Template talk:Citation/core

Display of work date when authorless

Works without authorial (editorial, etc) attribution display date of work publication in a manner outside of style. Style has for authored, edited, etc.'d works the date displayed after the producing authority in brackets. The producing authority for authorless works would either be the whole title, or the title and place / manner published.

• Display: "The 25 Best Album Covers of the Decade (2000–2009)". Paste. November 16, 2009. Retrieved April 5, 2010.
• Cite: "The 25 Best Album Covers of the Decade (2000–2009)". Paste. November 16, 2009. Retrieved April 5, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Cite code: {{cite web |url=http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/the-25-best-album-covers-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=19 |title=The 25 Best Album Covers of the Decade (2000–2009) |publisher=''Paste'' |date=November 16, 2009 |accessdate=April 5, 2010}}
• Expected Display (OR):
  • "The 25 Best Album Covers of the Decade (2000–2009)". Paste. (November 16, 2009). Retrieved April 5, 2010.
  • "The 25 Best Album Covers of the Decade (2000–2009)". (November 16, 2009). Paste. Retrieved April 5, 2010.

Duplicated period

 Solution too complex for implementation

Extended content

One of the complaints I have encountered is duplicated periods, especially on first names with initials: The only current solution is to remove the trailing period from the field, but this means that it is missing from the CoinS metadata. I created {{User:Gadget850/Remove trailing period}} as a fix to this: I have tested this, and it removes the period for a string of up to 500 characters. If we implement this, it should apply only to first names. I have seen complaints about the publisher field, but this is usually because the corporate designation such as Inc. was included, which the guidelines and style guides advise against. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Has the fix been tested for performance on a page with many citations? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Good question. I just substed the template markup it one level to eliminate some transclusions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Looks like each use adds: Preprocessor node count: 419 bytes Post-expand include size: 1999 bytes Template argument size: 528 bytes Expensive parser function count: 0 PageSpeed shows 94/100 for both test pages of 100 citations. I am open to any optimization here.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC) ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Actually, this is only an issue when there is no date; see above. If the date exists, then there is no need to invoke the period remover. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC) There is some reason to think {{cite book}} was based on APA style. In APA, when one can't determine a date for a work, the date is listed as "n.d." However, in Wikipedia the situation is usually that the editor didn't bother to give the date, rather than it being hard to discover the date. So automatically putting in "(n.d.)." whenever all the date-related parameters are missing is probably a bad idea. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC) And I am not proposing that. Simple logic such as if date, then first, else first with period removed would do the trick. Thus, the remover would only be invoked if there is no date and that bit of overhead is not added. But it would have to check for date, year and month fields. This is probably too complicated, but I will have to think on it a bit. Might be easier to simply add an author-terminator parameter that would simply not include the period. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Definitely easier to add author-terminator. The author link markup makes it very hard to get a clean hook into it. The template was a good exercise and I will probably develop it into general use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A better but probably harder solution is to not remove the period from the data, but from the markup around the data, if this will have any effect at all on the COINS metadata, which we should not be falsifying for the sake of formatting. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Translators (again)

I would like to propose an additional field which allows editors to credit one or several translators, as per Template talk:Cite book/Archive 9#Translators (again). This has proposal has already been raised and discussed several times on that talk page and I fail to understand why it has not been implemented yet. Is there a technical problem, or are there any other objections? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are those who object to the use of citation templates principally on the grounds that they take a relatively long time to render. Each additional parameter increases the rendering time. We should perhaps be looking to decrease, rather than increase, the number of parameters, in order to improve performance. This template already provides the parameter |Other=, used by e.g. {{cite book}} - see its documentation for |others=. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We could reduce the rendering time if we removed the COinS tag pieces. I know there are a few obscure pieces of software that use this (Zotero?), but is it really worth the cost? We probably render literally millions of COinS tags a day, and maybe one or two get used. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To return to the original question: Proposing this at {{cite book}} is fine, but it cannot be fixed there. This is the correct place. The addition of translator fields would be fairly trivial (simply copy the editor markup and rename). Please make your case here for why this would be valuable---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Editors are hardwired to have "et al" after the third.

I'm wanting to display the fourth editor of a book for the article Experimental political science, because that editor has a Wikipedia page. However, I get "et al" after the name of the third editor. I suspect this is because the code in Citation (used by Cite book) is:

#if:{{{EditorSurname4|}}}
 | et al.

