Help talk:Citation Style 1

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

Separator parameters[edit]

At this discussion I asked why we have several different separator parameters. This discussion assumes that we don't need so many and proposes a path to streamlining this set of parameters.

CS1/2 needs three types of separator: one to separate |first= from |last=, one to separate the items in a name list (authors, editors), and one to separate the various elements of the citation. This discussion applies to the first two of these.

The name separator parameters are:


I can see no reason to have different separators for first/last name separation in a citation. Whatever separator is used to separate author last/first names should be used to separate editor last/first names. We should combine the functionality of these separate parameters into a single parameter. The most appropriate parameter name would be |name-separator=. But that parameter name is already in use.

The name list separator parameters are:


Again, I see no reason to have different separators for name lists in a citation. Whatever separator is used to separate authors in the author list should be used to separate editors in the editor list. We should combine the functionality of these separate parameters into a single parameter. The most appropriate parameter name would seem to be |name-list-separator=.

Because |name-separator= is already in use, I think that we need a two-stage process to cleanup this mess. In the first stage we:

  1. create |name-list-separator=
  2. make |author-separator=, |editor-separator=, and |name-separator= aliases of |name-list-separator=
  3. modify Module:Citation/CS1 to use |name-list-separator= where it now uses |author-separator=, |editor-separator=, and |name-separator=
  4. deprecate |author-separator=, |editor-separator=, and |name-separator= in favor of |name-list-separator=
  5. create a script (or bot if necessary) to troll Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters that will replace instances of |author-separator=, |editor-separator=, and |name-separator= with |name-list-separator=
  6. after the number of instances of |author-separator=, |editor-separator=, and |name-separator= in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has been reduced to an acceptable level, these three parameters are added to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, are removed from Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, are removed as aliases of |name-list-separator=, and are removed from the documentation

At some point after the last step in stage 1, do stage 2:

  1. remove |name-separator= from Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions
  2. recreate |name-separator=
  3. make |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator= aliases of |name-separator=
  4. modify Module:Citation/CS1 to use |name-separator= where it now uses |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator=
  5. deprecate |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator= in favor of |name-separator=
  6. create a script (or bot if necessary) to troll Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters that will replace instances of |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator= with |name-separator=
  7. after the number of instances of |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator= in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has been reduced to an acceptable level, add these two parameters to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions, remove them from Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist, remove them as aliases of |name-separator=, and remove them from the documentation

Are there flaws in this plan? Should I proceed?

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I recall this being discussed a few years ago, but the discussion went off the rails. I did a quick search for |author-separator=; every use also makes the style changes made by {{vcite2 journal}}. --  Gadget850 talk 13:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I support the basic idea here, but it would be great to come up with parameter names for these two items that are less ambiguous. We already see unsupported parameters like |name= and |published= used by editors, for whatever reason.
It looks like we are proposing default parameters of |name-separator= as the separator between first and last names (typically a comma in CS1 citations), and |name-list-separator= as the separator between authors (typically a semicolon in CS1 citations). These parameter names imply that there is a |name= parameter, but there is not. I understand that we are trying to indicate that there is one of each separator parameter that covers both authors and editors.
I would love to see parameter names that are more self-evident; if I have to look at the documentation to remember which is which, the names are not good enough. I don't have a brilliant suggestion right now, but one of us may be able to come up with something. I will be OK with the above plan going forward even if there are no suggestions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no point in having a parameter for the default separator between first and last names. If people want to get rid of the comma in names that are usually written surname first, the only sensible way to do that is with a separate parameter for each author or editor name. |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator= are just hacks that do that in some cases but not others. (Not that getting rid of the comma is necessarily a good idea, but that's a different issue). Kanguole 22:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No argument. Instead of |name-separator= we could use |last-first-separator= because it only applies to |last=, |first=, |editor-last=, and |editor-first=. Or we could ask a more fundamental question: do we even need to specify a last/first separator character? It has been argued that we don't need to disable the separator for Asian names. It could be argued that we only 'need' |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator= when editors want to use CS1/2 in quasi-Vancouver mode (|author-format=vanc or |editor-format=vanc). Is there any other case where |first= is separated from |last= by any other character than a comma? If no, then why have |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator=?
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Display parameters: do we need them?[edit]

Discussion split from above.

That then begs the question: do we need any of the display parameters for CS1? I have previously expressed that if the Vancouver or other style is to be used, then a specific template should be created. And now we have {{vcite2 journal}} for just that purpose. Would it be possible to change the display parameters so that they can only be called by another module or template? This discussion may need to be split as it is straying from the original topic. --  Gadget850 talk 22:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a way of 'denying' the use of a parameter except by using the value assigned to CitationClass as a qualifyier. We have parameters that only work with one template: |mailing-list= only works with {{cite mailing list}} because we look for CitationClass equals mailinglist which is set with {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation|CitationClass=mailinglist}}. Yes, I agree, if the question to be discussed is :Do we need any of the display parameters? then we should split that off.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that |author-mask= is used for bibliography lists and I know |display-authors= is well used.
These parameters are generally used in conjunction with others to form a variant style.
  • |authorformat=
  • |author-name-separator=
  • |editor-name-separator=
  • |author-separator=
  • |editor-separator=
  • |name-separator=
  • |last-author-amp=
  • |postscript=
  • |separator=
We have a lot of inconsistent uses, such as Way of the Patriarchs where one cite template uses |author-name-separator=.
If CitationClass would do it, then that would be a solution. Set it to ExternalTemplate or the like. --  Gadget850 talk 00:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that keeping |postscript= and |separator= has some value because the allowed editors to mix CS1 and CS2 and have the rendered styling be the same for all citations. Here is an admittedly poor example. Presume that the page primarily uses CS2 so |postscript= and |separator= are added to the CS1 {{cite press release}} so that it stylisically resembles the predominat CS2 style:
  • Smith, Bob; Jones, Joe (15 December 2014), "Press Release Title" (Press release), Big Big Newspaper 
  • Smith, Bob; Jones, Joe (15 December 2014), "Web Page Title", Website 
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
For that we should have |cs2=y. --  Gadget850 talk 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that is the kind of good idea I was hoping for above. Is it loaded with unintended consequences? Can it be combined with |author-format=vanc into a single parameter that controls multiple display elements? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support the idea of having a single parameter to convert "cite" templates to CS2. Because {{citation}} doesn't provide the extra information in the second part of the "cite" template name, it's proved impossible to fully replicate some behaviours between the CS1 and CS2 templates (thus {{cite web}} can produce a title in double quotes without |website=; {{citation}} cannot). Hence users of CS2 are occasionally obliged to use "cite" templates with the ugly additions |separator=, |postscript=none. How about |style=cs2 with alternatives like |style=vanc? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|cs2= would be for the occasional use where we need to mix with CS2 where {{citation}} simply does not work. If you are going to use the Vancouver style, then it needs to be used for all citations. The new {{vcite2 journal}} is a step in the right direction. With the name, it immediately establishes the citation style and allows follow on edits to conform. While doing parameter use searches, I found a number of articles with very inconsistent use; for example, Tropical cyclone has a number of uses of {{cite web}} but only one uses |author-separator=. There is another article where one citation uses |. There is currently no way to discover consistency within an article other than by scanning it by eye. --  Gadget850 talk 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
|cs2= would also be useful for using templates that provide a specific reference in cs1 style (example: {{Introduction to Algorithms}}) within a cs2-styled article, assuming those templates can easily be modified to pass that parameter along. But they would have to be individually programmed to do this, which makes it unlikely the {{cite doi}} can do this, unfortunately. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It could be done. First, update the bot so it adds |cs2= to each new citation, then add |cs2= to each doi subtemplate, another bot job. But I'm not sure of the status of {{cite doi}}. --  Gadget850 talk 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I prefer |style= because it's then relatively simple for an editor to copy a CS1 or CS2 template from a page using one style to a page using the other style. It's only one parameter so converting CS2 to CS1 would be {{citation |... |style=cs1}}.
Adding a pass-through |style={{{style|}}} to the templates listed at Category:Cite doi templates looks like a relatively simple bot task. Trolling Category:Mathematics source templates, Category:Citation Style 1 specific-source templates etc. should be just as simple.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Many templates recognise a |style= parameter, and it's almost always intended for a semicolon-separated list of CSS declarations, and as such is passed unchanged into the style="..." attribute of some HTML element. We should not introduce confusion by using |style=cs2 (or variations on that) for a completely unrelated purpose - at some point somebody will attempt to use |style=background-color: yellow; border: 1px solid blue; font-family: Times,serif; and wonder what went wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64 has a good point. Maybe |citation-style= or |citation-format= instead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
When editors wonder what went wrong: Check |style= value (Help)? I like to think that most editors are clever enough to understand a word's meanings in when it is used in different contexts.
Alternate names: |styling=, |mode=, |form=, |appearance=
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For the sake of argument, let us assume that we have or will settle on a parameter name that is both descriptive and not likely to be confused for some other parameter. In the discussion that follows, I use |<style>= to identify this unnamed parameter. What is required to implement this functionality?

