponding to |origyear=?

— Cheers, JackLee talk 16:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You cite what you read. You read something published on some definite date in the past, and that's what you should cite. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that, but {{citation}} can also be used in "Further reading" sections, like this: "Supreme Court of Singapore#Serials". In such cases, it is useful to be able to indicate that a serial is still being published. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jacklee: |origyear= can take values other than years, for example:
  • Title1. Publisher. 2014 [1999]. 
  • Title2. Publisher. 2014 [1 January 1999]. 
  • Title3. Publisher. 2014 [First published on 1 January 1999]. 
Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
That's useful to know, even though it doesn't quite address the issue I mentioned. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


Japan is a populous country with plentiful publishing and plenty of university and other large libraries. Putting aside Japanese books (in any sense of "Japanese") for a moment, just the Japanese holdings of English-language books published in the west are significant. Most large libraries pool their information to CiNii, which ends up as something like a Japan-specific Worldcat (though with a lot fewer near-duplications) -- and, conveniently for us, which has an English-language interface. The libraries that contribute to CiNii typically (or always?) ignore Worldcat: what's at CiNii usually (always?) complements rather than duplicates what's at Worldcat.

CiNii uses what it calls NCID numbers for books. Here's the page for one book: you can see that its NCID is BB15607497 and that the relationship between NCID and URL seems very simple. I suppose, but don't know for sure, that there's a bijection.

All things being equal (translation: if somebody other than me did all the work) it would be good if there were a Template:NCID (there's currently Template:NAID for journals) and an ncid field for this template too.

Just throwing this out. (translation: it's just my personal brainfart; don't expect me to wear out my little brain doing any hard thinking) -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: There seems to be no mention of this on Wikipedia. Do you have a reliable source (preferably in English) that we can cite? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I seem slow, Andy Mabbett, but a reliable source for what? (That CiNii is the major Japanese union catalogue?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hoary: No, that NCID is their identifier for books. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That could be difficult; I'll give it some thought when I'm wider awake. In the meantime, however, I've done a little wikistalking for your recent activities (excuse me!), and notice that List of public art in Birmingham and Anuradha Patel (sculptor) cite the books
  1. Noszlopy, George T. (1998). Public Sculpture of Birmingham including Sutton Coldfield. Public Sculpture of Britain 2. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-85323-682-8.
  2. Chambers, Eddie (2014). Black Artists in British Art: A History since the 1950s. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 9781780762715.
respectively. The former isn't in CiNii, but the latter is; see this page, and the detail on the right, below the red cover: "NCID: BB17453918". I do realize that a sample of two (books by Hornstra and Chambers) is laughably small; please give me a little time. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I can find no information about NCIDs online, either in English or in Japanese. Time permitting, I'll search dead-tree resources. Meanwhile, I note that NCID is not limited to what I think of as books. Each of the following has an NCID:
Anyone accustomed to Japanese libraries will know that most (though not all) impose a division between "Japanese" and "Western" books. (These presumably being the only kinds of book of any interest to traditional librarians here. Please don't ask about Chinese, Korean or other troublesome books, OK?) While I've been using examples in English in order not to confuse y'all, I think that I should also look for Japanese materials. And so:
Each of these has an NCID. Indeed, NCIDs are applied to some remarkable extensions of the notion of "book". I draw your attention to the category "3D Artcraft or Naturally Occurring Object", of which an example:
  • a wood block from 1886. (Or set of wood blocks? Anyway, thing[s] from which woodblock prints were made)
HTH. (Well, HTIBTN, hope this is better than nothing.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
NCID stands for "NII NACSIS-CAT ID". The NACSIS-CAT webpage provides a large amount of related documentation in Japanese, but the information available in English is minimal. --Cckerberos (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a large amount of related documentation, but the string "NCID" doesn't appear in that page. Amazingly, when I google for ncid, I get one hit,, which itself contains just one hit, viz:
NCID 総合目録データべース書誌レコードID
I.e. "NCID: comprehensive catalogue database shoshi record ID". Within which, shoshi is a slightly technical term (one not used in conversation, except perhaps among librarians) for books, periodicals and so forth. Attempting to parse this rather impenetrable string of nouns, I'd suggest "record ID(s) for shoshi within the database of the comprehensive catalogue". -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm confused about what it is you're looking for. As I wrote above, we know what NCID stands for. When you do a search and click on an entry, "NII NACSIS-CAT ID (NCID)" is written on the right, as on this page. --Cckerberos (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll quote Andy Mabbett (above): "that NCID is their [sc CiNii's] identifier for books". It certainly is an identifier of CiNii's for books. It's also CiNii's identifier for things that are related to books but aren't normally thought of as books: printed magazines, CDs of newspapers, etc: even wood blocks. What I don't know is whether it's CiNii's only identifier for books. At this point, I've no compelling reason not to think that if I keep digging around for books (or booklike objects) I might not come across an "NCID2" or whatever. I thought that Andy was looking for a reliable statement that CiNii gives a unique NCID to each species of book -- informally and approximately, each "book" that, if published since the popularization of ISBNs, would be given its own ISBN (if its publisher asked/paid for one) -- that it catalogues: that it never catalogues a book without giving it an NCID, and that it never identifies a book with some system regarded as alternative to and incompatible with NCID. Sorry if I misunderstood the request and am just muddying the waters. (Incidentally, you guess correctly: I have not even the most negligible education in librarianship.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


It also appears that an NCID can go in the |rfe_dat= parameter of COinS metadata, per [4]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what |rfe_dat= is. That parameter isn't among the parameters listed here and has a different prefix (rfe v. rft) and different separator (underscore v. period).
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
How odd. I suspect the "e" is a typo. A Google search with q="rft.dat"+Z3988 finds a few examples in the wild, but not many. I wonder if it's a local extension? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


I've proposed a Wikidata property for NCID. See here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort, Andy Mabbett, but I wonder. I haven't yet had my second coffee of the day, and I've never done more than dabble at Wikidata; but I think (very wrongly?) that you are saying there that the novel The Catcher in the Rye has the NCID BA89854848, at If this is indeed what you are saying, then no. You've instead given the NCID of one specific edition (an edition published in Japan, in English but with Japanese annotations, ISBN 9784268000859) of The Catcher in the Rye. The novel has no NCID. A search at Ci.Nii for title=catcher ∩ author=salinger ∩ language=English ∩ format=Book and Journal currently brings 32 hits (most but not all of which are for the novel itself); NCID BA28843418 (, as another example among these hits, is of an entirely different specific edition of the novel (Hamish Hamilton, 1994, ISBN 0241002516).
I'm sorry, but I don't know the criteria that must be met for a discrete NCID. For that matter, I don't know the criteria that must be met for a discrete ISBN (although given a very large pile of pairs of "the same" book, I'm confident that I'd be at least 98% successful at guessing which pairs would and which wouldn't share the same ISBN). I get the impression that the two sets of criteria are pretty much the same. (Very possibly one criterion for NCID is "If it has its own ISBN then it gets its own NCID.") This being so, the NCID starts to look superfluous: a quasi-ISBN merely for the use of Japanese academic libraries. However, the system of NCIDs fills at least two large gaps: (i) books recently published in Japan for which the publisher hasn't arranged ISBNs (and there are very many of these; among them, almost all the photobooks published by Sōkyūsha=Sokyusha=Sokyu-sha=蒼穹舎), and (i) books published in Japan before ISBNs were adopted (and, like Italy, Japan got around to them late). (Note all the ISBNs missing from the pretty good list of publications [pats self on back] within the otherwise dreadful non-article on Issei Suda: with the possible exception of the last, they're missing because they don't exist.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata is in the process of working out how to differentiate works from representations of the work. What I've said there is that CitR may be represented by that NCID; anyone could add a second, third, or additional NCID values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cite DoI/ Cite PMID[edit]

Both {{Cite doi}} and {{Cite pmid}} are marked as deprecated, but have 17,919 & 7243 transclusions respectively. Is the intention to replace these? If so, should a bot be requested to do the job? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that User:Citation bot is still adding citation data to template space. Citation bot should instead replace {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite isbn}} with in-line {{cite journal}} and {{book}} templates. As soon as that is done, a bot can substitute the existing transclusions as discussed here. Also after this change is made, we can de-deprecate {{cite pmid}} knowing that Citation bot will replace that template with a full in-line citation. Boghog (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yet another reason I do not love citation bot. Has there been any attempt to remove that functionality from citation bot? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, the best solution is to alter, not remove this functionality. The {{cite pmid}} templates are convenient, especially for new editors. If the bot replaced these templates with the appropriate in-line templates instead of adding the citation data to template space, we would retain the convenience while avoiding the disadvantages. The problem is that maintenance of citation bot is sporadic. We need someone with more time and PHP scripting experience to take over. Boghog (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
"adding citation data to template space" in what way? What triggers this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


See the RFC: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?. The result was:

Existing and future DOI details should be included in articles, however, the bot function should remain, with a BRFA raised to change its function to use cite journal within articles without separate subpages. CSD:T3 does not apply, and mass deletion of orphaned citation templates should not occur without further consensus. Some consideration should be given to future automated processing of the data in case there is a future consensus to centralize citations. This is without prejudice toward further UI improvements that may render this discussion moot by providing seamless editing of centralized citations

If you want to alter this decision, then another RFC is required. The way this decision is worded is very confusing to me. --  Gadget850 talk 12:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: "adding citation data to template space, in what way, what triggers this?" Citation bot scans Wikipedia for new instances of {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite isbn}} templates, and if it finds one, it creates a second template that contains citation data. The first template then transcludes the second so that the citation data is displayed in the Wikipedia article. For example, {{cite pmid|10367338}} was placed in Alcohol. Citation Bot then created {{Cite_pmid/10367338}} which contains the citation data. This data is then transcluded back into Alcohol as Alcohol#cite_note-15.
@Gadget850: I agree that the wording of the decision is confusing, but I interpret to mean that the bot should not create new transcluded templates and instead, it should substitute {{cite pmid}} with {{cite journal}}, etc. I have made a request directly to the bot operator here to implement this change. Boghog (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


I just tried subst:ing an example of Cite doi, as an experiment, and it failed. Any idea why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Because subst has never worked inside <ref> tags. --  Gadget850 talk 12:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Always something new to learn. Thank you. Is there a work-around? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The work-around involves work: copy it outside the <ref> tags, subst it, show changes, copy the changes, paste into the content. Repeat. $$Profit. --  Gadget850 talk 12:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Vcite journal + Vcite2 journal[edit]