Could something please be done about making this more symmetrical with the author practice (with Trunc or another interface, although the latter would require modifications to the cite book|web|etc templates...)? Thanks! Allens (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in that the issue is here. By design, the fourth editor never shows and is replaced by et. al. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Why by design is it not flexible (and not defaulting to the same number as authors, particularly when no authors are cited)? I also note the lack of documentation of this, if it is meant to be the case. Allens (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is documented on this template pages— see EditorSurname2, documentation on the other templates is not consistent. I will look at this in a bit. Do you think there would be any need for more editors? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In terms of documentation, I'm not finding EditorSurname2 in the template doc-page, nor does a search for "et al" find anything about it; ? If the fourth or more editor has a Wikipedia page, it would be nice to be able to link to it easily, although fortunately the editor in question in Experimental political science is also the author of an article referenced. I'll try to take a look to see if any "official" citation formats call for differing numbers before "et al" of editors as opposed to authors. Thanks for taking a look at the documentation problem... Allens (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure which documentation page you're looking at, but since this page is Template talk:Citation/core, the documentation to look at is that shown at Template:Citation/core, where we find under Template:Citation/core#Parameter details, the following:

• |EditorSurname1= first editor's surname or last name.
• |EditorSurname2=, |EditorSurname3=, |EditorSurname4= second, third, and fourth editors’ surname or last name. The fourth is not actually used, but causes et al. to be generated.

it's in approximately alphabetic order. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh... I see the confusion. I was looking at Template:Citation's documentation (which is where users of it are going to be looking, most likely, not at the core one...) Allens (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The documentation at Template:Citation is lacking in quite a few areas, because the template is used for a wide variety of different types of source. Some parameters have different effects depending upon the presence or absence of other parameters, and trying to make the doc cover all possibilities is a nightmare. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It used to be that authors were hardwired to three before "et al" kicked in. I guess when we changed that we didn't also change editor to match. I wouldn't mind at least allowing for the possibility of more editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While I am in this, editors don't honor NameSep— they always use a comma. That needs to match the author names. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, now in sandbox:

• Supports up to eight editors
• Et. al controlled by EditorTrunc, defaults to 3
• Supports NameSep
• Supports EditorMask

Current templates such as {{cite book}} or {{citation}} will need to be updated to pass these parameters.

current

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1, ed. 

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

• Surname1, Given1, EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

sandbox

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1, ed. 

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

• Surname1, Given1, EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1, ed. 

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! Should some examples be put into Template:Citation/core/testcases? (I note that ArchiveURL and URL are having a problem in the "full citation" test cases, unless that's deliberate...) Allens (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The ArchiveURL and URL appear to be tests using the current template and do not reflect any issue on the sandbox version. Please note that the editor markup is in two chunks (no author, editor and author, editor) and I still have to do the second, so this does not work yet if there is an author value. I am looking to see if that could be simplified, but that will probably wait till later. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

• Surname1, Given1, EditorSurname1, EditorGiven1; EditorSurname2, EditorGiven2; EditorSurname3, EditorGiven3 et al., eds. 

Backwards specification and ownership behaviour over Template:Cite report

Cite report was heavily expanded in 2009 to deal with unpublished material, specifically, reports which were "unpublished" in the citation sense of never being offered for sale; but, verifiable in the wikipedia sense of published as available for consultation, and uttered by responsible authorities.

Gadget850 improved Cite report to use Citation/core in September 2011, incidentally breaking fundamentally behaviour dealing with the |title= parameter; behaviour following Turabian Reference List style and Harvard of unpublished works taking neither italics not quote marks.

Help:Citation Style 1 isn't a useful specification here: it is backwards specified from published source practice. Would editors discuss the appropriate specification for the title of unpublished works on wikipedia, in particular, reports such as Pasch, Richard J. (1993-11-10). Preliminary Report Hurricane Gert: 14-21 September 1993 (Report). Hurricane GERT, Hurricane Wallet Digital Archives. Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2011-10-03. which were reliably uttered but not published in the same sense as a webpage, book, newspaper article or journal article. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasons to support non-italic and non-quote behaviour as the specification:

Turabian reference list style

Harvard style

Successful behaviour on wikipedia over 2009–2011 with wide adoption for a rare citation template

Unpublished (by citation standards) materials not being readily located by title anyway