  1. create the new parameter – not required in all CS1/2 templates; when not used, default values used according to the value assigned to CitationClass Green tickYin sandbox
  2. define the values that it will accept Green tickYin sandbox
    1. cs1
    2. cs2
    3. vanc – this sub-style only applies to author/editor lists so |author-format=vanc can only modify |<style>= author/editor related settings
    4. are there others?
  3. define the list of existing parameters that will be obsoleted by this new parameter Green tickYin sandbox
    1. |author-name-separator=
    2. |editor-name-separator=
    3. |author-separator=
    4. |editor-separator=
    5. |name-separator=
    6. |separator=
    7. are there others?
  4. in Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist mark these parameters as deprecated Green tickYin sandbox
  5. in Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration create code that allows for |<style>= and/or these deprecated parameters in a citation. When they coexist, the value in |<style>= controls. Green tickYin sandbox
    1. define default values:
      1. |author-name-separator= and |editor-name-separator= functionality (combined): separator character is comma; when |author-format=vanc, space
      2. |author-separator= and |editor-separator= and |name-separator= functionality (combined): separator character is semicolon; when |author-format=vanc, comma
      3. |separator= functionality: separator character is period (CS1), comma (CS2)
  6. in Module:Citation/CS1 and Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration create error message code for times when |<style>=value is not one of the defined values Green tickYin sandbox
  7. after the change has been taken live, create a script or bot task to remove the deprecated parameters
    1. if |separator=, and CitationClass is CS1 then |<style>=cs2
    2. if |separator=. and CitationClass is CS2 then |<style>=cs1
  8. after the number of these deprecated parameters in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters has been reduced to an acceptable level, obsolete the deprecated parameters and modify Module:Citation/CS1 accordingly.

What did I miss? Shall I proceed?

Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the remark about not being needed in all CS1/CS2 templates, unless you mean the ones that are not handled by the LUA module. It seems to me that CS2 is close to the styles generally used outside Wikipedia for footnotes and endnotes, while CS1 is close to the style usually used outside Wikipedia for bibliographies, lists of works cited, etc. I can't think of a single kind of work that couldn't be cited with either an endnote or a bibliography entry, depending on the citation style adopted for a particular article. Thus, I can't think of any kind of work that wouldn't need both CS1 and CS2 available. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I presume that you are referring to not required in all CS1/2 templates; ... I meant that CS1/2 templates default to their 'native' set of separators. We don't need to have {{citation |title=...|style=cs2}} because the module will assign the defaults to the rendered citation based on what CitationClass tells it. CitationClass is a parameter passed to the module as part of its invocation. Here is the module invocation for {{citation}} (which I notice is out of date because |separator=, |ref= and |postscript= are set to their defaults inside the module):
{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=citation |separator=, |ref=harv |postscript=}}
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
{{citation}} #invoke now fixed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I propose cite-format. --  Gadget850 talk 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Here are the currently proposed parameter names:
  1. |style=
  2. |citation-style=
  3. |citation-format=
  4. |styling=
  5. |mode=
  6. |form=
  7. |appearance=
  8. |cite-format=
Unless there is objection, I'm going to proceed along the path I've outlined above using |mode=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It occurs to me that, yet an other name for this parameter might be |alt-style=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The following examples are all derivatives of these to templates:

  • {{cite book/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |mode= |separator= |authorformat=}}
  • {{citation/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |mode= |separator= |authorformat=}}

First as they are rendered by Module:Citation/CS1:

  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher. 
  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M., Title, Publisher 

and by Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:

  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher. 
  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M., Title, Publisher 

set |mode=cs1 for {{cite book}} and |mode=cs2 for {{citation}}, there should be no difference:

  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher. 
  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M., Title, Publisher 

set |mode=cs2 for {{cite book}} and |mode=cs1 for {{citation}}, note change in separators and now cite book sets |ref=harv, {{citation}} does not; is this correct or appropriate behavior?

  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M., Title, Publisher 
  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher. 

set |mode= for {{cite book}} and |mode= for {{citation}}, set |separator=#; |separator= value is ignored and cites rendered with deprecated error message:

  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher. 
  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M., Title, Publisher 

set |mode= for {{cite book}} and |mode= for {{citation}}, set |separator=, set |author-format=vanc; cites rendered with comma separated author and editor names which are in the form <surname><space><initials>:

  • Last1 FM, Last2 FM (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1 FM, Elast2 FM. Title. Publisher. 
  • Last1 FM, Last2 FM (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1 FM, Elast2 FM, Title, Publisher 

set |mode=cs3 for {{cite book}} and |mode=bluebook for {{citation}}, set |author-format=; cs3 and bluebook are not recognized modes:

  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher.  Invalid |mode=cs3 (help)
  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M., Title, Publisher  Invalid |mode=bluebook (help)

set |mode=cS1 for {{cite book}} and |mode=Cs2 for {{citation}}; |mode= is case insensitive:

  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher. 
  • Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20), "Chapter", in Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M., Title, Publisher 

tldr; This appears to work. The questions that arise are:

  1. is it correct to default set |ref=harv when |mode=cs2?
  2. is it correct to default set |ref= when {{citation}} has |mode=cs1?
  3. we have both |author-format= and |editor-format=; is there any reason to maintain two separate format parameters? These parameters take one of two defined values: vanc and scaps. Does it make sense to allow any and all combinations of these formatting parameters? Should they be combined into a single parameter? If so, what is that parameter called?