Can anyone tell me why we have both {{Vcite journal}} and {{Vcite2 journal}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a Lua version and uses Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:ParseVauthors. The other Vancouver templates have not yet been updated. When I looked at this before, it is being mixed with CS1 templates. It uses parameters that differ from {{Vcite journal}}. And the talk page redirects here for some reason. So we now have {{Vcite journal}}, {{Vcite2 journal}} and {{Vancite journal}}. --  Gadget850 talk 12:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The reason that {{Vcite2 journal}} talk redirects here is that it is based on Module:Citation/CS1. The primary reason for {{Vcite journal}} (298 transclusions) and {{Vancite journal}} (12 transclusions) was performance. The new Lua based citation templates are much more efficient hence the rationale for {{Vcite journal}} and {{Vancite journal}} has largely disappeared. Furthermore these two templates were never widely used and have largely fallen into disuse. The reason for the new {{Vcite2 journal}} template (1723 transclusions) is to avoid the parameter overhead of explicit first1, last1, ... author parameters while still generating clean author metadata. If there is no objection, we could replace {{Vcite journal}} and {{Vancite journal}} with {{Vcite2 journal}}. If |vauthors= support were added to {{cite journal}}, we could also deprecate {{Vcite2 journal}}. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd favour the later, otherwise former, merges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. As I have previously argued here, a much better long term solution would be to add |vauthors= support directly to Module:Citation/CS1. That way, we can:
  1. deprecate the {{vcite2 journal}} template,
  2. avoid creation of a parallel set of {{vcite2}} templates,
  3. quickly replace (and eventually deprecate) instances of multiple authors stored in a single |author= parameter with |vauthors= so that clean author meta data is generated,
  4. avoid parameter bloat with citations that have large numbers of authors.
Boghog (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
CS1 and Vancouver are two different styles. If an editor wants to use Vancouver, then great, but don't get the two mixed. See Autism which uses {{Vcite2 journal}} and CS1 templates such as {{Cite journal}} and {{Cite news}}. By having distinct names for the templates, the style is made clear. --  Gadget850 talk 13:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That could also be done with a switch-parameter, say |style=vancouver. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
#Display parameters: do we need them?. --  Gadget850 talk 13:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Or with |vauthors= that if invoked would also automatically set |name-list-format=vanc. Boghog (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I have not run across a single editor who has insisted that we must have a citation template that renders pure Vancouver format. The primary reason for {{Vcite journal}} was not the format but rather page loading efficiency. Likewise, the primary purpose of {{Vcite2 journal}} is not the format, but compactness. The format of this new template is mixed (Vancouver for authors, CS1 for everything else). As a result of Diberri's template filling tool this mixed Vancouver/CS1 format is already widely used in {{cite journal}} templates and this usage far exceeds that of the old vcite templates. As the old templates were hardly used, these formatting differences hardly matter. What does matter is consistency within the same article. Boghog (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The Autism example is illustrative. As it now stands, autism has an inconsistent mix of hybrid (the predominate style) and pure CS1 and pure Vancouver formatted citations. We could fix that by either creating a parallel set of {{vcite2 book}}, {{vcite2 news}}, etc templates or adding |vauthors= support (that automatically sets |name-list-format=vanc) to Module:Citation/CS1. The later is a much cleaner solution that avoids template proliferation. Boghog (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Update to the live CS1 module weekend of 14–15 February 2015[edit]

On the weekend of 14–15 February I propose to update the live CS1 module files from their sandbox counterparts:

Changes to Module:Citation/CS1 are:

  1. bug fix to ASIN error checking; discussion
  2. fix cite encyclopedia format promotion; discussion
  3. fix cite conference format promotion; discussion
  4. {{citation |encyclopedia=...}} mimics {{cite encyclopedia}}; discussion
  5. no CITEREF anchor id when no author or date; discussion
  6. migrate cite mailing list; discussion
  7. authorlink error when value contains one or more [ or ]; discussion
  8. duplicate separator fix; discussion
  9. migrate cite report; discussion
  10. deprecated separator and display parameters: (discussion)
    1. parameters: |authorformat=, |author-format=, |author-name-separator=, |author-separator=, |editorformat=, |editor-format=, |editor-name-separator=, |editor-separator=, |name-separator=, |separator=;
    2. added support for |mode= and |name-list-format=;
    3. removed support for |author/editor-format=scap and for |separator=none
  11. require yes, true, y values for |registration= and |subscription=; discussion
  12. Upgrade arxiv validation; discussion
  13. Fix bug in Norwegian language handling;

Changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration are:

  1. Add |mailinglist=; discussion
  2. deprecated separator and display parameters: (discussion)
    1. parameters: |authorformat=, |author-format=, |author-name-separator=, |author-separator=, |editorformat=, |editor-format=, |editor-name-separator=, |editor-separator=, |name-separator=, |separator=;
    2. added support for |mode= and |name-list-format=;
    3. removed support for |author/editor-format=scap and for |separator=none

Changes to Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist are:

  1. Add |mailinglist=; discussion
  2. deprecated separator and display parameters: (discussion)
    1. parameters: |authorformat=, |author-format=, |author-name-separator=, |author-separator=, |editorformat=, |editor-format=, |editor-name-separator=, |editor-separator=, |name-separator=, |separator=;
    2. added support for |mode= and |name-list-format=;
    3. removed support for |author/editor-format=scap and for |separator=none

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. But when you make changes that affect {{citation}}, please both discuss them and announce them at Template talk:Citation. You have consistently failed to do this and it is a serious problem. This board is an inadequate substitute because it is mostly about a different citation format. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not ok to remove parameters that are widely used such as scap like this without having wide community input and consensus. This is really rude and inconsiderate. There is no valid reason to deny editors the ability to use small caps in reference lists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Cite tweet[edit]

I've made {{Cite tweet}}, as a wrapper or {{Cite web}}, and directed its talk page here. Improvements welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Does this not fall afoul of WP:SPS?
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Trappist, self-published sources are allowed under certain circumstances. Otherwise we would have to remove all citations of the US Supreme Court, for example. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not use Twitter, so I don't know what options tweet authors have about sharing their tweets. Should guidance be added to the template documentation about only citing tweets that are publicly accessible? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Various style guides recommend a different method than what Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) set up. For example, the APA and the MLA say to use the entirety of the tweet as the title. Both also call for the usage of real names with account names in brackets/parentheses unless the real name isn't known, in which case only the account name outside of brackets would be used.

Since CS1 is heavily based on APA practices, with influences from the others like Chicago MOS, I would suggest the following changes:

  1. Use the number as an option to generate the link only, and allow an editor to use a URL
  2. Include proper ability to use the actual author name (so |first= |last= |author=) in addition to the account name, |user=.
  3. Drop "Twitter", which shouldn't be linked as a default. (If there are multiple tweets cited, the website name should only be linked in the first footnote to avoid overlinking.)
  4. Set the default |type=Tweet to indicate that it is a tweet from Twitter. Since other "tweet" is unique to twitter, the website name is superfluous.
  5. If we decided to still include "Twitter", we'd need to add a parameter to facilitate unlinking the name. {{Google maps}} defaults to linking the publisher, but it has |link=no to shut off the wikilink for additional uses.
  6. Drop |quote= because the title of the tweet is the full text of the tweet itself.

The question I'd have then is how to deal with links within the tweet text. APA's example added the "http://", but that text wasn't present in the displayed tweet, so as long as we faithfully quoted the original text, it wouldn't generate an issue with nested external links to link the text of the tweet to tweet itself. Imzadi 1979  A few examples of what I'd use:

-- Imzadi 1979  18:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


I've numbered your suggestions for ease of reference:

  1. What kind of URL, other than that generated by the current template, would be entered?
  2. Happy with this if others deem it useful. We'd also need |authorlink=
  3. OK, if we implement 4
  4. Needs a revised title, otherwise redundant
  5. OK
  6. I object to this. Far better to use the |quote= parameter, not least semantically, but also because it's not a title, and because editors may wish to only quote part of a tweet, as with other cited works.

The Twitter names in your latter examples should include the "@". I feel we owe no allegiance to APA or MLA, and need not be bound by their inadequate responses to this new medium. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Twitter names should definitely begin with the "@", and I would actually put it before the "real" name, particularly as several Twitter names are noteworthy/recognizable in their own right and as many may represent a real person or institution, but not be the only account of that person or institution. This would allow the eye to be drawn most clearly to the most relevant - and most specific - name first. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Section heading was "Template:Literatur converted to use Template:Citation. Should we convert foreign-language templates to English?"

{{Literatur}} was recently converted to use {{citation}} instead of {{citation/core}}. If you see articles popping into CS1 error categories despite no recent edits to the article, that change may be the reason.

This template, along with {{Internetquelle}} and {{Книга}}, makes me wonder if there is a WP policy or guideline that says to prefer English in template code. I have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), but it does not apply. Is there a policy or guideline that would recommend the conversion of templates like {{Literatur}} to {{citation}}?

I am not suggesting that these templates go away; I think that they are useful for copying and pasting citations from one language's WP to another. I am wondering if we should routinely search for transclusions of these templates in the English WP and convert them to English-language citation templates so that English-speaking editors/readers can edit/read the references more easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus at TfD over many instances is that such templates are permitted as a temporary step, but should be Subst:-ed into one with parameter names in English. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you remember (i.e. can you link to) any examples of such consensus decisions? It would be helpful to read some of the discussion there rather than rehash it here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, if I am understanding this correctly, my feeling is, if the editor speaks only English, should they really be editing non-English articles in the first place? What is the point of this? Wikimandia (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you are understanding it correctly. The above templates exist in English WP for the convenience of editors who want to copy and paste references from another language's WP and have them appear in English WP. The question is whether there is a policy or guideline that would recommend converting instances of these templates in articles to their English-language equivalents. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Not off the top of my head; but see templates using {{Subst only}} in their documentation, such as {{Infobox Bahnhof}}, {{Infobox Autostrada-it}}, {{Infobox Unternehmen}}, {{Infobox Ortsteil einer Gemeinde}}, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviving request for trans-quote[edit]

I see this was proposed back in 2013 without a response. I think this is quite vital - if someone is quoting directly from non-English text, the translation could be flawed in some way. This would encourage people to put the original quote. It would be especially vital when the quote is used to support some kind of discrepancy. Wikimandia (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Journals with chapters[edit]

How should I cite a journal, using {{cite journal}} that has chapters inside of articles. Should I just cite them as though they were articles inside of departments or is there a better way? Also, when those chapters have multi-page sections, as in the examples below? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My example is:

{{cite journal|journal=Applied History|volume=II|editor-last=Shambaugh|editor-first=Benjamin F.||place=Iowa City|year=1914|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Reorganization of State Government|author-last=Horack|author-first=Frank E.|chapter=State Government in America|section=The Legislature|pp=11-14}}

Which displays as:

Horack, Frank E. (1914). Shambaugh, Benjamin F., ed. "Reorganization of State Government". Applied History (Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa) II: 11–14.  More than one of |section= and |chapter= specified (help); |chapter= ignored (help)

Another example is (The articles are by various authors, though this one happens to be by the editor):

{{cite journal|journal=The Iowa Journal of History and Politics|volume=2|number=4|editor-last=Shambaugh|editor-first=Benjamin F.|place=Iowa City|year=1904|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa|author-last=Shambaugh|author-first=Benjamin F.|chapter=The Territorial Period|section=The Proclamation of Governor Mason|pp=521-24}}

Which displays as:

Shambaugh, Benjamin F. (1904). Shambaugh, Benjamin F., ed. "Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa". The Iowa Journal of History and Politics (Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa) 2 (4): 521–24.  More than one of |section= and |chapter= specified (help); |chapter= ignored (help)