That italics are used in most citation styles for independently published works, ie books, journals or newspapers, whereas quotes are used for contained elements of a greater work, ie chapters etc. Unpublished reports, PhD theses, etc, aren't independent published works due to lack of publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You won the argument and you are bitching about it? You want a template for unpublished reports, you got it. You want a template that is not like the others, you got it. Everything is back to where it was before I got involved, so I certainly don't own anything. Have a nice day. And why are you discussing it here? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"I won"? You seem to believe that 3 years of a template existing in the display manner of other Cite x styles means that it doesn't belong in the family? This is about whether reports should be specified to be cited in the "Cite x" house style of wikipedia with italicised titles or not. There isn't winning, there is establishing how the Cite series of templates treats unpublished reports. Since 2009 that family has treated them without italics for titles. This discussion can settle the specification, and then people can bother to implement after a specification has been created as the result of consensus. (I'd argue the consensus from 2009 is indicative). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... This is probably not the optimum place to raise this, but I have been grumping on and off for a while about the (lack of a) template engineering process. This is not a big deal for low usage templates, but it is a big deal for high usage templates. The remarks immediately above speak of a "house style" for WP cites -- there is no such thing. However, there is a de-facto style for templated cites. That de-facto style is not documented anywhere. With that as an intro, I'll make a proposal for the {{citation}} and {{cite xxx}} templates: Let's create an article for each of those templates like Template:template_name/requirements_specification, and lets create an environment enforced by the WP editing community that templates having such a "requirement specification" article must comply with those requirements. Let's sort out disagreements about citation requirements on those requirement spec articles. Lots of other stuff flows from that, but that's as far as I want to take it now. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not have preferred styles, but we do have a series of well used templates based on {{citation/core}} that share the same styles. I had the same observation on a lack of common usage instructions, had some discussion, made a proposal and started Help:Citation Style 1. I suppose you could call it a specification, but the intent is to describe how current templates work. In doing so, I have identified those templates using the CS1 style.

I have also updated templates that are similar but not fully compliant with CS1. I have never implemented anything other than very minor changes without discussion.

{{Citation/core}} formats titles per the Chicago style: long works in italics and short works in quotes. {{Cite report}} originally had no format for titles. I did a sandbox update and made a proposal on the talk page; after a reasonable period, I made the changes per WP:SILENCE. I formatted the title in quotes; Fifelfoo objected to the title format stating "the update to cite core broke the non-italicisation of the titles of unpublished works." We had a discussion that I could quickly see was not going to reach any consensus and I reverted to the original markup. No CS1 template uses unformatted titles and no CS1 templates are for unpublished works. If there is consensus that templates should format unpublished works in this manner, then we need to add that functionality to {{citation/core}} instead of making an HTML hack. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Gadget850's work in unifying Citation 1, and documenting it is excellent. I agree that the implementation shouldn't be the kludge that I forced in a pique. I'm glad that we've laid out the issue to seek advice on which behaviour to specify, then implement, and document. I think Wtmitchell's suggestion that we should formally specify CS1 is a good one. One reason we ought to specify CS1, as well as documenting it, is that CS1 has become a major international citation style simply by widespread adoption by wikipedia users. I'm happy with whatever specification editors make consensus on regarding unpublished reports. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be broken into two issues:

• Should the title be plain formatted? Discussion should be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles.
• Should we cite unpublished works? Discussion should be at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

I discourage the use of Cite x or Cite xxx, as they are meaningless. Not every template with a name beginning with cite uses the same style as CS1 ({{Cite newspaper The Times}} for example), nor are they all citation templates ({{cite quote}} for example). Unfortunately, the casual editor is not aware of stylistic difference and most probably think that all the cite templates were created under some master plan. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• MOS TItles covers body text—MOS Titles doesn't cover citations, as both CITEVAR and the wide variety of manual citations in Science articles where titles aren't italicised demonstrates. We've been citing unpublished material for years, if they're published in the term-of-art sense of WP:V of having been uttered by a body that takes responsibility for them, and are available for to be verified against; they also need to meet the secondary/independent-of-the-subject criteria.
• Cite report was designed specifically to match the most common other Cite x format citations, which have become the CS1 set. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

CS1 is a mishmash of styles. Titles use the Chicago style of long works in italics and short works in quotes. Per Chicago:

8.184 TITLES OF UNPUBLISHED WORKS

Titles of unpublished works--theses, dissertations, manuscripts in collections, unpublished transcripts of speeches, and so on--are set in roman type, capitalized as titles, and enclosed in quotation marks. Names of manuscript collections take no quotation marks.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a very cogent argument: that CS1 style uses Chicago style in relation to titles. My only counter argument would be that Cite report was built to match other Cite x styles that have become CS1; and, that Cite report's behaviour has operated successfully from 2009 to 2011. I guess I'm at the stage where I'd like a third user or third users to close this stylistic debate so we can have a happy implementation. Gadget850, would you support having a specification separate from implementation and documentation for CS1? I'd be happy to work on that with you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view, Turabian is derivative, "renegade" in many respects, and simply not authoritative; in over 20 years in and out of academic environments, I have never once had a professor in an field require Turabian style, have had many forbid it, and had most never mention it, any more than they mention Bedford Guide style or other minority citation styles. Harvard style is of limited (and from what I can tell, decreasing) favor and influence, and is not well liked on Wikipedia generally, outside of articles on particular disciplines. I would not want to use either of these as authorities for what to do on Wikipedia. While I have my issues with Chicago on various points, it's influence on our citation templates (and on the off-WP academic and professional publishing world) is strong enough that I have to side strongly with it's suggestion of putting the titles of unpublished works in quotation marks, in the rare cases that this actually comes up here. Putting them in neither italics nor quotation marks is out of the question, as it will confuse readers and editors, lead to editwarring over "correcting" the citations, etc., etc.

Some of Fifelfoo's arguments in favor of using neither aren't convincing. "Successful behaviour on wikipedia over 2009–2011 with wide adoption for a rare citation template" is meaningless, since changing the output of the template in this minor way won't break this "successful behavior"; the fact that the template is rare is precisely why it took a long time for any to notice and object to its weirdness. "Unpublished (by citation standards) materials not being readily located by title anyway" is irrelevant; it's not about locating the resource, but even understanding the citation; people are going to think "WTF is this?" when they seem something with neither italics or quotes, and "fix" it one way or the other. "That italics are used in most citation styles for independently published works, ie books, journals or newspapers, whereas quotes are used for contained elements of a greater work, ie chapters etc. Unpublished reports, PhD theses, etc, aren't independent published works due to lack of publication." Right, so this is argument for quotation marks, which are also used for minor works that are not part of a greater work, such as songs (in the sheet music sense; yes, of course, albums are greater works that do contain songs). It's not an argument for no formatting of the title at all.

So: Use quotation marks per Chicago and our fairly consistent reliance on it in this sphere, and per our reader/editors' needs and expectations. Alternatively, use italics or quotation marks as one would if the work were published (and maybe have a parameter that switches them or something) if people are going to whine and cry about it, but don't use neither. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

|format= displays incorrectly when no author present in works with only a work title

See: Discovered

• {{cite report|url=http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/xml/7/15507/L372-1-EN.pdf | title=Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment |date=1999-04-19 |accessdate=2011-10-06|format=PDF|page=12|publisher=[[United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean|United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean]]|location=Santiago, Chile|docket=LC/MEX/L.372}}
  • Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment (PDF) (Report). Santiago, Chile: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 1999-04-19. p. 12. LC/MEX/L.372. Retrieved 2011-10-06.
  • Expected behaviour: Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment (Report) (PDF). Santiago, Chile: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 1999-04-19. p. 12. LC/MEX/L.372. Retrieved 2011-10-06.

minimal

• {{cite report| title=Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment |format=PDF}}
  • Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment (Report). {{cite report}}: |format= requires |url= (help)

cite book

• {{cite book| title=Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment |format=PDF}}
  • Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)

Counter example: cite journal

• {{cite journal| title=Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment |journal=testjournal|format=PDF}}
  • "Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment". testjournal. {{cite journal}}: |format= requires |url= (help)
• {{cite journal| title=Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment |format=PDF}}
  • "Nicaragua: Assessment of the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch, 1998: Implications for economic and social development and for the environment". {{cite journal}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

This is currently affecting a FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See #Format above. Not sure what to do with this. A technical issue like this should never be an FAC showstopper. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worse: The format parameter is misplaced for books, maps, etc. ALWAYS

The |format= parameter works as expected/sane in {{cite web}} but is worse than useless, downright confusing and weird, in the output of Template:Cite book and possibly a few other templates in this series. Without an specified author, the output is especially inane, suggesting that a file format was the author:

The Titling Titlers of Titledom (ePub). Tokyo: Some Press. 2011. pp. 12–14. Retrieved 2011-12-24.

With an explicit author it still doesn't make sense, implying that the date has a file format:

Thor, A. U. (2011). The Titling Titlers of Titledom (ePub). Tokyo: Some Press. pp. 12–14. Retrieved 2011-12-24.

Template:Cite web does the sensible thing:

"The Titling Titlers of Titledom" (ePub). Tokyo: Some Press. 2011. pp. 12–14. Retrieved 2011-12-24.

Thor, A. U. (2011). "The Titling Titlers of Titledom" (ePub). Tokyo: Some Press. pp. 12–14. Retrieved 2011-12-24.

Template:Cite news and Template:Cite journal also do right:

Thor, A. U. (May 12, 2011). "The Titling Titlers of Titledom" (ePub). Foobarian News. Tokyo: Some Press. pp. 12–14. Retrieved 2011-12-24.