Trappist the monk (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it correct to make |ref=harv the default whenever cs2 is used, even by "cite xxx"? Is it correct to make {{para|ref} the default even when "citation" is used? I'm not sure what current editors expect; my best guess is that "citation" should always default to |ref=harv and "cite xxx" should only default to |ref=harv if |mode=cs1 is set.
But from the point of view of scholarly writers in general, the current system is backwards. Periods with separators are normally used in lists of works cited (or equivalent section title) and these need ref=harv. Commas are usually used with endnotes, and the <ref> tag already provides linkage between the footnote number and the endnote, so |ref=harv is superfluous. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
|mode= is not a required parameter. Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox uses the content of |CitationClass= in the {{#invoke:}} to establish the defaults when |mode= is empty or omitted from the template. These defaults in the sandbox version are the same as the defaults in the current live version. So, setting |mode=cs1 has no effect when the template is a CS1 template; setting |mode=cs2 has no effect when the template is {{citation}}. Because a defining feature of {{citation}} and hence CS2 is the automatic setting of |ref=harv, it seems appropriate to auto-set |ref=harv when a CS1 template is switched to CS2 styling via |mode=cs2 except when the template has |ref=sommat else.
I'm not at all sure I understand your second paragraph. In the current system which has been the current system since forever, CS1 separates elements with periods, CS2 separates those same elements with commas; CS1 does not auto-set |ref=harv, CS2 does.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand the current behavior, and I'm saying the current behavior is backwards. CS1 should have been designed to automatically set |ref=harv. CS2 doesn't really need to create an anchor to link to; it would have served it's purpose pretty well if |ref= were the default. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not understanding that notion of 'backwardness'. Neither do I understand the distinction that you are making between periods and commas and how they define the 'backwardness'.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Outside Wikipedia, comma separators are used with endnotes. The endnote number links the inline marker to the note, and in Wikipedia that is reinforced with a link. This comes for free with <ref>; there is really no need for re=harv. Periods as separators, outside Wikipedia, are used in alphabetical lists such as "Bibliography" or "Works cited". The wikilink between the inline citation or short footnote is very helpful; |ref=harv really helps with that kind of list, but it isn't the default. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
So, more-or-less this from Chicago:
1. Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (New York: Penguin, 2006), 99–100.
2. Pollan, Omnivore’s Dilemma, 3.
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006.
Well, we could change, but do we really need to change? I mean, do we really need to change? The emphasis as I understand it, is to avoid mixing CS1 and CS2. This change, establishes a simple way to mix so that the reader can't tell that the article contains a mix of CS1 and CS2; that bibliographic citations have the same look as the citations in the reference list which have the same look as entries in an external links list.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've kinda always wondered why we didn't just merge CS1 and CS2 together. From my vantage point, they're essentially the same except the comma vs. period distinction, which prompts a few capitalization variations. I never use CS2 because there isn't a way to properly cite a map in that style, and my subject area regularly requires the citation of maps. If CS1 were to suddenly get some commas and lowercase letters tomorrow, I'd blink twice and move on. Of course that's an idea for another discussion, but a mode switch that would allow {{cite map}} to work in a CS2-formatted article would be a handy option in the interim. Imzadi 1979  23:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Trappist's example is OK except that the two numbered footnotes would be in a different section from the unnumbered bibliography entry. Also, his note number 1 would have been a short note if the article had a bibliography. I think a small change that would make CS1 easier to use in the application it is best for, alphabetical lists, would be to make |ref=harv be the default for everything. That way, any instances of Citation that rely on it would continue to work, and the articles that contain alphabetical lists would be easier to edit. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Not my example, I did write that it came from Chicago. If you object to it, talk to the people at Chicago Manual of Style.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the full version of Chicago's example on page 662 of the book makes it clear that they don't think a full citation in a endnote should look the same as an entry list in a bibliography, and that an article that has a bibliography probably won't have a full citation in an endnote. Trappist's comment doesn't seem to agree with Chicago's approach: "bibliographic citations have the same look as the citations in the reference list which have the same look as entries in an external links list." That is, if by "reference list" Trappist means a citation in an endnote. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I've written this before: CS1/2 is not Chicago/APA/Bluebook/... take your pick. I have also written that CS1/2 needs its own style guide. I've written these things because as they exist, CS1/2 invariably conflict in some way or other with published style guides that do not define CS1/2 though were influencial in their (CS1/2) development. This is exactly the kind of question that would be answered by a CS1/2 style guide.
Trappist the monk (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A year ago I took a college class that required Chicago's footnotes in our research paper. The first footnote to a source is given in full in the footnote style, and any subsequent footnotes to that same source use shortened forms. If a note 2 references the same source as a note 1, you use ibid. If note 2 is to a different source and it's note 3 that's the first repeat of the source in note 1, then it's a shortened name and title. Then there's a bibliography at the end with a full list of all sources in a different format. Some publishers will shorten even the first reference, but many don't. Of course, it should be noted that CS1 takes more of it's initial styling cues from APA, not Chicago. Imzadi 1979  01:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course, space-saving measures that are more fragile if the references are moved around, such as "ibid" or omitting repeated author names, are frowned on here: WP:IBID. So there's one argument against following the style guides too literally. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It's natural to think that |ref=harv should always be enabled — what does it harm? But the reason it isn't always enabled is that it can generate invalid html when two references have the same set of authors (or both have no authors) and the same set of dates (or both are undated). When this happens, we get two html entities with the same name, something that is not allowed. This is more common than you might think, especially with {{cite web}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox, I have deprecated |author-name-separator=, |editor-name-separator=, |author-separator=, |editor-separator=, and |name-separator= in addition to previously deprecated |separator=. This completes steps 1–6 in my list of things to do (marked with Green tickY).

Not part of that list, but something we need to answer is:

  1. What to do about |author-format= and |editor-format=?
    Are separate formats necessary or even appropriate in CS1/2? If not, then I propose to deprecate these parameters in favor of |name-list-format=
  2. Right now, |author-format= and |editor-format= support vanc and scap. Step 5 in my list of things to do settles |author-format=vanc which leaves us with: What to do about scap?
    MOS:CAPS#All caps pretty clearly states that editors should not be writing in all capital letters and explicitly includes small caps in that statement. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica/Citations makes extensive use of |author-format=scap; there may be others I don't know about. WP:MESO will be have been invited to this conversation. If there isn't a compelling reason to keep |author-format=scap then I propose to deprecate and remove it.

Trappist the monk (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist I've deprecated |authorformat=, |author-format=, |editorformat=, |editor-format= and created |name-list-format=.
{{cite book/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |mode= |separator= |name-list-format=vanc}}
Last1 FM, Last2 FM (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1 FM, Elast2 FM. Title. Publisher. 
Last1 FM, Last2 FM (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1 FM, Elast2 FM. Title. Publisher. 
Last1 FM, Last2 FM (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1 FM, Elast2 FM. Title. Publisher. 
I have also removed the small caps formatting keyword scap and its associated code. Because there is nothing to replace it, it is simply gone and we get an error message:
{{cite book/new |last=Last1 |first=First M. |last2=Last2 |first2=First M. |editor-last=Elast1 |editor-first=First M. |editor-last2=Elast2 |editor-first2=First M. |date=2014-12-20 |title=Title |publisher=Publisher |chapter=Chapter |mode= |separator= |name-list-format=scap}}
Last1, First M.; Last2, First M. (2014-12-20). "Chapter". In Elast1, First M.; Elast2, First M. Title. Publisher.  Invalid |name-list-format=scap (help)
So now, in the sandbox, the only value accepted for |name-list-format= is vanc.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The changes look like progress to me. Given the search results in the section below, it would be useful if a bot, or an editor using AWB, could change those parameters shortly after the module is updated from the sandbox. This will prevent articles from changing their appearance unnecessarily or emitting error messages that could easily be avoided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Trappist the monk, Jonesey95: I'm happy to update WP:AWB/RTP and submit a bot request to change |authorformat=, |author-format=, |editorformat=, and |editor-format= to |name-list-format=, if you would like to share the results of those insource searches. (Was there another task to be done?) Ping me when you get closer to updating the live template so we can coordinate. Enjoy the holidays! GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
If the template has only |authorformat= or |author-format= or has only |editorformat= or |editor-format= then that parameter can be renamed. If the template has |authorformat= or |author-format= and has |editorformat= or |editor-format= then both of them must be replaced by only one of |name-list-format=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