Any assistance is appreciated. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One way would be |at="The Territorial Period: The Proclamation of Governor Mason", pp. 521–524. It would look like this:
{{cite journal|journal=The Iowa Journal of History and Politics|volume=2|number=4|editor-last=Shambaugh|editor-first=Benjamin F.|place=Iowa City|year=1904|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa|author-last=Shambaugh|author-first=Benjamin F.|at="The Territorial Period: The Proclamation of Governor Mason", pp. 521–524}}
Which displays as:
Shambaugh, Benjamin F. (1904). Shambaugh, Benjamin F., ed. "Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa". The Iowa Journal of History and Politics (Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa) 2 (4). "The Territorial Period: The Proclamation of Governor Mason", pp. 521–524. 
I don't know if there is a better way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
From the original volumes (online here and here), I would say these are articles within a journal, which I would cite as
  • {{cite journal|journal=Applied History|volume=II|place=Iowa City|year=1914|publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa|title=Reorganization of State Government in Iowa|author-last=Horack|author-first=Frank E.|pages=1–86}}
  • {{cite journal|journal=The Iowa Journal of History and Politics|volume=2|number=4|year=1904|title=Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa|author-last=Shambaugh|author-first=Benjamin F.|pp=520–603}}
rendering as
  • Horack, Frank E. (1914). "Reorganization of State Government in Iowa". Applied History (Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa) II: 1–86. 
  • Shambaugh, Benjamin F. (1904). "Assembly Districting and Apportionment in Iowa". The Iowa Journal of History and Politics 2 (4): 520–603. 
Citations of journals typically omit editors, locations and publishers, though for an ambiguous title like Applied History it makes sense to include the publisher. It is customary to give the range of page numbers covering the author's full contribution. While it is common for lengthy contributions to journals or edited volumes to be divided into sections, these are typically not mentioned in a citation. If fine-grained referencing is required, this can be added after the citation, or Shortened footnotes can be used. Kanguole 09:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't Applied History more a book than a journal? If so, then:
{{cite book|last=Horack |first=Frank E. |editor-last=Shambaugh |editor-first=Benjamin F. |title=Applied History |chapter=Reorganization of State Government|chapter-url=// |place=Iowa City |publisher=The State Historical Society of Iowa |date=1914 |volume=II |pp=11-14}}
Horack, Frank E. (1914). "Reorganization of State Government". In Shambaugh, Benjamin F. Applied History II. Iowa City: The State Historical Society of Iowa. pp. 11–14. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It could be viewed as a book series, and the foreword describes it as such. But the page range should still cover the full chapter/article by Horack, i.e. 1–86. Kanguole 12:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how the citation is used. If it is a 'Further reading' sort of citation then, sure, |pp=1–86 may be appropriate. But, if the template is being used to cite a particular point in the article then the page range should be constrained to just large enough to contain the salient material in the source. There isn't any need to force the reader to search the whole range of the author's chapter in search of the supporting text.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a common issue with journal articles and contributed chapters of books. The full citation should always give the page range of the whole contribution. If one wants to specify the particular page{s) referred to, that would be additional, either added after the citation or in a separate short footnote. Kanguole 13:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The underlying issue is the ambiguity of |page= and |pages=. For a book where no named chapter is given they are used to specify the page(s) on which the relevant information appears. For a journal article they are used to specify the page span of the article as a whole. For chapters in books I've come across both uses. This kind of semantic ambiguity always causes problems. However, I think it's too late now to correct it (by having different parameters) given the huge number of uses with both meanings. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Legal citation uses both, actually, with the first page of the journal article and then the actual page(s) being cited (as in 24 Iowa L. Rev. 64, 82-83.). I'd actually never heard the "cite all pages" rule for articles before - it seems like it would be particularly useless on Wikipedia, as it would make verification extremely difficult - especially for works that aren't available online (and can't be text-searched). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But back to my original query. Is it generally thought, then, that the chapters and sections should be omitted? I generally prefer providing more information when possible, but if that's the general rule ... – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I favor always giving as much information as possible, including chapter/section/page/paragraph numbers, even though some odd cases (articles with chapters??) are difficult. But do keep in mind the different context of citing the whole source (or "work"), and citing the specific material. As Kanguole just said: in the full citation (as implemented with the {{citation}}/{{cite xxx}} templates) the |pages= parameter is the range of the whole source (e.g., article). In a short cite (as implemented with {{harv}}) the |p= parameter is the location of the specific material. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I use standard inline citations and try to never cite "the whole source", as that's only necessary if the information you are using came from the whole source as opposed to particular pages of it. (See Trappist the monk's comment, above.) Again, though, we are drifting from the main topic, which was whether I should cite the chapter and section, not how I should use page numbers. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Resolved: Thank you all for your thoughts. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

|name-list-format=vanc not displaying middle initial[edit]

Apparently the new |name-list-format=vanc has now gone live. However it doesn't seem to display the middle initial. For example:

  • {{cite journal | last1 = Groves | first1 = JT | title = Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective | journal = Nature | volume = 389 | issue = 6649 | pages = 329–30 | date = Sep 1997 | pmid = 9311771 | doi = 10.1038/38602 | name-list-format = vanc }} renders as:
  • Groves J (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. 

What happened to the to the middle initial "T"? According to the definitive Vancouver system guide:

  • Patrias K (2011) [2007]. "Author for Journal Articles". In Wendling P. The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers [Internet] (2nd ed.). Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 

the middle initial should be displayed. Boghog (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The code that handles conversion of names to initials was not changed in the recent update. Here is the diff; search for the function reducetoinitials(). So, that would seem to suggest that for the case you illustrate above, the function never worked as you would have wanted.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. In the example used above, the first and middle names are already reduced to initials. This is how PubMed displays citations and Diberri's template filler tool generated citations. As a result, there are tens of thousands of articles in which the citation are formatted in this way. Hence the reducetoinitials() function should check for the special case where |firstn= contains only one word with two capital letters. If it encounters such a case, it should return the initials unchanged. Boghog (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Inserting if string.len(first) == 2 and string.match(first,'%u%u') then return(first) end at the beginning of the reducetoinitials() function should be sufficient. Boghog (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fixed in the sandbox I think. Also fixed the case |first=J.T.

Cite journal compare
{{ cite journal | pmid=9311771 | date=Sep 1997 | doi=10.1038/38602 | last1=Groves | name-list-format=vanc | journal=Nature | title=Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective | volume=389 | issue=6649 | pages=329–30 | first1=JT }}
Live Groves J (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. 
Sandbox Groves JT (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. 
Cite journal compare
{{ cite journal | pmid=9311771 | date=Sep 1997 | doi=10.1038/38602 | last1=Groves | name-list-format=vanc | journal=Nature | title=Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective | volume=389 | issue=6649 | pages=329–30 | first1=J.T. }}
Live Groves J (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. 
Sandbox Groves JT (Sep 1997). "Artificial enzymes. The importance of being selective". Nature 389 (6649): 329–30. doi:10.1038/38602. PMID 9311771. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Change looks good. Thanks! Boghog (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Separator and postscript values...[edit]

Quick question for anyone watching the page... has something happened to the way that the separator and postscript bits of the template are working? The appearance of the citations using the template on a number of pages has changed, probably quite recently, and I can't work out why! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no. |separator= has been replaced with |mode= which takes one of two values cs1 or cs2. For CS1 templates setting |mode=cs2 causes the citation to be rendered using CS2 style ({{citation}} is CS2). Similarly using {{citation}} with |mode=cs1 causes the citation to be rendered using CS1 style ({{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, etc are CS1). |mode= sets the default terminal puntcutation but may be overridden by |postscript=. See this discussion.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Trappist. Is there anyway to automatically update the articles effected, or does it need to be done by hand? Hchc2009 (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I have an AWB script that I'm working on that will troll Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters and update the effected templates.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
VMT! I wasn't looking forward to going through them...! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Using this new mode parameter seems to automatically include |ref=harv, which makes it useless for Further reading sections and isn't documented behaviour. Eric Corbett 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
How does it make it useless for §Further reading? Yeah, not yet documented, I'm working on that.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Because it flags up a big red error message warning that the cite isn't used. Of course it's not used; if it was, it wouldn't be in Further reading! Eric Corbett 22:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
From the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script, right? |ref=none.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That's right, yes. Eric Corbett 23:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Prior to this change a separator could be set to many different characters for example a semicolon, this functionality has now been removed. Why not keep it? For example if ref=harv is indeed turned on this may cause problems with short citations linking to the wrong article if there happens to be more than one source with the same author year combination which previously was not active because the ref=harv parameter was off by default.

As I have repeatedly stated there needs to be far border consultation before changes to parameters are introduced, including discussions about the side effects of such changes. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

|mode=cs2 causes a CS1 citation to act and render just like a CS2 {{citation}}. Because CS2 sets |ref=harv automatically, so too, does |mode=cs2. Conversely, {{citation |mode=cs1 ...}} automatically sets |ref=none (unless overridden by |ref=<something>) so that these render and act as CS1 templates.
If you know how to get the greater editing community to participate in our discussions, please put that knowledge to work.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
{{cite web |title=Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf |url= |publisher=Trafford Council |mode=cs2 |date=16 December 2010}}</ref>

is different from

{{citation |title=Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf |url= |publisher=Trafford Council |date=16 December 2010}}
Because without some indicator to {{citation}} that |title= refers to a website (or journal or news article), {{citation}} assumes that the work named in |title= is a book and formats the citation accordingly. Rewriting the citations to use |website= instead of |publisher= gives these results:
{{cite web |title=Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf |url= |website=Trafford Council |mode=cs2 |date=16 December 2010}}
"Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf", Trafford Council, 16 December 2010 
{{citation |title=Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf |url= |website=Trafford Council |date=16 December 2010}}
"Council welcomes ITV plans to move Coronation Street to Trafford Wharf", Trafford Council, 16 December 2010 
It has been ever thus.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not quite "been ever thus", e.g. previously you could use |contribution= without a title to get round this issue. This is one of the reasons for |mode=cs2 – there are some outputs now impossible to produce with the citation template using the same parameters as the correct "cite X" template. If you really want to use {{citation}} for a web citation, you need to include something to be italicized. This can be done in at least two ways, not only Trappist the monk's above. (I changed the example because the link is dead.)
  • {{citation |title=Coronation Street move approved by Trafford Council|url= |website=BBC News |date=11 February 2011}} produces "Coronation Street move approved by Trafford Council", BBC News, 11 February 2011 
  • {{citation |contribution=Coronation Street move approved by Trafford Council|contribution-url= |title=BBC News |date=11 February 2011}} produces "Coronation Street move approved by Trafford Council", BBC News, 11 February 2011 
Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, sort of ... Your first example produces both a correctly formed citation and properly formatted COinS metadata. The second looks right, but the metadata are flawed. Module:Citation/CS1 produces this from both citations:
but this from your first example (the correct version):
and this from the second (incorrect, it is referring to BBC News as a book title):
This occurs because there is nothing in the citation to tell {{citation}} that we aren't citing a book.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, yes, sorry, I should have looked at the page source to see what the metadata was. @Trappist the monk: Actually it's not quite so simple, since in &rft.jtitle=BBC+News, "jtitle" means "journal title" and this isn't what it is either. Why is it more wrong to treat BBC News as a book rather than as a journal? (The OpenURL standard only seems to provide for books and journal articles.) Peter coxhead (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Because what BBC News does is considered journalism? I have no better answer than that. The COinS code has remained relatively unchanged from its inception which predates my involvement. The code is not at all documented so the rationale for the choices made may be lost to time.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk: "journal" doesn't have anything to do with journalism, here, rather &rft.jtitle is the title of a journal, like an academic journal, in which &rft.atitle is the title of an article. However, I do understand that you've only been trying to improve and error-check existing templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I expected you to say Trappist, but it's the wrong answer. It's surely self-evident is it not that a citation that includes only a title and a url is a web citation? Eric Corbett 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure Trappist the monk can reply for himself, but I'd like to say that I once thought like you. However, what you say is only true if the citation is correctly done. Unfortunately articles are riddled with incorrect citations; the combination of just a book title + a Google url is not uncommon, perhaps because an editor has "corrected" a bare link of the form [URL TITLE]. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
How does that affect anything I've said? Shouldn't we be concentrating on citations that are correctly done? Eric Corbett 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Eric here. What we seem to be doing is creating more incorrect citations by rolling out changes like this. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all happy with some of the changes made recently, and at first I was equally unhappy about this issue. But when I thought about it more carefully I saw the problem. Consider this citation: {{citation |last=Last |first=First |title=Title |date=1999 |publisher=Publisher |url= }}. What makes it a website rather than a digitized book? The problem is that if you insist that this is a website, e.g. because there's no publication place or ISBN, then many incomplete book citations will be incorrectly formatted. There's no way round the general point that {{citation}} requires extra information to determine the nature of the cited object. There's probably a case for saying that websites should be the default and not require extra information, like |website=, as they seem to be more common here, and that books should require differentiation, but I strongly suspect that making one of |publication-place=, |isbn=, etc. compulsory wouldn't be popular either. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
But all you've provided is a url; if it's to a digitized book, then cite the book. As I said, let's get this template working properly for properly cited citations rather than making excuses for incompetence. Eric Corbett 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Alas, I am not smart enough to write code that can intuit what an editor wants. Of course, were I that smart, I wouldn't be here doing this for such paltry (read zero) remuneration. Editor Peter coxhead is correct and I have nothing to add to his post.
Trappist the monk (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Unlike you, I am. That's partly because I actually use these templates, and know how they're used. Eric Corbett 22:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I look forward to learning from you. The current code is at Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not where the problem lies. Eric Corbett 00:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Then, where is the problem?
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Am I expected to teach you everything? Eric Corbett 01:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No, of course not. When I said that I wasn't smart enough to write code that can intuit what an editor wants, you replied: Unlike you, I am. So, teach me that; I'll be content to learn other stuff from other people.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Think about it. Why don't the two templates work identically, as it's claimed that they do? Eric Corbett 02:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a claim that {{cite web}} and {{citation}} work identically. They didn't when they shared {{citation/core}}:
{{cite web/old |title=Title |url=//}}
"Title". //
{{citation/old |title=Title |url=//}}
Title, //
In the olden days, {{citation}}, without some sort of indicator parameter to tell it otherwise, assumed that |title= is a book title. In the present day that still holds true which brings us right back round the circle to your 2015-02-17T19:37UTC post. Why did the original creators of {{cite web}} and {{citation}} make the decisions they did? I don't know.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Trappist the monk please revert your changes until they stop breaking existing uses of the template. NE Ent 20:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me which template is broken? Provide an example?
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You state here [5] you made change(s) which change how the template displays; I'm told pages liked [6] used to render correctly before the changes to {{citation}}. Regarding the prior discussion Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_7#Separator_parameters; first of all, a five to six editor discussion which changes how a template that affect 125,000 pages renders a page isn't sufficient justification for making such a change. NE Ent 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I did so state. The errors in MediaCityUK were not related to the change that I described in that statement. The errors in MediaCityUK are:
Missing or empty |title=
Accessdate requires |url=
Check date values in |accessdate=
|chapter= ignored
None of those are related to the separators change and not part of the separator parameters discussion.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Discussions at Module talk:Citation/CS1#name-list-format=scap now producing error and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Proposed exceptions to general deprecation of Allcaps. --  Gadget850 talk 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


  • 王 �, 홍 �, ბენდელიანი �. "title". 