Thor, A. U. (2011). "The Titling Titlers of Titledom" (ePub). Journal of BazQuuxian Research. XI (9). Tokyo: Some Press: 12–14. Retrieved 2011-12-24.

It should always be after the URL. If (despite the clear documentation at Template:Cite book/doc which says it is for the file format of something linked with |url=) it's intended really for the format of the hardcopy ("pamphlet", "audiobook", etc.), then we have a problem and need a new parameter for that usage (|form= maybe?), keeping |format= consistent with all the other citation templates, in which it refers to the URL-linked item.

It might make sense to suppress display of |format= in absence of a value in |url=, but the position problem should be fixed immediately, regardless. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Cite map}} is doing the same now after it was switched to Citation/core, implying the publisher or date is the format. (cite map doesn't have authors set up, using the publisher instead.) I agree that that format should appear after the URL, not elsewhere. Imzadi 1979 → 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of format=PDF

Just a comment, but there's not much point putting |format=PDF for any URL that ends in .pdf or .PDF; MediaWiki detects that format automatically and shows a PDF icon; having the text "PDF" appear is redundant, since it doesn't convey anything not conveyed by file name extension:

Bar Baz. Foo (PDF).

Bar Baz. Foo (PDF).

Just my opinion, of course. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that there is no alt text, so screen readers don't pick up the format. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And some users have images turned off in their browsers, meaning the PDF icon never shows up. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And they can't read ".pdf" in the filename? No one buys the "some users turn off images" thing any more. For the tiny handful of people this is true for, they have far bigger problems using the web at all than file format icons in a reference citation. That's a really, really marginal usability case no one expends energy on, post-1995. But if blind users of screen readers cannot tell at all what the format is even from the filename, then that's a real and major accessibility issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that as a question: Is it true that users of screen readers cannot tell at all what the format is even from the filename? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Using my screen reader emulator, the PDF icon does not generate anything to give away the format. Of course, there's also a secondary issue to some degree. If you archived a source using http://www.webcitation.org, and that source is a PDF, the resulting URL doesn't have ".pdf" at the end, meaning that the link won't have the icon. I've also run into maps and other things that are PDFs hosted from URLs that don't end in ".pdf". Imzadi 1979 → 21:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood; I've always used |format=PDF for PDFs that didn't end in a literal ".pdf" or ".PDF". I asking whether a screen reader user has any way to tell that the url is to a PDF file when it DOES end with one of those strings. Is there some button to push that will read the URL out? Or are screenreader users literally totally dependent on the |format= parameter to know what format something is? I'm a bit skeptical that such dependency could be real, since the rest of the Web doesn't have |format= labeling. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Boldfacing of volume is inappropriate for non-periodicals

It is an obvious mistake to force boldfacing of the value passed in |Volume= (|volume= in the cite templates that use this meta-template) other than {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} and maybe another one here and there. It's worse that pointless in {{cite book}}.

None of the major style guides (not even a minor one that I can find) recommends this style for books and such, including (I think they're all current):

• MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, 7th ed., 2009
• The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., 2011
• European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide, as of this hour
• Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th ed., 2009
• Cornell Introduction to Basic Legal Citation, 2011 revision, as of this hour (summarizes The Bluebook and The ALWD Citation Manual)
• A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 7th ed., 2009 (I don't consider Turabian authoritative, but what the heck)

I do not have a big collection of field-specific ones (AMA Manual of Style, etc.), nor New Hart's Rules yet (it's on order), and I won't bother to buy and check The Bedford Guide for College Writers, since it's derivative of the above and non-authoritative, but I'd bet a zillion that they don't recommend this boldfacing style for book volumes, either. Many never touch on the issue, like the AP Stylebook, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Guardian Style Guide, etc., because they're journalistic, and don't use complete, formatted source citations at all. Neither Strunk & White nor Fowler, do either. Nothing does appear to recommend this style.

The volume is boldfaced for periodicals (in some but not all style guides, and here at WP) because of how those citations are formatted; it's a helpful readability aid:

• Schizitt, Bull (May 2012). "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Bovine World". Mad Cow Journal. VII (7). American Mad Cow Society: 5–8.

It is useful here, because this citation style butts the volume, issue and page number together, without labeling any of them.

With magazines and newspapers, the same also applies (other than the page numbers are labeled as such by {{cite news}}, which is okay, really):

• Maggobbin, Gorrey (June 2012). "1001 Uses for a Cat with No Tail". Manx Cat Fancy. Vol. IX, no. 7. Stubbin Pr. pp. 22–30.