I did insource searches for these parameters:
  • |authorformat= found 991 (scap & vanc)
  • |author-name-separator= found 642
  • |editor-name-separator= found 1
  • |author-separator= found 4356
  • |editor-separator= found 2
  • |name-separator= found 2
  • |last-author-amp= found 1
  • |postscript= found 12247 (insource:/\|\s*postscript/) "|postscript=—Based on the Random House ...", "|postscript=<!--None-->", "|postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. ...", "|postscript=none"
  • |separator= found 2901 (insource:/\|\s*separator/)
|postscript= is, I think, going to be the most difficult parameter because it is (mis)used in a variety of ways. |postscript=<!--None-->, is the same as |postscript= which does nothing; |postscript=none specifies no postscript character which functionality would be handled by |style=cs2; these can be removed by bot or script. Parameters like |postscript=—Based on the Random House ... are problematic because they may contain useful information. It would seem that for such use where the value assigned to |postscript is not a single character or html entity or hidden inside &<lt;!--...-->, then such text should be moved so that it follows the citation template's closing }}. And then there is this which is added by Citation bot: |postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}. What do we do about that? If it has value, it can be moved outside the citation template.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Re including non-trivial text in postscripts: I don't do this, but one reason some editors might want to use in combination with |ref=harv linking, so that the added text stays within the text that is highlighted by clicking on the reference link. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
David Eppstein@ Do you have an example? Perhaps we should test |postscript for values over one character and put them in a hidden category so we can see what we are dealing with. This field was only intended for the terminating character of the citation, not for elements of a citation. --  Gadget850 talk 18:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think most examples are likely better handled either by |at= or by just putting the text after the reference. (I agree with you re the intended use of postscript, and only use it for that myself, but any time we provide a convenient but semantically-wrong parameter for producing text in some kind of format, you know there will be editors who use it.) One style that I sometimes use is "(reference). As cited by (parenthetical cite of other reference)." for situations where it is clear from the other reference that the first reference is the appropriate one to cite for some piece of information but I haven't been able to track it down and read it myself. I think it's ok that the "As cited by" part doesn't get highlighted, but others could disagree. I'll also sometimes put "Reprinted in..." information following a reference to the original publication of some work. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

cite journal without |title[edit]

In Lawrencium is this citation:

{{cite journal|first=G. N.|last=Flerov|journal=At. En.|volume=106|page=476|year=1967}}
Flerov, G. N. (1967). At. En. 106: 476. 

No |title= yet no error message. Is this how it should be? The missing title error message is output when none of the meta parameters Title, Periodical, Conference, TransTitle, or ScriptTitle are set. Because |journal=At. En. has a value, no error message. I don't think that this is proper. I think that all CS1/2 citations must have |title=.

Is there a reason that we shouldn't have this requirement and that I shouldn't remove Periodical and Conference from the title test?

Trappist the monk (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tricky. In the botanical literature, it's common to give citations for the scientific names of plants without titles. For example, the citation for the name Freesia here is (in cite journal formatting) "Klatt (1866). Linnaea 34: 672. " Should we be using such citations? Probably not, but sometimes they are hard to avoid, partly because of access problems and partly because old botanical works often didn't use titles in the way that is done now. I'm already having to convert citations with open-ended dates to plain text and seeing others do so as well; I'd be sorry to see yet another category of citation unable to use citation templates. On the other hand, the great majority of citations should have titles. Ideally there would be a way of overriding a "missing title" error message. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
|title=none could explicitly set no title. --  Gadget850 talk 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Because botanical citation style differs rather significantly from the general purpose citation styles that guided the development of CS1/2, it would seem to me that such citation needs would best be met by specialized templates to render that style rather than twist the CS1/2 definition. Are there not such citation templates?
Editor Gadget850's suggestion is possible, though I think messy, so I'd rather not if I can avoid it.
and, yeah, this was supposed to be a separate discussion ... fixed
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As Peter coxhead states, some scientific traditions cite papers this way in their standard style. I've seen this in physics, crystallography, etc. — it is far more widespread than just botany. We should support them rather than deciding for ourselves what a proper citation is or should be. And again, why are you discussing changes to CS2 here without even a pointer to the discussion in the proper place? You do this over and over and it is a problem every time. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
PS for some examples of physics articles that use this style (somewhat inconsistently, and currently without benefit of templates) see Logarithmic Schrödinger equation, Scissors Modes, Noiseless subsystems, Quantum dimer models, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Those are ugly. To me they indicate laziness on the editor's part and make the reader's task more difficult should they ever decide to try to find the referenced source. For example, this:
E. F. Hefter, Phys. Rev. A 32, 1201 (1985).
Would it have been so hard to make this?
Hefter, Earnest F. (August 1985). "Application of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a logarithmic inhomogeneous term to nuclear physics". Physical Review A (American Physical Society) 32 (2): 1201–1204. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.32.1201. PMID 9896178. (subscription required (help)). 
I think that editors here sometimes forget that we are not creating content for people 'in the business' but rather, we are creating content for the rest of the world.
Trappist the monk (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes editors feel like they should follow the conventions of their field, and sometimes those conventions include or exclude different information than you would. I agree that your reformatting is better, but I think you have the wrong attitude. These templates are supposed to be here for the convenience of the editors, to make it easier for them to format citations the way they would like to format them, and with greater consistency than hand-formatted citations. They are not supposed to be for the re-education of badthinking proles who don't want to format citations in exactly the same way you would. The templates currently support multiple minor variations in style (e.g. punctuation, use of author initials vs full names, inclusion vs non-inclusion of journal publishers, etc). This is another such variation, one that is very standard in some fields. Who are we to say that it is to be forbidden? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
MOS:JARGON applies. But this is a separate discussion.
Agreed. As a short-term solution, a |title=none option to explicitly override the need to insert the article title to "silence" a visible error message would be a good option. If silenced, I'd suggest that the template use some sort of tracking category so that interested editors can expand the citation out in full. As Trappist the monk's example shows, the longer citation (with DOI/PMID) is quite a bit more helpful. As for David Eppstein's comments, I understand a desire to allow academics to emulate their academic practices into Wikipedia writing, but at some point, I should think everyone would agree that Wikipedia has a house style (our MOS), and at least some things should eventually be updated to conform to our MOS's basic requirements in an effort to be accessible to the masses
As I recently noted elsewhere, if I'm taking a university class where the instructor specifies APA style for citations and formatting, I use APA style and re-capitalize titles accordingly. If another instructor requires The Chicago Manual of Style, then CMOS it is. One semester, I was taking 5 course, one of which required CMOS (with footnotes), another required APA, two explicitly required MLA and the third required me to "just indicate your sources in parentheses with a list of sources at the end" (so I used MLA). An article I wrote in MLA style I expect to be revised into the house style of the textbook publisher. Now, our MOS is very flexible in terms of citation styles, and CS1/CS2 are two style options that can be selected, but Wikipedia:Citing sources does at a minimum specify consistency within an article, that journal citations typically have article titles, etc. There's another guideline someplace that also says that journal names should be spelled out in full to be accessible to non-specialist readers, but I'm not locating that advice at the moment. Our generalist mission, or our goal of being accessible to as many readers as possible, in any rate should push us to expand these shorthand conventions from various disciplines into fuller citations that non-specialists can reliably parse. Anyway, that's my 2¢. Imzadi 1979  06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all that. What I disagree with is the idea that making our templates more rigid and inflexible is a good way to encourage users to format their citations better. I think it's better to keep them flexible, so that people want to use them, and use other means to encourage stylistic consistency. After all, a much bigger problem than misuse of the templates is all the inconsistently hand-formatted citations that don't use the templates at all. We can't fix that problem by making our templates so prickly that only experts can get them to produce error-free output. For this reason, I would not be opposed to title-less cites causing the addition of a maintenance category, so that people who care about such issues can find them and fix them. But making them bomb out with an error message visible to all users, as was proposed here, goes beyond that and I think would cause more problems than it solves. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher has a sentence about not using abbreviated journal names.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Not as messy as I thought it might be:
{{cite journal/new |author=E. F. Hefter |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=32 |page=1201 |date=1985}}
E. F. Hefter (1985). Phys. Rev. A 32: 1201.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
{{cite journal/new |title=none |author=E. F. Hefter |journal=Phys. Rev. A |volume=32 |page=1201 |date=1985}}
E. F. Hefter (1985). Phys. Rev. A 32: 1201. 
When |title=none article is included in a maintenance category Category:CS1 maint: Untitled periodical.
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Occasionally an editor might want to refer to an entire issue of a journal (or newspaper) without specifying a particular article. This might be more likely if the issue being cited were a special issue or extra edition. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor tweaks to move the is-title-present test ahead of COinS generation so that we don't get &rft.atitle=none; no special treatment of |title=none when the template is {{cite encyclopedia}}, or when {{citation}} uses |encyclopedia=:

"article". none. Encyclopedia. 
"none". Encyclopedia. 
"Article". none. 
"none", Encyclopedia 
"Article", none, Encyclopedia 

Trappist the monk (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Check |arxiv= value (help). 
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)

Citing a primary source document[edit]

As his personal physician, Rear Admiral George Gregory Burkley, completed the first "certificate of death" for JFK: front, back. (The notation in the upper left corners appears to indicate that it is a US Navy form.) This report can found in a few other places online, but the National Archives and Records Administration appears to hold the original documents and, therefore, be the most authoritative source of the document. My pathway to accessing these pdf's was 1), 2), 3), and 4) clicked the last two pages. I'm not sure what citation template to use since Template:Cite document redirects to Template:Cite journal. Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps {{cite report}}:
Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). Certificate of Death (front) (Report). NAVMED Form N.
—— (23 November 1963). Certificate of Death (back) (Report). NAVMED Form N.
But {{cite report}} (as it is currently implemented) does strange things when |work= is made part of the citation (title is rendered quoted in italics):
Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). "Certificate of Death". The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (National Archives and Records Administration): front, back. NAVMED Form N.
The next update to Module:Citation/CS1, will fix that weirdness and allow you to dismiss the '(Report)' annotation by setting |type=none.
Cite report compare
{{ cite report | last=Burkley | id=NAVMED Form N | first=George Gregory | publisher=[[National Archives and Records Administration]] | title=Certificate of Death | work=The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection | pages=[ front], [ back] | date=23 November 1963 }}
Live Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). "Certificate of Death". The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (National Archives and Records Administration): front, back. NAVMED Form N.
Sandbox Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). Certificate of Death. The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (Report) (National Archives and Records Administration): front, back. NAVMED Form N. 
Or, you could just use {{cite document}}:
Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). "Certificate of Death". The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection (National Archives and Records Administration): front, back. NAVMED Form N. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I like "(Report)" included in the citation, however, I think I'll use the last {{cite document}} you used since the front and back pages are together. I'll post an FYI for you once I have it in the article.
While I have you on the line, I have a web cite to very similar material: . Per American Experience (season 20), "Oswald's Ghost" (not italicized) was an episode of American Experience (italicized) that first aired on January 14, 2008. The episode aired on PBS, but the corresponding website material appears to have been authored by WGBH Educational Foundation as it states at the bottom: "This site is produced for PBS by WGBH". In Template:Cite web, I'm utterly confused as to who and what to credit as author, publisher, website, series, etc. This was my first attempt:
{{cite web |url= |title=Oswald's Ghost |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date= | |series=American Experience |publisher=WGBH Educational Foundation |accessdate=January 5, 2014}}
...which gives...
"Oswald's Ghost". American Experience. WGBH Educational Foundation. Retrieved January 5, 2014. 
Do you think that is sufficient (even though American Experience is not italicized) or is there something else that you would recommend? Thanks again! - Location (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
If you like '(Report)', you can add it to {{cite document}} with |type=Report.
For the other, perhaps this:
{{cite web |author=[[WGBH Educational Foundation]] |url= |title=Oswald's Ghost |website=[[American Experience]] |publisher=[[PBS]] |accessdate=January 5, 2014}}
WGBH Educational Foundation. "Oswald's Ghost". American Experience. PBS. Retrieved January 5, 2014. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Outside style guides like APA don't treat collections as works. In the case of APA, the collection information is just put at the end of the citation. Perhaps like this:

{{cite document |last=Burkley |first=George Gregory |title=Certificate of Death |publisher=[[National Archives and Records Administration]] |pages=[ front], [ back]|id=NAVMED Form M |date=23 November 1963}} The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection.

which renders as

Burkley, George Gregory (23 November 1963). "Certificate of Death". National Archives and Records Administration. pp. front, back. NAVMED Form M.  The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection.

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's where |via= can come in very handily. Also, I wouldn't use |pages= that way, using |at= instead
Imzadi 1979  18:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the feedback. While newer references indicate that this has changed, older sources (e.g. Manual of the Medical Department of the United States Navy, 1906) confirm that "Form N" was the US Navy's death certificate form. I'm guessing that "(REV. 4-58)" in the corner of the form/report/document indicates that it was revised April 1958. It's not unusual for governments to use various number forms, but I'm wondering how detailed we should be. I know this seems pedantic: If they call it a "form", should I use |type=Form instead of |type=Report? - Location (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Certificate is already implied in the title. --  Gadget850 talk 20:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You can be as pedantic as you'd like to be. I put the form in |id= but it can just as easily go in |type=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Request to update Template:Cite compare[edit]

Based on the discussion above, I've made a request at Template talk:Cite compare#Request to update the template to make code more visible. Discussion and technical assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:42, 5 January 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)

Preface/introduction citation - is what I'm doing correct despite feeling hackish[edit]

I am attempting to cite an introduction written by one author which appears in a book written by another author. To make matters more interesting, the author of the introduction is credited as the editor of the complete text. The book, at its core, is an edition of the well-known Anna Lombard by Victoria Cross (Annie Sophie Cory). The introduction is by Gail Cunningham. I _think_ that the correct way this should display is:

  • Cunningham, Gail (2006) [1901]. "Introduction". In Cross, Victoria. Anna Lombard. Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. vii–xxv. ISBN 978-0-8264-8184-9. 

Buuuut ... that raises at least two problems in my mind. First, the origyear parameter makes this look as though the Introduction was originally published in 1901, when that's not actually the case (just the book itself). Second, to get this outcome, I've stuffed Victoria Cross in the editor field, which is the opposite of reality. I feel that can only create trouble for metadata scrapers (and potential futures where we go back to displaying "ed."); indeed, the publication itself considered Cunningham the editor.