I think |name-list-format= should check whether name is Latin script or not. � is a replacement character. --Namoroka (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For Vancouver style, according to Citing Medicine: The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers, names in non-Latin characters are to be Romanized; which see. That is not something that Module:Citation/CS1 can do. Lua treats multi-byte characters simply as a sequence of bytes.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be a formatted error messages, not unrecognized characters. Is that impossible?--Namoroka (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Something like this?
*{{cite news/new|title=title|name-list-format=vanc|last=王|first=二麻子|last2=홍|first2=길동|last3=ბენდელიანი|first3=ჭიჭიკო |last4=Smith |first4=Jon Jacob}}
王 二麻子, 홍 길동, ბენდელიანი ჭიჭიკო, Smith JJ. "title".  Vancouver style error (help)
I added Smith to prove that I hadn't broken anything. The test relies on the first character (byte) of |firstn= not being a Latin character in the set [A–Za–z].
We might want to make the error message more general and use the help text to describe the reason for the error in the event that there are other things that should be flagged as errors; for example if we attempt to merge {{vcite2 journal}} (Module:ParseVauthors) functionality into Module:Citation/CS1 ...
Pages with this error would be categorized in Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's another edge case for testing:
*{cite news/new|title=title|name-list-format=vanc|last1=Smith |first1=Jon Jacob|last2=González|first2=Ángel}}
Smith JJ, González Ángel. "title".  Vancouver style error (help)
The reference linked above says that letters with diacritical marks should have them removed, so the error message is accurate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it looks good.--Namoroka (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the code a bit so that the module gives an error message when |last= or |first= contains characters that are not in the ASCII character set plus spaces plus the hyphen. This will allow western hyphenated names and Hispanic multiple surnames

González Ángel. "title".  Vancouver style error (help)
González Angel. "title".  Vancouver style error (help)
Gonzalez Ángel. "title".  Vancouver style error (help)
Gonzalez A. "title". 
Gonzalez-Smith A. "title". 
Gonzalez Sanchez JM. "title". 

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


so we don't error when a surname given name has an apostrophe and when an initial is followed by a period:
O'Brien AD. "title".  (Alan D. O'Brien)
Hart D. "title".  (D'Arcy Hart)
to remove periods from surnames
St James CA. "title".  (Charles A. St. James
treat hyphens as spaces (Jean-Louis same as Jean Louis → JL):
Lagrot JL. "title".  (Jean-Louis Lagrot)

There is a requirement to place family rank (Jr, II, III, etc) after the initials as Jr, 2nd, 3rd, etc. When a rank is used directly in a CS1/CS2 template, an incorrect name may be rendered because the code interprets the 'Jr' as a second name. When the rank is an ordinal number, the code emits an error message because the digit is not in the set [A–Za–z]. Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox does not support family rank.

Lagrot JJ. "title".  |last1=Lagrot|first1=JL Jr
Lagrot JL 2nd. "title".  Vancouver style error (help) |last1=Lagrot|first1=JL 2nd

Some non-Latin characters are romanized into multiple Latin characters (Θ → Th) so that the romanized name 'G. Th. Tsakalos' should become 'Tsakalos GTh'. Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox does not support this form because it can't know that Th is a multi character romanization and not an abbreviation of Thomas:

Tsakalos GT. "title".  |last1=Tsakalos|first1=G. Th.

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the error message from 'Author/editor name not Romanized' to the more generic 'Vancouver style error'. Is there a better error message?

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that works, as long as the help link points to a clear explanation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Subscription or registration required[edit]

Why not produce something useful if the parameter subscription ({{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, etc) is given the value no?

Giving subscription|no has no effect. It should rather display something like (free access). It is a rule rather than an exception that subscription is required, at least for the references I use in math and physics articles. This rarely needs to be pointed out, while in the rare cases where papers are available, it should be made visible, preferably in a uniform way with support from the template. YohanN7 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Some time back there was a proposal to add support for {{open access}}, but it just adds a linked icon and was deemed as non-obvious. --  Gadget850 talk 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Requiring a subscription is a potential hindrance to using the provided url; where there is no hindrance, there is no need to remark on the url and it would just be clutter. That said, I could see some utility to amending {{reflist}} or something similar so that it produced a standard footer pointing out that urls such as those pointing to GBooks may not work in the same manner for every reader - that point causes confusion even among editors. I could also maybe see a point in amending the of the subscription parameter output to say something like "subscription to source website required". - Sitush (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, as I explained, in some areas it is clutter to remark that there is hindrance, while no hindrance is rare and remarkable. Let the editor be the judge of what is appropriate. YohanN7 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How can it be clutter to include information that is informative, which is what is achieved by the note about requiring a subscription to view. That something is openly available is really one of the founding principles of hyperlinks and should not need stating except where the principle fails. We will end up with a note at the end of every citation, saying either "subscription required" or "content freely accessible" - that seems like clutter to me. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not a founding principle of hyperlinks that they will lead to anything publicly available. Academic journals aren't free. Therefore it isn't worth clicking the link because you'll just find an abstract and an offer to pay €35 for the pleasure to read the full article. This is the default for academic journal whose content are worth citing when it comes to math and physics. An article with, say 51 refs, 3 of which are publicly available shouldn't need to have "subscription required" on 48 entries. That is cluttering.
Let the editor decide when and what to flag. Sweeping statements about "founding principles of what hyperlinks are" don't matter much in practice. YohanN7 (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, you'll never see "subscription required" in math and physics articles (unless I put it there), even tough it is required. In other words, the de facto default is not what you envision about hyperlinks. YohanN7 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter is that this is like the citation style in general, which is influenced by both personal preference of the first author to add references in earnest and the topic area the article resides in. As pointed out, there are topic areas where open access is rare, and others where open access is becoming common. For instance, in the physical and mathematical sciences, closed access is the norm, whereas in the biological sciences, open access is being pushed HARD by governments and institutions. In the realm outside of peer reviewed material, the VAST majority of our citations are cite-web type which point at basic internet pages. Of these, the majority of the locations which reside on the wild web are open access, whereas the majority of those which are news oriented (i.e. specific news publications) are closed access.
It is not necessary, though VERY helpful, for a source to be accessible to all editors and readers.
One of the sources of clutter is the variation in indicators of accessibility. For academic journal articles where the use of {{open access}} and {{closed access}} are common, the inline indicator is an image of a lock being either open or closed, with a color difference. However, for the other paywall-related indicators, the phrase, for instance, 'subscription required' is exposed as a superscript, which is pretty obtrusive. One solution here is to work on revision of the set of templates related to this topic to both a) increase their specificity and utility, and b) make their presentation more consistent and less obtrusive.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree. The functionality of {{closed access}} and {{open access}} is what I'm after in particular, but not standalone and not using icons. (I have never seen them in math/physics articles.) I'd like to see both "yes" and "no" supported as arguments for "subscription" in {{citation}} etc. It seems very natural to have it, and trivial to implement. YohanN7 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not adverse, but we need a good methodology. It needs to be obvious to readers and accessible to the visually impaired and in print (mono and color).
We have several related templates. What functionality do we need from these?
I TfDed {{Login required}} as redundant and little used. --  Gadget850 talk 15:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me to wonder if, instead of a change to Module:Citation/CS1, editors couldn't, and perhaps shouldn't, segregate citations inside different {{refbegin}} / {{refend}} sets under separate headers; one set for restricted access and one set for free access. Something like this perhaps:

'''Restricted access references'''
References in this section require registration or subscription for access
*<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref>
*<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref>

'''Restricted access references'''
References in this section are free access
*<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref>
*<ref name="...">{{cite journal ...}}</ref>

I think that something could be implemented for {{sfn}} and {{harv}} style short- and long-form referencing.

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No. This is far too internet-centric. References should be published things (like, in many cases, printed on actual paper) that one can find in libraries. Whether the courtesy link is free for all or requires you to access it from the library of a subscribing institution or not there at all or whatever is far too secondary to call out like this. Separating sources into primary and secondary makes sense, because it is about content. This does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a big problem with displaying "(subscription required)" after an entry, or with leaving it up to the editor's judgment when to set this parameter. I expect they will set it mainly in situations where the readers might expect open access. Thus, they won't set it in the physical sciences but might otherwise.
Where I do have a bit of a problem is the "Help" message. Currently we display a tooltip reading "Sources are not required to be online. Online sources do not have to be freely available. The site may require a paid subscription." It seems strange to say "may require" when the editor set it because it does require.
I also wonder, what's the purpose of the mini lecture on citing policy? Is this to deter editors who delete sources because they are offline or subscription, like a warning – keep your hands off this source, it has every right to be here? That is a problem, but to me this seems like scolding or nagging. I would rather trust editors to be familiar with the policies. And even if they aren't, I think this kind of thing would be better handled by recent change patrollers. If they see someone deleting a source for the wrong reasons, they could revert it and leave a message on the person's talk page. I guess what I'm saying is that I would prefer to have "(subscription required)" only, with no help and no tooltip. Simple is best. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that the tooltip was included not so much for the editor but for the reader who is not an editor. I think that the discussion around the tool tip (such as it was) is here.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The tooltip annoys me too. I even think the reader feels a little intimidated, having the obvious explained to him (perhaps for the billionth time). I prefer as well to have "(subscription required)" only, and "(open access)" respectively. About wording, journals that support open access, call it just that, so "(open access)" can't be wrong if my suggestion becomes implemented. YohanN7 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Currently |mode= can be set to cs1 or cs2 to change the style. Why did we not use |mode=vanc instead of |name-list-format=? --  Gadget850 talk 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Because Vancouver style, as I understand it and how it is implemented in {{vcite2 journal}} only applies to author and editor name lists. The style required the use of | |authorformat=vanc |author-separator=,, and |author-name-separator=&#32;. Vancouver style doesn't effect the element separator (old parameter |separator=) nor the terminal punctuation. If we had made |mode=vanc, we would have needed two of them: one each for CS1 and CS2 styles.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why would we need CS1 and CS2? If we are going to support multiple styles, then we should do it in one parameter. --  Gadget850 talk 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Because we have two and have had two for a very long time? Because if we were to take one of them away, then the resulting storm of disapprobation would make the current furors over |mode= and small caps seem a gentle spring rain? I don't know that supporting clearly defined 'sub-styles' is necessarily a bad thing. It may be that |mode=vanc would be a better parameter if we choose to strictly support Vancouver style which would make |name-list-format=vanc obsolete.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
To reiterate, virtually no one uses a pure Vancouver style in Wikipedia. In contrast, because of the extensive use of Diberri's template filling tool, the CS1/Vancouver author 'sub-style' is widely used. Hence the |name-list-format=vanc parameter that supports a frequently used 'sub-style' makes far more sense than |mode=vanc to support a style that no one uses. Templates and their parameters should follow existing usage, not dictate usage. Boghog (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, so:
Citation style Parameter
Citation Style 1 |mode=cs1
Citation Style 2 |mode=cs2
Vancouverish |authorformat=vanc
--  Gadget850 talk 21:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

access date without url[edit]

Is there a consensus to have a bot automatically remove access dates from citations that do not have a URL, if (and only if) there is another link out such as HDL, PMC, PMID, JSTOR, or DOI. I suggest the link out requirement because otherwise it might be the url is missing because it was broken and someone just deleted it instead of pointing to an archive etc. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the driving reason for this. It would greatly reduce the size of the size of Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL and thus focus humans on fixing real problems AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The documentation for |access-date= says:

access-date: Full date when the contents pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations. Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book....