But, with the way "volume" is usually used for books, it is not helpful. It just looks weird, and it inappropriately emphases something other than the title and author, the main points in this kind of citation, especially since multi-volume books are most often obtained as a set and are not serial publications in the usual sense, and usually also have subtitles that are relevant to cite:

• Yaa, Boo (2012). The Foo Bar. Vol. Vol. II: The Bazz Quux Era. Half Fast Prod. pp. 234–255. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

The rationale for boldfacing simply does not apply at all, as there is no "issue" for the "volume" to run up against, and the page number is nowhere near it.

The boldfacing is not helpful even for curt, number-only, encyclopedia-style volume citation with books:

• Dawg, MC Badd" (2012). The Hip-Hop Mix Tape Directory. Vol. II. Def Reads. p. 192.

since the volume number is not up against the page number; books just use a completely different citation style. Template:Cite book/doc (and others that don't use journal/news style formatting) need to be updated to warn against using |volume= this way, as it will be meaningless to readers, and instead to always include "Vol." or "Volume": |volume=Vol. II. It is also too late, really, to modify the meta-template to include "Vol." automatically, the way |pages= auto-includes "pp. ", since too many extant cases already have "Vol." or "Volume" manually added to the parameter's values.

Anyway, the boldfacing of this parameter in {{cite book}} (and in any other cite template that doesn't use the "Volume (Issue): Pages" formatting for periodicals) should go away. I'm not advocating any change to {{cite journal}}, {(tnull|cite news}} or other periodical template. {{Cite book}} also needs a comma, not a period (full stop), between the title and volume, when volume appears, but let's fix one thing at a time.

The most straightforward way to fix this would be to assume that any citation that that has a volume but no issue is a non-journal/news citation like a book, video, etc. (a safe-ish assumption; if it really is a journal/news citation, it is an incomplete one and screwed up anyway; not boldfacing the volume number in such a case is a trivial result), and just change {{Citation/core}}'s this:

      {{
      #if: {{{Volume|}}}
      |&#32;'''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''{{
         #if: {{{Issue|}}}
         | ({{{Issue}}})
       }}
      |{{
         #if: {{{Issue|}}}
         |&#32;({{{Issue}}})
       }}
    }}

to this:

      {{
      #if: {{{Volume|}}}
      |&#32;{{#if:{{{Issue|}}}|'''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''|<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />}}{{
         #if: {{{Issue|}}}
         |&#32;({{{Issue}}})
       }}
      |{{
         #if: {{{Issue|}}}
         |&#32;({{{Issue}}})
       }}
    }}

If this would actually break something badly, the other obvious fix is to make a non-boldfacing Volume2 variant of Volume, and call it from {{cite book}} and other cite templates that don't use journal/news formatting:

      {{
      #if: {{{Volume2|}}}
      |&#32;<nowiki />{{{Volume2}}}<nowiki />
       }}
    }}

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would simply remove bolding altogether for the volume. There are a number of previous discussions on this here and elsewhere.

(Rather long argument, which rather puts me "against".) I believe the key point (and this has been discussed before) is that bolding of "volume" is helpful for periodicals, where otherwise it tends to get buried. I believe the key problem is that |vol= gets used for both books and periodicals, and that no one has come up with a way ("obvious" or not) of having both behaviors. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I just said all that, other than I offered two possible ways of having both behaviors. Well, sorry I bothered explaining things calmly, stepwise and rationally, providing sample code, and offering sources. I guess next time I should just rant incoherently, and make demands without giving reasons or any hint of connection to reality. Would that help? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

books volumes and equivalent (c web) should not be bold. However the proposed change is suboptimal as many valid periodical citations have issue without volume. Why not case off the citation type? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, just seemed more complicated. I don't recall seeing an actual, complete periodical citation with a volume but not an issue. If there are, I have to think that the visual difference will be minor: "IX: pp. 322–336" vs. "IX: pp. 322–336" Without the numeric clutter of the issue number ("IX (9): pp. 322–336" the boldfacing ("IX (9): pp. 322–336") doesn't add much utility. Still, if you think a switch testing for which template is calling won't be too complicated or server-hateful, thumbs up! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is boldfacing of volume numbers in periodicals appropriate?