What's best practice here, with the ultimate goal of being able to tag this with a Cunningham-named sfn (naturally)? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless something is changed with {{cite book}} to allow us to specify contribution authors separate from the authors/editors of the encompassing work, the only thing I could suggest is splitting it into two templates, like:
  • Cunningham, Gail (2006). "Introduction".  In Cross, Victoria (2006) [orig. pub. 1901]. Cunningham, Gail, ed. Anna Lombard. Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-8264-8184-9. 
This is the best I can figure at the moment. Imzadi 1979  22:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
That's ... unpleasant, but better than wrong. Thanks. I'm surprised there's not a sane way to do this, though. It can't be that uncommon... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that thhis solution brings its own set of problems. Now there are two sets of related but disconnected metadata. The second is complete and correct but the first gives us a metadata citation to a periodical article named "Introduction" but doesn't name the periodical. Perhaps fudge it a bit where |chapter= is modified:
Cross, Victoria (2006) [1901]. "Editor's Introduction". In Cunningham, Gail. Anna Lombard. Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. vii–xxv. ISBN 978-0-8264-8184-9. 
or, set |display-authors=0
Cunningham, Gail, ed. (2006) [1901]. "Introduction". Anna Lombard. Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. vii–xxv. ISBN 978-0-8264-8184-9. 
and set |ref={{sfnref|Cunningham|2006 (in which case |page=vii–xxv is inappropriate).
Neither are perfect but at least this way we don't have disconnected metadata fragments.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think either of those are really acceptable solutions, either. The first is formatted in a way that suggests Cross is the author of the introduction, and fudges the "chapter" name in an effort to combat that implication. But I don't see that changing section/chapter names is best editing practice. The second one disincludes (at least from visibility) the author of the actual book the introduction is attached to, which doesn't seem permissible, either. 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, a slight variant:
Cross, Victoria (2006) [1901]. "Introduction". In Cunningham, Gail. Anna Lombard. Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers. Introduction: Gail Cunningham. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. vii–xxv. ISBN 978-0-8264-8184-9. 
Or you could set |ref=harv
Cross, Victoria (2006) [1901]. Cunningham, Gail, ed. Anna Lombard. Late Victorian and Early Modernist Women Writers. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-8264-8184-9. 
Then use short-form links to the single citation but using two different names:
Cross 2006, pp. 55–56
[[#CITEREFCross2006|Cunningham (2006), "Introduction" pp. vii–xxv]]
Cunningham 2006, "Introduction", pp. vii–xxv
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
(different commenter) I think that if the existing template does not configure the citation in a manner which can be properly interpreted, you should set aside the template and manually compose the citation. I would add an editorial note to the wikitext (<!-- editorial note here -->) so that editors like me who do a lot of templating of citations don't go and do the wrong thing by templating it. I do understand that this would make the citation unavailable for automated analysis or decomposition, but it is better to properly present then information than to conform to the template standard. It would be useful to create a template which flags intentionally non-templated citations so that they can be parsed in a different manner than templated citations, and not be invisible to such parsing routines. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd take this suggestion if I knew what the intended output even was. Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 isn't an exact match for any other standard reference format, after all. This would also then require use of {{wikicite}} to restore sfn functionality, which (while not guaranteed), is a pretty good sign that something's being done wrong. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to compare, this is how an introduction would be formatted in APA and Chicago:

  • APA: Rieger, James (1982). [Introduction]. In Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus: 1935 (pp. xi–xxxvii). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Chicago: Rieger, James. Introduction to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, xi–xxxvii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

--  Gadget850 talk 12:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cite Conference - adding presenter parameter?[edit]

I am thinking that it might be useful to add "presenter" as a new parameter to Template:Cite conference. Currently only the authors are addressed, but the program will focus on the presenter. Thanks for considering this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I would use |others= to meet this edge case need. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
However, the presenter will typically be one of the authors, and if I am remembering correctly, "others" are co-listed with "author". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
P.S. this isn't really an edge case, but rather a piece of information which is always available for a conference, but not currently captured in Wikipedia citations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
My expectation is that the vast majority of "cite conference" citations are (whether Trappist puts his stamp of approval of this specific usage or not) citations to papers published in conference proceedings. We should only cite a presenter when the citation is to an actual presentation, rather than the associated publication, and we should only make such citations when the presentation has been recorded allowing us to verify the contents of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Presumably by "presenter", you mean the person standing at the lectern who reads the paper out to the assembly. Is this important? That is, did the presenter have any creative input? If so, they should already be listed as a (co-)author; if not, there shouldn't be any need to mention them at all. In the BBC documentary Terry Pratchett - Living with Alzheimer's, there was a sequence where Pratchett began reading a paper to an audience, then stepped down part-way; somebody else stepped up to the lectern and read out the rest of Pratchett's paper. That was not spur-of-the-moment but pre-arranged, but I don't think that it's necessary to give the name of that kind person in a citation. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
At the conferences I go to, conference talks are given largely ad lib rather than being read from a written script, so there is definitely creative input in them regardless of whether the presenter is an author of the corresponding paper (the usual case) or not (as sometimes happens e.g. when travel plans break down). So if the presenter is not an author and we are referencing the actual presentation (not the paper) then we should credit the presenter. But I'm skeptical that this is a frequent enough case to need a special field in the templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be especially infrequent because most conference presentations are not recorded, so can't be cited per se in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:11, 11 January 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)

Is |origyear= alias to |orig-year= or vice versa?[edit]

{{Cite book}} shows |origyear= as alias to |orig-year=, as per <templatedata> on that page and on Template:CSdoc#date. However, {{Cite journal}} shows |orig-year= as alias to |origyear=, as per <templatedata> on that page, inconsistent with Template:CSdoc#date. Which is it? Thanks :)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

|orig-year= is the RFC-preferred form.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll correct {{Cite journal}} and any others I find to reflect that, if no one minds unless there's a good reason not to.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If both are present, |orig-year= has precedence - but since an error message More than one of |origyear= and |orig-year= specified (help) is also thrown, I don't think that it's worth worrying about. You also risk annoying people if you go around switching one form to the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with annoying people, as long as it reflects consensus and order (the Pluto reaction immediately comes to mind).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  17:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits. The documentation for our citation templates is currently inconsistent with regard to multi-word parameters. If you are willing to improve it carefully, that would be great. I recommend against modifying the TemplateData section, for various reasons. See the discussion above for details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a good reason. {{Cite sign}} and {{Cite web}} TemplateData were (carefully) changed by me,[overzealous] before your message. However, all citations are now consistent regarding |orig-year=. I'll leave them alone and become semi-agnostic, though. Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with decision to default suppress page/pages prefix (p./pp.) under CITE PERIODICAL/WORK.[edit]

I think we should not suppress the p./pp. prefix by default under "WORK" citations. While I understand the ugliness concern of "pp. front page" this is a bad idea for several reasons:

  1. The fact is that most page references are either arabic or roman numbers, or a letter number prefix like "G-12" for Glossary page 12. All such number schemes should be preceded by the p./pp. prefix. The few pages that are not some kind of number scheme should be the exception and not the other way around.
    1. The occasional ugly "pp. front cover" citation can manually suppress the prefix using the |nopp=y command in the cite tag.
      1. As a matter of personal experience I cannot ever remember a need to cite a front cover when obviously more substantial information was be found inside the journal within an article the front cover referenced. I have occasionally cited flyleafs and back cover review comments on books, but never on periodicals.
  2. Looking at a citation display for page references without the p. prefix makes it visually harder to find the needed information.
  3. Not having the p./pp. prefix is inconsistent with other WP citation formats.
  4. In the event that a reference is something like "p. 1976" or "pp. 2013-2014" (some journals have cumulative page numbering within a issue/volume set) under the CITE WORK or CITE JOURNAL template this will show simply as "1976" or "2013-2014" and that will be potentially confusing.

Finally, can anyone point to any discussion archive where the logic of this decision was debated and consensus was reached? (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example {{cite journal}} citation:
Author (2013). "Title". Journal name 45 (7): 45–67. 
Here's a similar citation for a book:
Author (2013). "Chapter". Book name. pp. 45–67. 
The CS1 style for journal articles is roughly based on the Chicago style and the APA style, neither of which use "pp." to denote page numbers. Because Chicago, APA, and similar styles are in such wide use, anyone who is familiar with citations of journal articles has seen this style countless times and understands the concise notation being used.
That said, I would not object to "pp." being added to journal citations to make page numbers clearer in journal citations and to make citations display more consistently across different citation templates. If you feel strongly, write a clear, concise RFC and advertise it widely. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not exactly right. It's not that CMS (and APA?) does not use "pp", but rather that they are not used in that particular format, where the page numbers are preceeded by a volume number, optional issue number, and a colon. In such a context "p." or "pp." is not only unnecessary, it is excessive clutter, and contrary to standard (and I believe nearly universal) convention. Check your favorite style manaul. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be in favor of inserting the p. or pp. when there are no volume or issue numbers ahead of the colon. In other words, with the following:
  • Author (2015). "Title". Journal 1 (2): 3–4. 
  • Author (2015). "Title". Journal: 3–4. 
the first would remain unchanged, and the second would have "pp. 3–4" displayed instead of ": 3–4". Otherwise, I'd leave things unchanged. Imzadi 1979  02:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Something I just noticed, but we don't end the journal name with a period, and that's something else I'd add. Imzadi 1979  02:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And location and publisher are enclosed in parentheses. --  Gadget850 talk 14:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{Cite news}} also has a similar behavior. If there's a work, location and publisher displayed, the latter two are in parentheses. If there is a work and location, the location gets the parentheses as well, but any other combination of two of the three parameters lacks parentheses. Imzadi 1979  23:46, 17 January 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)

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#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)

Date formats[edit]

I just got an red error message, "Check date values in: |date=" from {{tl|Cite web}, because I copied and pasted a date as "01 February 2014", not "1 February 2014". It's significant that the error message did not say why the format I'd used was not accepted.