I read this to mean that if a citation has an HDL, PMC, PMID, JSTOR, or DOI value and no URL, removal of the access date is appropriate. I would support a bot request to remove such access dates.
We could also remove access dates from {{cite book}} templates, based on the instructions above. Do we have consensus for that change as well? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Although the content of a work such as a scholarly journal or book isn't likely to change, working URLs can come and go. If someone is searching for a different URL to use to replace one that is dead, is there a benefit to knowing when the dead URL was last known to work? Jc3s5h (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There is, yes, as one can then use one of the archiving services to find a copy of the page that's being cited. Eric Corbett 00:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Have we not had this conversation before? Perhaps a review of the archives is in order before proceeding?
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
What I have seen was a discussion that blindly removing the accessdate was a bad idea, since it might point to a bigger problem with intermediate edits. That is why I suggested avoiding this objection by avoiding the ones with other links AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What to do with Category:CS1 errors: invalid mode[edit]

I don't know what to make of Category:CS1 errors: invalid mode. The category page does not currently exist, but error messages are being displayed and articles are being placed in the category. The error message says "Invalid |name-list-format=scap", but the articles (e.g. Moctezuma I) do not use |name-list-format=.

The "help" link goes to Help:CS1 errors, but there is no subsection to describe the error message yet. There are about 400 articles in the category so far. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed in the sandbox; Category:CS1 errors: invalid parameter value created.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Does this categorization include checking the value of |subscription= as well? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
No, nor |registration=. These, which take any value, could be checked but for now we don't care what that value is (we haven't restricted the value to yes, true, y, whatever): |last-author-amp=, |no-pp=, nor |template-doc-demo=. There may be others that aren't checked that I haven't though about.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Volume number looks like series number[edit]

The following citation {{cite book|first=David|last=de Posada|editor-first=Alan|editor-last=West-Durán|title=Latino and Latina Writers|series=Scribner writers series|chapter=Edgardo Vega Yunqué (1936– )|year=2004|publisher=Charles Scribner's Sons|volume=2|pages=1019–30}} sets as

  • de Posada, David (2004). "Edgardo Vega Yunqué (1936– )". In West-Durán, Alan. Latino and Latina Writers. Scribner writers series 2. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1019–30. 

The book in question, Latino and Latina Writers, comes in two volumes, and is part of the unnumbered series "Scribner writers series". However, the template sets it and the boldface volume number 2 looks more like #2 in the series. Can this be made more intuitive? Choor monster (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the documentation:
  • volume: For one publication published in several volumes. Displays after the title and series fields; displays in bold. If bolding is not desired, then include the volume information in the title field.
--  Gadget850 talk 14:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Another option not mentioned in the documentation, is to use |volume=vol. 2, which will drop the boldfacing because it's over 4 characters.
  • de Posada, David (2004). "Edgardo Vega Yunqué (1936– )". In West-Durán, Alan. Latino and Latina Writers. Scribner writers series. vol. 2. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1019–30. 
This option also appears to generate a terminal period on the series name, where that punctuation is otherwise omitted. Your only other option is as Gadget suggests:
  • de Posada, David (2004). "Edgardo Vega Yunqué (1936– )". In West-Durán, Alan. Latino and Latina Writers, Volume 2. Scribner writers series. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1019–30. 
Imzadi 1979  15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much. There's also this fake:
  • de Posada, David (2004). "Edgardo Vega Yunqué (1936– )". In West-Durán, Alan. Latino and Latina Writers 2. Scribner writers series. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1019–30. 
Choor monster (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Not recommended because that 'styling' breaks the COinS metadata. The book title becomes &rft.btitle=Latino+and+Latina+Writers+2 and &rft.volume= doesn't get populated as it should.
Editor Gadget850's suggestion from the documentation (Editor Imzadi1979's second example) suffers in the same way but at least the title identifies the book as the second volume whereas in your fake, it is unclear just what the '2' indicates.
Here we are with another question about why things are the way they are: Why is it that when volume follows series and volume is not bolded, why is series terminated with a period? Is it because the bold font is sufficient to distinguish one from another? Should volume really follow series or should it follow title? Should there be another parameter, perhaps |series-num= to identify the title's sequence in the series?
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that volume and series mean different things for books and journals (real books and journals, not the second word in the template names). In journals, volumes are usually a year's worth of issues. Sometimes libraries will send a year's worth of journals to a book binder and have them bound into a physical volume, but it's really just an abstraction today, just as the Federal Bureau of Investigation cannot conduct all it's business from one bureau. In journals, a series indicates a group of volumes that follow the same numbering scheme. Occasionally a journal will decide to start the numbering over again, so it will be necessary to indicate in the citation that the volume belongs to the second series (or whatever the series number might be).
For books, the volume number is normally used when a book on a particular topic is so long that binding it in a single volume would make it fall apart, or would be too heavy to carry, so the book is divided into volumes. A series is one of several books, normally by the same publisher. For example, Integrated Electronics by Millman and Halkias is a single-volume book in McGraw-Hill's Electrical and Electronic Engineering Series. The series does not have a number, and the book does not have a volume number. If you want to properly treat volume and series, you will have to recognize they mean different things for books and journals, and install different logic depending on whether "cite book" or "cite journal" is being used. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

cite map[edit]

In April 2014 Editor Imzadi1979 started a conversation with me on my talk page and another at WikiProject U.S. Roads regarding the migration of {{cite map}} to Module:Citation/CS1. Perhaps the time has come to consider what needs doing to make the migration.

There is some support for {{cite map}} that was done before my time:

Cite map compare
{{ cite map | map=New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System | type=Road map | via=Google Books | url= | date=July 1923 | oclc=11880590 | scale=Scale not given | issue=7 | publisher=Colorado State Highway Department | title=Colorado Highways | volume=2 | cartography=CSHD | pages=12–13 | accessdate=November 18, 2013 }}
Live Colorado State Highway Department (July 1923). "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System". Colorado Highways (Road map). Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
Sandbox "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Road map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013 – via Google Books. 

|map= and |mapurl= were added to the {{citation/core}} version as aliases of |chapter= after what support there is was added to Module:Citation/CS1.

Clearly WikiProject U.S. Roads should be notified of this discussion; who else?

Comments? Opinions?

Trappist the monk (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cite map compare
{{ cite map | map=Michigan | section=B13 | isbn=0-528-00626-6 | scale=1 in=30 mi | inset=Western Upper Peninsula | year=2013 | cartography=Rand McNally | publisher=Rand McNally | title=The Road Atlas | author1=Rand McNally | location=Chicago | pages=50–51 | edition=2013 Walmart }}
Live Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan". The Road Atlas (Map). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally (2013 Walmart ed.). Chicago. pp. 50–51, section B13, Western Upper Peninsula inset. ISBN 0-528-00626-6.
Sandbox Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas (2013 Walmart ed.). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. 
Cite map compare
{{ cite map | date=July 1, 1930 | author=Michigan State Highway Department | scale=Scale not given | publisher=Michigan State Highway Department | title=Official Highway Service Map | section=C3–C4 | location=Lansing, MI | inset=Detroit Area | cartography=H.M. Gousha }}
Live Michigan State Highway Department (July 1, 1930). Official Highway Service Map (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by H.M. Gousha. Lansing, MI. Section C3–C4, Detroit Area inset.
Sandbox Michigan State Highway Department (July 1, 1930). Official Highway Service Map (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by H.M. Gousha. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Highway Department. Detroit Area inset. § C3–C4. 

Some thoughts I've had:

  1. For many (most?) maps, the publisher is the important detail on the same level as the author of a book. When the template was originally created, and before it was more fully moved into the CS1 scheme, that assumption meant that the publisher was listed first. I think that going forward, the template should discard that assumption and allow the full range of |authorn=, |firstn= |lastn= and |authorn-link= parameters, and the publisher should be shifted back into the order. If editors wish to list the publisher up front, they'll update articles to duplicate it in the appropriate author parameter. I would not repurpose |cartography= as an author.
  2. The |via= parameter needs to be added, which I assume would be something that module support would accommodate. As it is, we can't indicate that the map being linked is hosted by a different entity than its publisher.
  3. It would be better if the "(Map)." indicator "floated" a bit. In the example above, it follows the name of the journal (Colorado Highways) or the book (The Road Atlas) in which the map was published. That journal isn't the map, but rather the quoted title in the live output is, so the indicator should move to follow the quoted title in that case. In the case of sheet maps, the indicator should remain behind the italicized map |title= because there won't be a |map= defined.
    1. It would also be nice in some circumstances to allow an editor to override the default, say to explicitly note that if something were a "Topographic map" or an "Aerial survey".
  4. The edition should follow the italicized title and not have the scale and cartography information come between the two.
  5. Where the page(s), inset, and section(s) are noted, they should be displayed in that order, which ranks them in size order. Also, we should consider adding |sections= to provide the plural form of the label. I would suggest we consider using the section mark (§) as a label, with the plural (§§) as well.
  6. Something I suggested elsewhere would simplify a situation here. Maps can be published in a journal or in a book or atlas. As such, we have a need to use either the "V (I): p" format of a journal or the "p./pp. #" format of a book citation. I'd personally like to see us insert the "p." or the "pp." in front of a page number or range anytime that a volume or volume and issue aren't defined. If we did that, then the map template could assume it was within a journal because the lack of a volume or issue would prompt the "p." or "pp." to appear. In any case, the in-source location should be ordered: volume, issue, page(s), inset, section(s).

Imzadi 1979  04:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added |map=, |map-url=, and |mapurl= as pseudo-aliases of |chapter=.
From your list:
Item 2, |via= already available in the module.
Item 3.1, use |type=; this has always been available (see the first comparison above where |type=Road map).
In the module, after a bit of processing we come to a place where all of these meta parameters are concatenated into a single string separated by the separator character (period for CS1 or comma for CS2). There is one version for 'book-like' citations and another for 'journal-like' citations:
TitleNote – this is |department=; not needed for {{cite map}}?
Conference – not needed for {{cite map}}?
Others – not needed for {{cite map}}?
Agency – not needed for {{cite map}}?
This list of things seems sort of odd to me. For example, Chapter isn't listed here. It is lumped together with Authors, Date, Chapter, Place, Editors but Others is in this group. One would think that contributors would all be in the same group and title components would be in another group.
Ignoring the author/editor/date/chapter-as-map-alias group and the in-source location group (page, inset, section) for the time being, let us confine ourselves to the 'Title' list only for the time being. What is the preferred order of these parameters? If different orders make sense for different citations (sheet map, journal, atlas, book, other), then make multiple lists. It is not necessary to include all of the items in the list; you might even add new items if it makes sense to do so.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm a bit confused by what you asked at the end, but I'll go with what I think you're asking. In terms of output, CS1 is heavily based on the APA style, but the APA manual isn't terribly helpful with the lone example it gives. My general thoughts are to emulate what this page from NCSU Libraries suggests for APA style and pair it with how {{cite book}} handles the order of things.
There are only a few things that are map-specific: the scale of the map, the name of the cartography source, then the inset or map section as part of the in-source location. So basically, if we followed the order from a book citation, we'd be 90% there. The scale, as NCSU says, would come immediately before the series. I would then include the cartography information, if supplied, next before any |others= output. (I would imagine that other contributions would be rare, but why omit the possibility?) As for |agency=, I could foresee noting that a map out of a newspaper came through the Associated Press if someone were so incline to specifically cite just a map from a newspaper article. Looking at a book citation:
  • Author (2015). Title. Book Series. Other contribution by someone else. Place: publisher. 
So basically that if we used that same order, but put the map scale in between the title and the series, and a cartographer precedes any other "others". Wrap it up with the in-source location (volume/issue/page/inset/section), the various identifiers (ISBN/OCLC/etc) as well as the |access-date= |via= and archive-related information.
I guess in other words, a good map citation should look like a good book citation, but the default (or customized) type should float depending on if we are citing a |map= in a |title= or just a |title= alone. Using cite book as a mock up:
  • Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan". The Road Atlas (Map). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally (2013 Walmart ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51, Western Upper Peninsula inset, § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. 
  • Michigan State Highway Department (July 1, 1930). Official Highway Service Map (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by H.M. Gousha. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Highway Department. Detroit Area inset, §§ C3–C4. 
  • U.S. Geological Survey (1999) [Photorevised 1993]. Raleigh West quadrangle, North Carolina (Map). 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Cartography by USGS. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 
I'd only make two changes: in the atlas example, the "(Map)." should go after the map title because The Road Atlas isn't a map, but a book while "Michigan" the title of the map, and the edition should really follow the title (which it should for books anyway) because it's modifying the title and not the series or contributions of other people. The latter though is a criticism I'd have of the {{cite book}} in general though. This sets aside the other issue of how to deal with maps in journals for the volume/issue/page vs. just page in a book. Imzadi 1979  16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What I wanted was a list of the meta parameters in order. I have tweaked the code and created three lists that look like this:
For maps in a book:
TitleType, Title, Format, Scale, Cartography, Others, Edition, Publisher, Series, Language, Volume
For maps in a periodical:
TitleType, Title, Format, Scale, Cartography, Others, Publisher, Series, Language, Volume, Issue
For sheet maps:
Title, TitleType, Format, Scale, Cartography, Others, Edition, Publisher, Series, Language
You can see the effect of this change in the comparisons above (ignore punctuation, spacing, and other weirdnesses; we'll fix those later).
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Cite map compare
{{ cite map | date=1999 | scale=1:24,000 | publisher=U.S. Geological Survey | series=7.5 Minute Series | cartography=USGS | title=Raleigh West quadrangle, North Carolina | author1=U.S. Geological Survey | location=Reston, VA | language=fr | orig-year=Photorevised 1993 }}
Live U.S. Geological Survey (1999) (in fr). Raleigh West quadrangle, North Carolina (Map). 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Cartography by USGS. Reston, VA.
Sandbox U.S. Geological Survey (1999) [Photorevised 1993]. Raleigh West quadrangle, North Carolina (Map). 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series (in French). Cartography by USGS. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 
Ignoring the spacing and punctuation weirdness, that's pretty much looking good to me so far for maps , except that Series should be appear between Scale and Cartography. (In a book, the Series appears after the Title and before Others.) I'm neutral over where Language appears. Imzadi 1979  19:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have posted a link to this discussion on the Talk pages of half a dozen WikiProjects that appear to be active and (in my judgement, based on the articles transcluding this template) may have an interest in the use and formatting of this template. We have had objections in the past about decisions made by one of two editors, and I'd like to avoid those objections in the case of this template, which is used in 18,000 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Tweaks that I think get the spacing and punctuation right, add |sections=, use § and §§ for sections:

  • "New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Road map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013 – via Google Books. 
  • Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas (2013 Walmart ed.). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. 
  • Official Highway Service Map (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by H.M. Gousha. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Highway Department. July 1, 1930. Detroit Area inset. §§ C3–C4. 
  • U.S. Geological Survey (1999) [Photorevised 1993]. Raleigh West quadrangle, North Carolina (Map). 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series (in French). Cartography by USGS. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. 

See also Template:Cite_map/testcases.

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me so far, and I think that we have just a few things left to sort out.
  1. Figuring out the formatting with volume/issue/page in periodicals vs. volume/page in books. I know you know about it, but I'm just listing it here to keep this complete.
  2. Are we putting in support for |agency= and |others=? I realized a case where the latter may be employed: noting a translator.
  3. We'll need a |map-format= as the companion to |format= to note when maps online are in PDF or MrSID files. (The latter definitely requires special software to use.)
  4. I'm thinking that the |language= should remain following the series as it is in book citations. It looks somewhat odd following the publisher.
Let's just say that so far I'm quite pleased with the rapid progress into making this work, and I think that we'll be well on our way to implementation if other editors don't object. From me, I appreciate your work, Trappist the monk. Imzadi 1979  17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Volume/issue/page is a separate topic I think because its resolution would apply to all CS1/CS2 templates.
  2. |others= is supported and follows |cartography=. If we are to support |agency= it should only apply to the periodical version of {{cite map}}.
  3. Added |map-format=
  4. moved |langage= to follow |series=.
Do you have any 'periodical' style map citations? (magazine, journals, etc) There don't appear to be any on the test cases page.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The first example you used is a map printed in the journal Colorado Highways. So far it's the only one I've run into that I needed to cite properly with volume/issue/pages, but that doesn't mean that other editors won't run into them. It should have "2 (7): 12–13" as its page reference (to match what {{cite journal}} would do), which would then be followed by an inset, if appropriate (there aren't insets on that particular map), and sections (it lacks a grid marking off sections), also if appropriate. Imzadi 1979  14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That first cite is written as a chapter/book-style citation:
{{cite map/new |type=Road map |publisher=Colorado State Highway Department |date=July 1923 |map=New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System |map-url= |title=Colorado Highways |scale= Scale not given |cartography=CSHD |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=12–13 |oclc=11880590 |accessdate= November 18, 2013 |via= Google Books}}
"New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Road map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD. Colorado State Highway Department 2. July 1923. pp. 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013 – via Google Books. 
Rewriting it as a periodical-style cite (change |title= to |journal= and |map= to |title=):
{{cite map/new |type=Road map |publisher=Colorado State Highway Department |date=July 1923 |title=New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System |url= |journal=Colorado Highways |scale= Scale not given |cartography=CSHD |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=12–13 |oclc=11880590 |accessdate= November 18, 2013 |via= Google Books}}
"New Map Showing the 8,880 Miles Which Comprise Colorado's Primary Highway System" (Road map). Colorado Highways. Scale not given. Cartography by CSHD (Colorado State Highway Department) 2 (7). July 1923: 12–13. OCLC 11880590. Retrieved November 18, 2013 – via Google Books. 
and there you get the {{cite journal}}-like volume/issue/page style.
We really shouldn't need to 'remap' |map= et al. to achieve this effect. I'll think on that.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A ha. Hmm, I guess then that I'd support the use of |journal= over |title= to invoke the journal-style page display and leave |map= as is. The question then should be, do we need a |atlas= or |book-title= as an alias for dealing with maps in books, just to minimize possible confusion? Then an editor could specify map/journal or map/atlas.
Also, I noticed that if an author isn't specified through the normal means, then {{cite map/new}} is still shifting the publisher forward, but if |location= is specified, it's "hanging out" in the middle of the citation without something to follow it. I know Scott5114 below has objected, but we really need to either have the template copy |publisher= into both places (and retain |publisher-link= to link the version displayed as the author), or we need to break this behavior and force editors to manually specify the author(s), even if that means manually duplicating the publisher to keep the desired effect. Imzadi 1979  15:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
One thing at a time please.
Changing how we use the various parameters in extant cites doesn't seem like the best of ideas. I would guess that most {{cite map}} use |title= to refer to the title of the map. We introduce |map= and its companion parameters for the case where |title= is used for the atlas or book title. In {{cite journal}} we use |title= to name the article and |periodical= (or an alias) to name the periodical (journal, magazine, or what have you). If the goal is to make {{cite map}} act like {{cite journal}} when the map is in a periodical, then we should use |title= and |periodical=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved |edition= in the cases where the citation is for a map in a book and a stand-alone map (|edition= doesn't apply to periodicals):

Cite map compare
{{ cite map | map=Michigan | section=B13 | isbn=0-528-00626-6 | scale=1 in=30 mi | inset=Western Upper Peninsula | year=2013 | cartography=Rand McNally | publisher=Rand McNally | title=The Road Atlas | author1=Rand McNally | location=Chicago | pages=50–51 | edition=2013 Walmart }}
Live Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan". The Road Atlas (Map). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally (2013 Walmart ed.). Chicago. pp. 50–51, section B13, Western Upper Peninsula inset. ISBN 0-528-00626-6.
Sandbox Rand McNally (2013). "Michigan" (Map). The Road Atlas (2013 Walmart ed.). 1 in=30 mi. Cartography by Rand McNally. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 50–51. Western Upper Peninsula inset. § B13. ISBN 0-528-00626-6. 

This, I think answers items 1–5 in Editor Imzadi1979's list of things to change.

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to strongly oppose any change to this template that would move the publisher information away from the beginning of the citation. This is usually the only way of identifying a particular map, since most of them are just titled after the geographic area they cover. ("Map of Oklahoma". Which map of Oklahoma? The Esso map.) Burying this key information in the middle of the citation for no good reason decreases the utility of the template's output. (Consistency with other templates is not a good reason in this case—maps are different than other sources and should be treated as such.)

It should be noted that the reason the cartography field exists at all is because sometimes a map is published under the branding of one company but the actual map is contracted out to another. This is most frequently encountered with U.S. gas station maps of the 20th century, which were essentially Rand McNally or H.M. Gousha maps bearing the branding of Texaco, Esso, Standard Oil, etc. Seldom are the actual people that did the cartography credited publicly, so that is not the use case the template was intending to address. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And by citing "Esso" as the author in addition to the publisher with Rand McNally or H.M. Gousha as the cartographer, you've just negated that issue. The |cartography= field has not been removed in the sandboxed version. Imzadi 1979  22:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Scott5114: if you look at the test cases page, the publisher=author automation hasn't been removed yet, so unless we also specify |author=Rand McNally in case #8, we get "Chicago" just floating along in the middle of the citation output when it really should be joined as "Chicago: Rand McNally" to make more sense. Currently specifying any author parameters (last/first or author, with or without author-link) breaks this assumption that the publisher is the author and shifts the publisher value to the appropriate location. We either have two options to get the publisher displayed in the appropriate location with the place of publication:
  1. Permanently remove the assumption and require editors to do the more correct action by specifying an author, which in your editing would mean the publisher is manually duplicated to appear in both parameters in almost all cases, or
  2. We reinstate a briefly used bit of coding that automatically moves the publisher to the author field as now, and then also displays it in the appropriate location in the middle of the citation.
The latter option is messy when the publisher is linked. Trappist would know better if cite map is creating messy metadata at the moment, but I suspect that we are creating screwed up metadata. Imzadi 1979  14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories in the existing template[edit]