Per Postel's Law, and to make life easier for our editors, I think we should be more accepting of unambiguous date formats (another example is "17 Febr. 2015"). A Lua module should be able to handle them; and a bot could standardise them if desired.

If there is a reason why we can't do that, or ins cases where it is not possible to do so, then we should at least use more helpful error messages, such has "month not recognised". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Were you able to follow the "help" link immediately following the error message? That help text leads to MOS:BADDATEFORMAT, where a wide variety of date error types are listed. I am not a programmer, but I imagine that correctly identifying the type of date error, with a minimum of erroneous error messages, would be quite a challenge.
The specific error you created, along with many others, is fixed automatically by BattyBot's task 25, which runs about once a month on the CS1 date error category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If a bot fixes this, then we don't need to generate - nor to trouble editors with - an error message. Formats that can be fixed by bot (and are thus not really "errors") can also be detected by a Lua script. And yes, I did see the help page; it's generic, not specific; refers to prose content and not template data; and it says nothing about the case I cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There are bots that fix other errors (cite errors for example) but we still generate an error message. Errors give an editor immediate feedback that there is something wrong. If they figure it out on their own, use the help page or ask at the Help Desk, then they learn how to do it correctly and they don't have to wait a month for a fix. If I make an error with no feedback, I am likely to keep doing it.
For example: Richard Earl Thompson has access dates for every citation, even though none has a URL. This particular error is still hidden, so the editor kept doing it.
And bots cannot repair every error. That is why Referencebot reports errors on user talk since cite errors can be complex. --  Gadget850 talk 18:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There may be such errors; but that's not what's being discussed here. Entering "01 February 2014" is not wrong. It is a valid way of expressing a date, and one which we can cater for programmatically. We do not need to "train" editors not to do it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
We aren't going to come to an agreement on this. Dropping out of this part of the discussion. --  Gadget850 talk 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1 FEB 2014 is also a valid way of expressing a date, but we call it an "error" because it is not one of the house formats. Hell, we don't even accept dates containing slashes/strokes, which in their various variations are some of the most commonly used date formats. It's sensible to draw a line somewhere short of accepting all conceivable date formats, and you're simply proposing to draw the line in a slightly different place. It's not about what's "correct" or not. I personally don't feel it's asking too much to remove that zero after a copy-and-paste, nor is it asking too much to figure out where the problem is when you see the error. ―Mandruss  21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
"not one of the house formats". We're talking about data entry, not content display. The line should be drawn at ambiguity (5/4/2014 is ambiguous; 23/4/2014 is not). We have machines to do things like this for us; and humans' time - especially those willing to voleunteer their efofrts to building the encclopedia - is better spent doing things that machines cannot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then you're actually proposing that we support not only 01 February 2014, but 1 FEB 2014, 1FEB2014 (common military usage), 23/4/2014, 2014/2/1 (no more ambiguous than 2014-02-01), and a few others that don't come to mind at the moment, including any unnecessary leading zero in day or month. It also seems you're proposing that we perform format conversions to normalize dates for display, which we are not doing now. Is that correct? ―Mandruss  21:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Then you have to add a format parameter and update every existing use. --  Gadget850 talk 23:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Pragmatically you'd support (or start by supporting) the formats most commonly used by editors, but given that: yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed a million times over the years. Do we really have to start all over again? Can we really not just leave things as they are? -- Alarics (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Anything should be open to discussion. The community is constantly being remade as people drop out and join, and there's no reason to assume that its judgment will never change (or to cling to the status quo). But no one is forced to participate in any discussion. ―Mandruss  23:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Links, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Pigsonthewing wrote: "The line should be drawn at ambiguity (5/4/2014 is ambiguous; 23/4/2014 is not). We have machines to do things like this for us..." You are right. As I said above, BattyBot will fix unambiguous dates to conform them to the MOS.

Please move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. The citation module is designed to mark citation date formatting that does not conform to the Wikipedia consensus. If that consensus is changed, the citation module will be changed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No. As I said above, this is not about content display (which is what the MoS is for); it is about data entry formats accepted by this family of templates. There is no "Wikipedia consensus." that our templates may only accept the date formats currently used by this set. It is my contention that we could change the module; and this is the correct place to discuss that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to prioritize modification of the date standards when there are still 180,000+ existing CS1 errors that can be cleaned up first. Fixing the cite conference break that appeared a couple of months ago is a far better way to spend the module programmer's time than attempting to identify and parse the vast amount of potential "non-ambiguous" formats. Changing the date parsing to accommodate trivial matters such as avoiding backspacing over a zero is surely a long way down the list of useful ways to spend time. - Stamptrader (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall asking you or anyone else to prioritise this. (Though I wonder how many of those errors are actually invalid data, and not just valid formats that we don't tolerate.) If there is consensus to support editors by accepting such date formats, then the job can be queued, or perhaps a new volunteer will come forward to undertake it (because a module that normalises such date entry will be useful elsewhere, too). By way of example (and perhaps code can be reused), I note that Wikidata accepts a wide a variety of date formats and normalises them, without drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The wikidata date support is execrable and is so bad that any wikidata birth or death date before about 1924 is unreliable. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If so, that appears to be a separate issue, unrelated to the matter at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It seems to me that VisualEditor is the place to add any such tolerance/conversion, not CS1. For the most part, the people who need the tolerance will be using VE anyway. I don't know about you, but I intend to avoid VE as long as that's possible (with any luck, until my Wiki-retirement), and I have no problem mentally converting a source date to the MOS/CS1 format appropriate for the context. ―Mandruss  00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no wish to use VE. I do not teach my trainees to use VE. I regularly see trainees get date errors like the one I described above. Resolving this at the template issue will help more editors than doing so in VE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:45, 19 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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

"no date" should be a valid entry in the date field[edit]

Currently the date field accepts "n.d." as a valid response in the date field, where this stands for "no date" For people who do not know the order of citations, having "(n.d.)" appear in the citation is not obviously recognizable as a note about the date, and even if someone thinks it might be, they will not be sure what this means without being told.

It should be acceptable to write "no date" in the field without getting an error, but an error message happens in this case now. This would make the citation more accessible to people without academic training in the Western citation system, which includes most of Wikipedia's readers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I recently saw an editor remove |date=n.d., apparently because they didn't know what it was. I don't why else they would have done that. I checked the source and it, in fact, had no date. ―Mandruss  03:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

fields with double values[edit]

A lot of books have two or more parallel texts, each in a different language.

A lot of books have two or more titles, one per language used.

A lot of books are simultaneously published by two or more publishers, each in a different city ("location"). (I mean, the same one copy of the book says that it is published in NYC by company X and in London by company Y, for example.)