Please note that there are two maintenance categories in the existing template that may need to be considered in this migration: Category:Pages using cite map with both series and version and Category:Pages using cite map with publisher-link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are six pages listed at Category:Pages using cite map with both series and version that have citations that look a lot like this:
Cite map compare
{{ cite map | scale=1:10,560 | url= | publisher=Ordnance Survey | title=England - Lincolnshire | date=1891 | version=Epoch 1 | series=County series | sheet=115/NE }}
Live Ordnance Survey (1891). England - Lincolnshire (Map). 1:10,560. County series. Epoch 1.
Sandbox England - Lincolnshire (Map). 1:10,560. County series. Ordnance Survey. 1891.  Unknown parameter |sheet= ignored (help); More than one of |version= and |series= specified (help)
It seems to me that, at least for these six, |series= and |version= could be combined into |series=County series Epoch 1. It isn't clear to me if Epoch 1 is something that Ordnance Survey used in naming the map series or if that is something applied by British History. See here. |sheet= isn't a supported parameter in either the old or the new template.
The other article-space page has this:
Cite map compare
{{ cite map | archiveurl= | isbn=9780319238332 | scale=1:25 000 | trans_title= | cartography= | section=Bottesford & Colsterworth | url= | pages= | edition= | archivedate= | ref= | format= | id= | language= | page=247 | title=Grantham | inset= | publisher=OSGB | year= | version=A1 | location= | series=Explorer | date=03/04/2006 | accessdate= }}
Live OSGB (03/04/2006). Grantham (Map). 1:25 000. Explorer. A1. p. 247, section Bottesford & Colsterworth. ISBN 9780319238332.
Sandbox Grantham (Map). 1:25 000. Explorer. OSGB. 03/04/2006. p. 247. § Bottesford & Colsterworth. ISBN 9780319238332.  More than one of |version= and |series= specified (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
which appears to me to be a malformed citation. Follow the ISBN link to Amazon to look at the map.
There is a note at the top of Category:Pages using cite map with publisher-link that says "This parameter is in the process of being removed." If that is true, then an AWB script should be able to make pretty quick work of clearing the category.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Based on the example citations, it looks like citations in the "both series and version" category would end up in the CS1 redundant parameter category, and citations with |publisher-link= would end up in the "unsupported parameter" category.
Cite map compare
{{ cite map | publisher-link=Iowa Department of Transportation | publisher=Iowa Department of Transportation | title=Iowa Highway Map | scale=1:10,000 | date=1974 }}
Live Iowa Department of Transportation (1974). Iowa Highway Map (Map). 1:10,000.
Sandbox Iowa Highway Map (Map). 1:10,000. Iowa Department of Transportation. 1974.  Unknown parameter |publisher-link= ignored (help)

As long as we track them somehow with the new code (which it looks like we do), I'm satisfied.
An AWB script may not suffice to clear up publisher-link parameters. I have found a few of them in template code. I'll poke through that category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The |version= might be analogous to a different |edition= of the map. It's something worth investigating slightly, and that might be the first to make it "(Epoch 1 ed.)." in the display of the citation. Imzadi 1979  17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk, Jonesey95: the |publisher-link= parameter was put in use to deal with the author/publisher situation. If there is no author defined in any of the usual ways (|author= |first= |last=, etc) then the value of |publisher= is moved into the authorship position. However, for a brief period of time, the |publisher= was merely copied, and the value was also displayed in the traditional publisher location in the middle of the citation, following a |location=. In that brief period of time, |publisher-link= was added to serve as the analog of |author-link= so that one could link the name of the "publisher as author" without also linking the "publisher as publisher" output. Otherwise we'd have forced editors to insert the brackets to wikilink the publisher name, and it would be linked in both locations.
So, moving forward, we're going to have 3 basic options:
  1. Status quo: publisher is shifted automatically, and if the |location= is defined, it appears alone in the middle, disconnected from the publisher unless an editor also defines |author=.
  2. Restore the once-used version of the automation where the publisher appeared in both locations ("as author", "as publisher"), and un-deprecate |publisher-link= so that the "as author" portion of the citation can be linked without also linking the "as publisher" location.
  3. Remove the coding that moves the publisher forward and require editors to specify an author (which doesn't have to be the |cartography= name) if they want some name to appear ahead of the map title.
Imzadi 1979  16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
As another alternative, discard |publisher-link= as unneeded and simply wikilink |publisher=[[<value]] just as we would do in all other CS1 templates. When |author= is not set, the code still copies the value from |publisher= to |author=. If |location= is set then strip wikilink markup from |publisher=; if |location= not set then delete |publisher=. These examples illustrate:
  1. wikilinked publisher (Map). Publisher. 
  2. wikilinked publisher and location (Map). Location: Publisher. 
  3. publisher (Map). Publisher. 
  4. publisher and location (Map). Location: Publisher. 
  5. Author. author, wikilinked publisher (Map). Publisher. 
  6. Author. author, wikilinked publisher, and location (Map). Location: Publisher. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The code that did this has been disabled at this edit
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
AWB is equally at home in Template space as in main space. There is, apparently some dispute about what to do with |publisher-link=. See the second paragraph of Editor Imzadi1979's 2015-02-25T15:52UTC post above. It would seem that if there is no |location= then |publisher= becomes |author= and |publisher-link= becomes |author-link= and Bob's your uncle. Not quite so simple if |location= is set; and this is where some thinking is probably still required.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Publisher vs. Author issue[edit]

Compare the following examples, all citing the same map in the same atlas used as a source in the M-553 (Michigan highway) article:

Publisher, location, but no author:

Cite map compare
{{ cite map | map=Forsyth T45N R25W | via=Historic Map Works | location=Rockford, IL | scale=1.25 in:1 mi | oclc=15326667 | page=17 | cartography=Rockford Map Publishers ''c'' | publisher=Rockford Map Publishers ''p'' | year=1962 | section=2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23 | mapurl= | title=Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan | accessdate=March 29, 2012 }}
Live Rockford Map Publishers p (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W". Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan (Map). 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL. p. 17, section 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
Sandbox "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers p. 1962. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. 

Publisher, author and location:

Cite map compare
{{ cite map | map=Forsyth T45N R25W | via=Historic Map Works | title=Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan | oclc=15326667 | scale=1.25 in:1 mi | author=Rockford Map Publishers ''a'' | page=17 | cartography=Rockford Map Publishers ''c'' | publisher=Rockford Map Publishers ''p'' | year=1962 | section=2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23 | mapurl= | location=Rockford, IL | accessdate=March 29, 2012 }}
Live Rockford Map Publishers p (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W". Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan (Map). 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL. p. 17, section 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
Sandbox Rockford Map Publishers a (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL: Rockford Map Publishers p. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. 

Author, location, but no publisher:

Cite map compare
{{ cite map | map=Forsyth T45N R25W | via=Historic Map Works | title=Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan | scale=1.25 in:1 mi | author=Rockford Map Publishers ''a'' | page=17 | oclc=15326667 | cartography=Rockford Map Publishers ''c'' | year=1962 | section=2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23 | mapurl= | location=Rockford, IL | accessdate=March 29, 2012 }}
Live "Forsyth T45N R25W". Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan (Map). 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL. 1962. p. 17, section 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012.
Sandbox Rockford Map Publishers a (1962). "Forsyth T45N R25W" (Map). Plat Book with Index to Owners, Marquette County, Michigan. 1.25 in:1 mi. Cartography by Rockford Map Publishers c. Rockford, IL. p. 17. § 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23. OCLC 15326667. Retrieved March 29, 2012 – via Historic Map Works. 

In each of the examples, I added an italicized a, c, or p to note when "Rockford Map Publishers" is defined as an |author=, |cartography= source or |publisher=, respectively. Ignore the changes related to where "(Map)." is located, the change from "section" to "§", and the inclusion of the |via= in the following discussion.

In the first comparison, no |author= is defined. The current template, and its sandbox behave identically. The publisher is shifted forward to take the place of an author, and the location appears alone in the middle of the citation. In this case, there is effectively no publisher noted because of that shift.

In the middle comparison, |author= is defined. In this case, the author is displayed up front, and the publisher appears in the middle of the citation after the location, as expected in the sandbox. The live template ignores the value for the publisher, as you can see, because that value is superfluous because we have something else to display up front for an author.

In the last comparison, the live template is ignoring the |author=, and because there isn't a |publisher= to take its place, there is nothing listed in the author location. As a result, the year appears in the middle of the citation after the location. In the sandbox, the template isn't ignoring the |author=, so it appears where we expect, followed by the year. Because there is no |publisher=, the location stands alone, also as expected.

This is the more fundamental question of template output behavior that needs to be resolved before discussing |publisher-link=. Imzadi 1979  16:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am totally confused. Please, briefly and succinctly, state the fundamental question. My simple little brain is apparently incapable of extracting the fundamental question from what you've just written.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental question boils down to how the template will deal with this confusion over the proper role of citing an author (or authors) and publisher. Until that is resolved, totally deprecating |publisher-link= may be an effort in futility because the parameter may be needed after all.
The only situation that currently gets it "correct" is the sandbox when the author and the publisher are separately specified. If both are not provided, we are getting results that are visually inconsistent with the rest of the CS1 templates. In the sandbox, if an author (or set of authors) is not provided, the publisher is moved forward, but then we don't have something displayed where the publisher should be displayed.
So either we need to break this crazy "publisher as author" automated behavior and force editors to manually specify the author of a map, which usually is the same entity as the publisher, or we need to re-add the code that duplicates the publisher into both roles unless the author(s) is/are specified to override that behavior. Imzadi 1979  18:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you, the fundamental question is:
Shall {{cite map}} place the map's publisher in the author position of the rendered citation when |<author alias>= is empty or omitted?
If that is the question, then my answer is no. If it is up to me, special cases in the code, and hence special cases in operation and documentation shall be avoided.
Is that the fundamental question? If so, your answer is? If not, please restate the question.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And my answer, for a few years now, has been that the publisher should not be a direct replacement for the author. On that much, we both agree. Furthermore, if editors want to indicate that X company or Y agency both authored and published a map, then they need to list that name twice so that it appears in both places. Imzadi 1979  22:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I've disabled the code that moves publisher to author when author not present.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Something to note, but these plat atlases were published with written text and advertising solicited from the local 4H program and the appropriate county office/agency, and most library catalogs actually list those two entities as the authors of the book. Rockford Map Publishers just drew the maps using that text and printed the books. As it stands, the role of the 4H program and the county has had to be ignored because the design choices made years ago with the template and carried forward to the initial {{citation/core}} conversion forced us to discount the possibility that there could be separate authorship, cartography and publication of a map source. Imzadi 1979  16:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If multiple authors are to be credited, then in the sandbox version, all of them may be listed as |author=Rockford Map Publishers |author2=Illinois 4H ... In this case, the publisher will not be moved to the author position. Isn't this what you wanted?
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, basically, but if an author or authors are not specified, we're not getting an output which also notes who the publisher is, because that spot is left empty when the publisher is moved into the author position. Imzadi 1979  18:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You wanted to list Rockford, 4H, and the county as authors and also list Rockford as publisher. The {{citation/core}} version of {{cite map}} does not support that but the sandbox does. Whether we continue to move publisher data into the author position when there is no author data is irrelevant to this case because when there is author data, publisher data is not moved into the author position.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Date position[edit]

Originally part of Help talk:Citation Style 1#cite map, I have made it a separate topic. Trappist the monk (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we are likely to see many maps without an author. We still have the problem, which was agreed in an RFC long ago, that citations with an author put the date after the author but citations without an author put the date near the end of the citation. Since this problem is likely to occur often when citing maps, perhaps it would be better to finish work that we already have a consensus for before undertaking new work. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as a necessary preliminary to the changes suggested for {{cite map}}. Are you sure that the outcome of the 'RfC' places dates near the end when the citation doesn't have author/editor text? I don't read that conclusion in your Summary of results.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this as an issue, as many of the roads editors who will be using the updated template will likely be repeating the name of the publisher as the author. Otherwise, they'll probably skip using the |cartography= parameter for a person or office and put that information into an author field. The reason I say this is that if you were to look for an atlas in the library, it's likely to be indexed by its publisher, so the Rand McNally atlas I've used as an example will be indexed under Rand McNally. The sheet maps printed by the Michigan State Highway Department/Michigan Department of Transportation are indexed in the catalog for the Library of Michigan under MSHD/MDOT. Imzadi 1979  16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The outcome wasn't to put the date near the end if there was no author, that is the current behavior of most CS1 templates (but apparently not cite maps). The outcome was no change if there are authors, editors, etc, but if there are none of these, put the title first followed by the date in parentheses. Three of the editors agreed exactly with this; I thought there should be a period at the end of the title, the other two thought no period was needed. On further reflection, I'd be fine with leaving off the period after the title, because that will make it easier to deal with titles that end with exclamation points or question marks. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If the map is lacking its publisher, then you get a similar behavior:
  • Chief Noonday Recreational Trail (Map). Scale not given. Cartography by unknown. 1998.
Imzadi 1979  20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Gold Book, IUPAC webpage citation style using {{cite web}}[edit]

Hi, I would like to know how to cite (using {{cite web}}?) a page from Gold Book web page, such as this. The web pages suggest the citation style at the bottom of the pages. I've tried to do this on Functional group page. I'm not sure if I've done it correctly. Also, the provided isbn 0-9678550-9-8 does not return any book. Rishidigital1055 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I always {{GoldBookRef}} to handle the technical details and centralize for any changes they or we might make to its boilerplate. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Should that be converted to a wrapper rather than hardcoded itself? DMacks (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

url vs. website[edit]

I've noticed that a significant number of my trainees use |webite= instead of |url= when using the toolbar to compete a {{Cite web}} template. (Here's an example of me fixing such an occasion). Pages with this error are added to Category:Pages using web citations with no URL, bit could we display a visible warning in this specific case? Perhaps the toolbar could issue the warning, and refuse to "insert"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

RefToolbar is a separate project; discuss at Wikipedia:RefToolbar. --  Gadget850 talk 12:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

We could display the "missing url=" error message by default. This RFC resulted in the hiding of those error messages "until an appropriate bot fixes resolvable instances of the error", but after working with this category for a while, I don't see how a bot could fix those errors. Almost every instance I have seen requires human judgement to determine if a URL can be found, or if a URL has been placed in a different parameter, or if a different template is needed (e.g. cite book instead of cite web, or cite journal instead of cite web), or some other solution.

I looked at a random sample of about 30 articles in the category, and I did not see a pattern of parameters that a bot would be able to detect and modify with a low false-positive rate.

I propose that we display "missing url=" errors for articles that meet the criteria for inclusion in Category:Pages using web citations with no URL, since the conditions of the RFC have been met for that category. A group of us could also, either before or after displaying the error messages, embark upon an effort to reduce the number of articles in that category. I have found them to be pretty straightforward to fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Category:Pages using web citations with no URL are:
the template is {{cite web}}, {{cite podcast}}, or {{cite mailing list}}
none of |url=, |archive-url=, |conference-url=, and |transcript-url= are used
There is a note in the code wondering if |conference-url= should be part of this test because these templates are essentially all just web citations and shouldn't have anything to do with conferences. While it is a legitimate parameter, |transcript-url= is not currently rendered – we make an external link out of it and then do nothing with that link – also, it isn't clear that this parameter should be part of this test.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should display "missing url=" errors as Jonesey95 proposes; but my experience relates to a specific subset of those, where |url= is missing, but |website= is set. I think a trainee seeing a "missing url=" error message would respond "but I have given a URL!", and we may need a more specific error message. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
In the Reftoolbar dialog, "Website" should be "Name of website". Perhaps "URL" should be "Web address". --  Gadget850 talk 22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance category messaging[edit]

I have added code to Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox that adds a message to citations that, for whatever reason, put the page in a CS1 maintenance category:

{{cite journal/new |title=none |journal=Journal |date=2014 |year=2014}}
Journal. 2014. 

The message is hidden by default but if you have turned on all error messages (see Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display), these messages are visible. Currently, and for simplicity, the message is the maintenance category name without namespace.

I'm not sure about the color which is #33aa33. If there is a better color, what is it? See also web safe colors. Whatever color is ultimately chosen should not be similar to the standard error message color and should have relatively good contrast against the standard background color.

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the general idea of this messaging, because as the code currently stands, it can be tricky to figure out which citation is causing the article to be included in the maintenance category.
I think the message should be used for clear-cut cases that have a straightforward resolution, like |language=English, but not for cases that do not have a clear way to remove the maintenance message, like |language=English and German. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because a page is in a maintenance category, it doesn't necessarily follow that something needs to be fixed Category:CS1 maint: Untitled periodical might be such a category – though I wonder if support for that was a proper decision. Part of the purpose of maintenance categories is to be an indicator for what else needs to be done in the module; multiple language support is one of those things, another is what to do about templates that use both |date= and |year= where the year values don't match.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Re "Just because a page is in a maintenance category, it doesn't necessarily follow that something needs to be fixed". But an explicit message strongly implies that something needs to be fixed, so we will at least need guidance for editors who have the hidden messages enabled. Perhaps a "help" link after the message, leading to a new Help:CS1 maintenance messages page modeled on the Help:CS1 errors page. I am willing to set up such a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added links to the category pages where there is text to describe what purpose the category serves.
Title. ASIN 1935071874. 
Title. 2005. 
Author. Title. 
Author et al. Title. 
Title (in English).  – no message here because this condition only renders messages in article space
Title (in Gernan). 
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That works for me. I have added a note to the language category page about multiple languages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 February 2015[edit]

On Template:Cite news (and possibly other citation templates), the documentation says (emphasis added)

display-editors: Controls the number of editor names that are displayed when a citation is published. To change the displayed number of editors, set display-editors to the desired number. For example, |display-editors=2 will display only the first two editors in a citation. By default, all editors are displayed except when there are four editors, then the editor list in the citation is truncated to three editors, followed by "et al." This exception mimics the older version of the template for compatibility. If a citation contains four editor names and one wishes all four editor names to display, "et al." may be suppressed by setting |display-editors=4. Aliases: displayeditors.

Surely that should read "more than three editors" and "all editor names" (or "the first four editor names"). Cf. higher on the page

If no authors: Editors appear before the included work; a single editor is followed by "ed."; multiple editors are followed by "eds."; more than three editors will be followed by "et al., eds."

So the paragraph should read (plus wikicode of course)

display-editors: Controls the number of editor names that are displayed when a citation is published. To change the displayed number of editors, set display-editors to the desired number. For example, |display-editors=2 will display only the first two editors in a citation. By default, all editors are displayed except when there are four or more editors; then the editor list in the citation is truncated to three editors, followed by "et al." This exception mimics the older version of the template for compatibility. If a citation contains more than three editor names and one wishes the first four editor names to display, "et al." may be suppressed by setting |display-editors=4. Aliases: displayeditors.

Thnidu (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done The documentation is not protected.
When there are exactly 4 editors listed, three are displayed followed by et al. To display all four of those editors, use |display-editors=4. When there are more than four editors, all editors are displayed unless constrained by |display-editors=.
{{cite book |title=Title |editor1=Editor1 |editor2=Editor2 |editor3=Editor3 |editor4=Editor4}}
Editor1; Editor2; Editor3 et al. (eds.). Title. 
{{cite book |title=Title |editor1=Editor1 |editor2=Editor2 |editor3=Editor3 |editor4=Editor4 |display-editors=4}}
Editor1; Editor2; Editor3; Editor4 (eds.). Title. 
{{cite book |title=Title |editor1=Editor1 |editor2=Editor2 |editor3=Editor3 |editor4=Editor4 |editor5=Editor5}}
Editor1; Editor2; Editor3; Editor4; Editor5 (eds.). Title. 
If the documentation does not match the reality illustrated above, you are free to correct it.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the documentation is correct. If we can clear up the roughly 1,000 articles in the error category, we can remove this compatibility mode and simplify the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Documentation / Lua[edit]

We currently have three templates not using the Lua module: {{cite episode}}, {{cite serial}} and {{cite map}} (which is in progress). Currently we have a documentation switch |lua=yes in {{Citation Style documentation}} to display documentation sections for the Lua templates. I think it is time to remove that and show the Lua documentation on all with notes on the non-Lua templates. --  Gadget850 talk 18:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Trappist the monk (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Support, especially if we proceed with migration of {{cite episode}} and {{cite serial}}. I will help in any way that I can. It will be exciting to be done with this multi-year migration project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

c. 75[edit]

The date format "c. 75" is in accordance with the documentation. Why then does it put out an error on Jewish_Messiah_claimants#cite_note-JW_Book_VII-14? Debresser (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like any year less than 100 triggers the error. Aside: If the linked article is correct, you can't have read this version to use it as a reference. --  Gadget850 talk 11:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Can (should) this be fixed? Debresser (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

want to use Cite_AV_media in de[edit]

Can somebody help me to make it possible to use [7] also in de:wp? Thank you, Conny (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

I took a look at the cite templates on the German Wikipedia— they do not use a core meta-template. You can use the December 2008 version of {{cite AV media}} before it was updated.[8] --  Gadget850 talk 12:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding translator to citation?[edit]

I've encountered a case where I need to add the translator's name to a citation. Since this property is critical when it comes to literature & history -- there are a lot of different translations of various works -- being able to indicate this property is important. So am I not reading the documentation correctly, or is this something that needs to be added to the template? -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • others: To record other contributors to the work, such as Illustrated by John Smith or Translated by John Smith. --  Gadget850 talk 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The documentation snippet above appears at Template:Cite book#Authors and in the documentation for other CS1 templates as well. To use it, type |others=Translated by John Smith within the citation template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

date and year in the same citation[edit]

We have a maintenance category, Category:CS1 maint: Date and year that collects page with citations that use both |date= and |year=. When the year-value in |date= matches the value in |year=, both are not required. The exception is when |date=YYYY-MM-DD and |year=YYYYa (disambiguating |year= for {{sfn}} and {{harv}} references to multiple works by an author in the same year).

Currently the category is filled by detecting the presence of |date= and |year= without regard to content. I have tweaked the date validation code to detect differences between the year values in |date= and |year= (formatting is not considered in this test). In the sandbox version, when |year= and |date= have the same year values:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 2015 |year=2015}}
Title. January 2015. 

but if different:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 2015 |year=2014}}
Title. January 2015.  Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

With date ranges in |date=, one of the two years must match the value in |year=:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2014 – January 2015 |year=2014}}
Title. December 2014 – January 2015. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2014 – January 2015 |year=2015}}
Title. December 2014 – January 2015. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=December 2014 – January 2015 |year=2013}}
Title. December 2014 – January 2015.  Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

The code doesn't yet do a special test for disambiguated |year=YYYYa when |date=YYYY-MM-DD (not an error and shouldn't be in Category:CS1 maint: Date and year) nor does it properly handle the case when |date=YYYY–YY.

Why do this? Category:CS1 maint: Date and year should only contain pages where |date= and |year= have the same year values; the duplication is benign.

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Now tests for disambiguated |year=YYYYa when |date=YYYY-MM-DD:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2014}}
Title. 2015-01-01.  Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2015}}
Title. 2015-01-01. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2015a}}
Title. 2015-01-01. 

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain difference in behavior; the first case produces no green message but the second case does. The difference is the format of the date.
No message:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015-01-01 |year=2015a}}
Title. 2015-01-01. 
Green message:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 1, 2015 |year=2015a}}
Title. January 1, 2015. 
Jc3s5h (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Because this:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 1, 2015 |year=2015a |ref=harv}}
Title. January 1, 2015. 
is equivalent to this:
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=January 1, 2015a |ref=harv}}
Title. January 1, 2015a. 
The CITEREF anchor for both of them is:
The date checking code will fail a disambiguated date in the form |date=YYYYa-MM-DD so for citations with a year initial numeric date, |year= is required to handle disambiguation.
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And for dates in the form |date=YYYY–YY and |date=<month/season> YYYY–YY:

{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2015–16 |year=2015}}
Title. Winter 2015–16. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=2015–16 |year=2016}}
Title. 2015–16. 
{{cite book/new |title=Title |date=Winter 2015–16 |year=2014}}
Title. Winter 2015–16.  Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Trappist the monk (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple languages[edit]

Where a source is in multiple languages, use of |language=Foo and Bar causes an "unrecognized language" error. How do we get around this? Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an error: Title (in Foo and Bar). . Where do you see this? --  Gadget850 talk 11:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Not an error. When the content of |language= isn't in a form recognized as a language by Mediawiki, the page is placed in a maintenance category. At the next update, those who have enabled display of all CS1 error messages will see the CS1 maintenance message:
Title (in Foo and Bar). 
Support for multiple languages is one of those tasks still to be done. The maintenance category gives us some idea of how editors are using the parameter.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the message in your example, but not in current uses. I think the OP is referring to List of shipwrecks in December 1939, reference #30. I see the hidden category but not the CS1 maint: Unrecognized language message. Mjroots does not have any custom CSS, so he should not be seeing any CS1 messages. --  Gadget850 talk 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Next update to Module:Citation/CS1. The green message above comes from the sandbox version ({{cite book/new}}).
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)