A lot of books have two or more ISBNs. (I have in mind books printed and bound at the same place and time and with identical pagination: hardback and paperback editions differing only in their binding, books jointly published by two publishers [see previous item], etc.)

A lot of books that don't have ISBNs have two or more useful OCLC numbers.

It's considerations such as these that have until now made me avoid the template wherever possible. (I haven't fought against others' use of it; I simply haven't used it myself.) But I appreciate the motivation for it and of course I want to cooperate with others who do use it. So I can no longer ignore these problems. What's the approved/best approach to problems such as these? -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have edited a lot (tens of thousands) of citations, and in my experience, books cited in WP with two parallel texts, each in a different language, are exceedingly rare. I can't recall coming across one. Books with two or more useful identifiers (ISBN, OCLC number, etc.) are more common, but the primary purpose of the identifier is to help the reader locate the source that you are citing in order to verify a statement or do further research. If any of a number of OCLC numbers (or ISBNs) helps the reader locate a particular edition (at, for example), then one number is sufficient.
If you come across a case where the citation template is not flexible enough to meet your needs, you can format the citation manually, add explanatory text after the citation template but within the ref tags, or do something else that maintains a consistent citation format while helping the reader understand how to locate the source in question. I admire your dedication to doing so.
If you have specific examples from specific articles, you are welcome to post them here. A number of helpful editors watch this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
For many of the potentially doubled fields listed above, you can format that one field manually with |id= and still get the benefit of the template's more consistent formatting and richer metadata for the rest of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input ¶ I would never claim that the books I list, or cite, are representative of books in general; but I find that a large minority of books I deal with have such complications. A chronic underachiever, I've never even aimed for FA and I've got just one GA. Let's take a look at it (no cite book templates). The man has so far published 15 books (the 16th is coming next month), and eight have two titles. (This is a separate matter from the use of Japanese script.) Something that's peculiar to Japanese books, perhaps? No it isn't: just go to a popular bookstore and look at the coffee-table books from Taschen and the like. I'm now working on this (with cite book templates), and there are a lot fewer books with double titles, but other complications all over the place. Here's a simple example of complexity:
Gianni Berengo Gardin (photographer), Susanne Berengo Gardin (editor), Italians = Italiener (Kempen: te Neues, 2000), ISBN 3-8238-5453-4. Text in English and German.
¶ Sorry, I don't understand the use of the id property. I'd be grateful for an explanation. Here's a start:
Berengo Gardin, Gianni (2000). Berengo Gardin, Susanne, ed. Italians. Kempen: teNeues. ISBN 3-8238-5453-4. 
to which I could of course add something like
The book also has German text and the German title Italianer.
But this would not be picked up by whatever algorithms the Cite book template is designed for; indeed, it seems to defeat the purpose (as I (mis)understand it) of the template. ¶ Incidentally, in neither of the lists I've linked to am I actually "citing" the books as the word "CITE" is most commonly used; I don't suppose that this matters. ¶ I do think it's a good idea to give all relevant ISBNs where possible. (Clicking on one is unlikely to take you to listings for the other.) I'm willing to put in the effort, but I want to be sure that I'm going about it in the right way. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Specific examples would help us to understand this discussion better.
As to |id=, I recently used it to indicate the source of a document, embedding another cite template in it. Here the cited document is a translation of a single chapter from a Chinese work.
  • {{cite journal |author=Shi-Xue Tsai |title=Introduction to the Scene Matching Missile Guidance Technologies |publisher=[[National Air Intelligence Center]] |others=SCITRAN (trans.) |url= |chapter-format=PDF |id=Translated from: {{cite book |title=Promotion of Chinese Aviation Between Centureis: Proceedings of Conference for 30th Anniversary of CSAA Establishment |language=zh |issue=Nr. 10, 1994, (Cama) Vol. 3, Nr. 1 |date=1996 |pages=227–237 |postscript=none}}}}
Shi-Xue Tsai. "Introduction to the Scene Matching Missile Guidance Technologies". SCITRAN (trans.). National Air Intelligence Center. Translated from: Promotion of Chinese Aviation Between Centureis: Proceedings of Conference for 30th Anniversary of CSAA Establishment (in Chinese) (Nr. 10, 1994, (Cama) Vol. 3, Nr. 1). 1996. pp. 227–237 . 
Added at 11:13, 30 January 2015‎ by Gadget850
Now I'm thoroughly confused, I'm afraid. You're giving me the English translation of a Chinese-language original that mysteriously has an English-language title. Also, I don't see any duplication there. ¶ I'll try again. Here's a book:
  • {{Cite book | editor-last=Berengo Gardin | editor-first=Susanne | author-last=Berengo Gardin | author-first=Gianni | title=Italians | location=Kempen | publisher=teNeues | year=2000 | isbn=3-8238-5453-4 | language=English}}
  • {{Cite book | editor-last=Berengo Gardin | editor-first=Susanne | author-last=Berengo Gardin | author-first=Gianni | title=Italianer | location=Kempen | publisher=teNeues | year=2000 | isbn=3-8238-5453-4 | language=German}}
The one isn't a translated reissue of the other; these are instead two ways of writing the same book. Are you suggesting
  • {{Cite book | editor-last=Berengo Gardin | editor-first=Susanne | author-last=Berengo Gardin | author-first=Gianni | title=Italians | location=Kempen | publisher=teNeues | year=2000 | isbn=3-8238-5453-4 | language= | id=With parallel texts (English and German), and the alternative title ''Italianer''}}
? The result of the latter, viz
  • Berengo Gardin, Gianni (2000). Berengo Gardin, Susanne, ed. Italians. Kempen: teNeues. ISBN 3-8238-5453-4. With parallel texts (English and German), and the alternative title Italianer. 
looks good, but I suppose that the value of id wouldn't be machine readable. But if this method is the best way to handle such duplications, then I'll happily use it. ¶ Incidentally, I've been thinking more about Jonesey95's remark about the rarity of books with parallel texts and parallel titles. This surely depends on the subject matter. My own shelves aren't so capacious, but they include quite a lot of them. At least half are Japanese+English, but others include Estonian+German+English+Russian (a book about Narva) and Finnish+English+Armenian (about the Armenian diaspora). -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not:
{{Cite book | editor-last=Berengo Gardin | editor-first=Susanne | author-last=Berengo Gardin | author-first=Gianni | title=Italianer |trans-title=Italians | location=Kempen | publisher=teNeues | year=2000 | isbn=3-8238-5453-4 | language=German, English}}
Berengo Gardin, Gianni (2000). Berengo Gardin, Susanne, ed. Italianer [Italians] (in German, English). Kempen: teNeues. ISBN 3-8238-5453-4. 
Trappist the monk (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The result looks good; but unless I completely misunderstand one major purpose of the template, that's very wrong. As I (mis)understand it, the combination of title and trans-title is for the non-English title of a book and its nonce translation (I mean, a translation by a Wikipedia editor) into English. But this book instead comes with two titles. (Here's its front cover.) Also, this use of the template implies that the language, singular, has the value "German, English". The meaning is obvious to you and me, but not to a computer unprepared for it. Does use of the template presuppose that machine use considers strings inside values? ¶ I realize that I may sound very pernickety/pedantic in all of this; but I'm under the impression that the Cite book template and its relatives are for three purposes: (i) to prod editors into providing all needed information; (ii) to format this information in a comprehensible and consistent way; and (iii) to make the result computer-readable and -manipulable. I'm not worried about the first two (I'm confident of my own ability to get this stuff right without the help of a template), but I'm concerned about the third. ¶ If, four years ago, somebody had told me of a book with parallel texts in Finnish, English and Armenian, I'd have thought "Pull the other one", so here's its front cover for credibility and your viewing pleasure. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

|author=Alpha Beta, et al. -> |author=Alpha Beta|author2=et al.[edit]

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)