I am not sure that I have ever seen volume numbers of journals bolded in real-life citations. Maybe I have, but in what I read it's certainly not standard. Maybe this is just a random personal preference being enforced even though it makes everything unnecessarily complicated and (so long as the bug isn't fixed) forces editors to put volume numbers for books into the title? Hans Adler 06:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a style recommended by one style guide or another. I forget which, though if it's important I can go look it up. I gather there is longstanding consensus here to do that, for readability. As you suggest it's having negative fallout, but as just discussed (cf. Fifelfoo's idea, immediately above) there's at least one fix for it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I can't actually find any evidence that any style guides recommend this practice, and this page is clear evidence that there's not a solid consensus for doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found any styles that bold any part of a citation; see User:Gadget850/Cite comparisons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

For scientific journals, it is common though not universal practice to have volume in bold on the journal's website. Some examples of the most cited journals: Nature, Science, BMJ do on their websites, e.g. Nature, Science (blue at top), BMJ. The Lancet gives references with volume in bold e.g. Lancet. I assume these journals have the same practice on their print equivalent, but don't have access to check that right now. Rjwilmsi 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet again I'd use this to suggest that separate from the excellent CS1 Help file, that we produce a CS1 Specification, so we can have these debates there :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as it does not impede fixing the erroneous boldfacing of volumes of anything but journals, since no style guide or practice anywhere recommends or displays such weirdness. Even if we had to lose boldfacing of journal volumes (a house style of some journals and nothing more, apparently) this should be fixed immediately. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Given information below that boldfacing of journal volumes isn't even recommended by any major style guides, it's just house style of a few journals, my proposed solution is more than sufficient, as the boldfacing could simply be totally eliminated, and we do not need to add a test for what type of citation it is. I don't have any real objection to one though, as long as it is limited to applying bold only if the citation type is journal. JUST FIX IT, being the point. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly has to be fixed for non-periodicals

Minimal fix, per above, to stop boldfacing of non-periodical volumes is to change:

|&#32;'''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''{{

to

|&#32;{{#if:{{{Periodical|}}}|'''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''|{{{Volume}}}}}{{

It's in Template:Citation/core/sandbox as of this diff (which is important; other editors have been sandboxing there recently; I reset the 'box to the live code, then made this one-line change.)

This does not resolve the issue of whether even journal volumes should be boldfaced, which is more of a WP:MOS discussion. Evidence strongly suggest that the boldfacing should simply be eliminated (esp. since it also affects non-journal periodicals via {{cite news}}). But we all know it is wrong for books, so that should be fixed right now. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Tests:

• {{Cite journal}}: Surname, A. Z. (March 2012). "Article Title". Journal Name. IX (03). Smallsville, Cascadia: Screwball U. Press: 234–247. (Aside: Note also the incorrect italicization of |chapter=, and pointless leading zero in the issue number, in {{cite journal}} output, neither of which correspond to an major style guide's recommendations.)
• {{Cite book}}: Surname, A. Z. (March 2012). "3. Chapter Title". Vol. Vol. II. Smallsville, Cascadia: Screwball U. Press. pp. 234–247. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); |work= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

This is still broken – note boldfacing of "Vol. II" in the {{cite book}} example – despite the attempt work around this in December. Note zero opposition to simply removing the boldfaing, since #Is boldfacing of volume numbers in periodicals appropriate?, above, revealed that boldfacing the volume even for journals (the only place it's been observed off-wiki at all) isn't a recognizable style advocated by any major style guides, it's just a WP:ILIKEIT idea from someone who thought it looked nice.

Remove boldfacing of {{{volume}}}. Please change:

     | {{#if:{{{Periodical|}}}|'''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''|{{{Volume}}}}}{{

to

     | {{{Volume}}}{{

and

     |{{{Sep|,}}} '''<nowiki />{{{Volume}}}<nowiki />'''

to

     |{{{Sep|,}}} {{{Volume}}}

If people insist on wanting to add it back in for journals, they need to make a better case than "I've seen some journals do it that way" (i.e. WP:IKNOWIT), and do it in a way that doesn't break the output for non-periodicals, or really for non-journals more generally (it shouldn't even affect non-journal periodicals like newspapers). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Second title

Some books have two titles (I'm not talking about subtitles). Please define a parameter for this (|title2= / |alttitle= / ...). This style is recommended by CMS for this purpose: Title; or, Second title (''Title''; or, ''Second title''). --Z 21:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this two editions, or a translated title? Example please. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I could have used this several times recently, e.g. for The American Horticultural Society A–Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants a.k.a. The Royal Horticultural Society A–Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants in simultaneous North American & British variants that are otherwise identical and with the same edition number but different ISBNs (and, yeah, it weirdly was "Encyclopedia" not "Encyclopaedia" in the UK version, too). Another example is Bryan Sykes's Blood of the Isles (Eur.) a.k.a. Saxons, Vikings and Celts (N.Am.), again identical but for title and ISBN number. This also means we'd need |isbn2=. On the other hand, it's possible to convey information like this in a simple prose note between {{Cite book|...}} and </ref>. I guess it's really a question of whether following CMS style on this matter is worth the ParserFunctions overhead. There's no question that the information is good to include one way or another, as it can be major boon to verifiability; the A–Z above, for example, is so large it would cost about US$30 in postage alone between the US and the UK, and this is entirely unnecessary, since the "local" version can probably be found in any large library. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also the potential for the use of other identifiers such as ASIN and the like. I suggest using cite book twice:

Brickell, Christopher. The American Horticultural Society A—Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants. The American Horticultural Society. ISBN 978-0756606169.

• Brickell, Christopher. The Royal Horticultural Society A—Z Encyclopedia of Garden Plants. The Royal Horticultural Society. ISBN 978-0751337389.

There is a review on Amazon that notes that these works include different maps, so they are not identical. You could preface the second work with "Also in" or similar. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You should give the title, publishing location and ISBN for the variant which you actually consulted. There is no guarantee that excatly the same information appears in the other one. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so i was wrong in one case, but the general gist was there are plenty of cases when the same book is simul-published under different names for diffrent markets. This is also common with video and even music releases. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation

The documentation for the CS1 templates varies, which is why I created Help:Citation Style 1. I have now created {{Citation Style documentation}} to build the documentation pages with standardized chunks. Template specific parameters can be included manually. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please make |TitleType= work for periodicals

Hi all. Thank you very much for maintaining this template. It sings, it dances, and it does almost everything I need. And it even handles |TitleType= for books. But I recently noticed one problem: the |TitleType= values that I pass are ignored for periodicals. For example:

Instead, I'd like that markup to render as:

"How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Ask a Geek column. Popular Mechanics.

I wonder if you could please enhance the template so that |TitleType= will work for periodicals?

Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TitleType displays in parentheses and is intended to indicate the type of the title, such as DVD, pamphlet, liner notes, etc.

Cite book using type:

"How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Popular Mechanics (Ask a Geek).

If you really have to include the column, you could use |at=.

Cite journal using at:

"How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Popular Mechanics. Ask a Geek.

Looking at Chicago 16, the style would be:

"How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Ask a Geek. Popular Mechanics.

So, we could look at adding another field altogether, but I don't see this being used a lot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The |at= parameter is fine, and we really don't care whether we match Chicago 100%. Most of the world does not use their style, only Americans do. For this particular use, |at="Ask a Geek" column is what you actually want (otherwise it begs the question "What is a 'Geek column', and why would I ask it something?"). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I thank you both for your replies. Gadget850, the main use of specifying an article type is to point out letters to the editor. It can also be used to point out editorials and columns. I don't think it'll be so seldom-used.

To both of you: The |at= parameter generates the COinS field pages, which is meant to hold a page number. I suspect using |at= for article types may break automatic COinS OpenURL resolution for such refs. (If you've never seen automatic OpenURL resolution, visit your local university library, use Firefox to browse to some journal articles, then scroll down to the "References" section. Look for the find-it-in-your-library links added by a Web browser add-on.)

Anyway, I think it'd be better to change the documentation of |TitleType= to specify that it can also be used for specifying periodical article types. Or, if people prefer, someone could add a new field to this template.

--Unforgettableid (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that this template supports TitleNote; I added it to the documentation. I don't see that any of the CS1 templates support it, but it does what you want:

"How Can I Track My Stolen Gadget?". Ask a Geek. Popular Mechanics 

Where to put a download-size warning note?

Moved from Template talk:Cite web

If I want to put a warning note like "(150 MB)" for a pdf file, where do I enter that? I'd expect it to be outside of and right after the title label (underlined text). -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You could use |format=. This will place it in parenthesis after the title. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

But you'll risk it removed by one or more tools/scripts/bots as an invalid |format= field value. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What ia a valid format? What tools/scripts/bots check this? And on reflection, 150 MB is not really that big. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

150mb is huge in respect toa pdf file and takes ages to load--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a blanket decision. If I saw "150 Mb" in the format field, I'd probably remove it unless I took my time to analyze who added it and why assuming they left any note. I'm just saying with so much misuse of different fields, it might not be obvious to others and checking each edit is very very time consuming. "150 Mb" is certainly not an actual format value. I've seen AWB runs doing this among other things, not that I could recall now who it was or what they used. So perhaps a comment next to it would be useful. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just checked, the PDF-icon is added irrespective of the content of |format=. -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, for me now it could be OK since I want to create a templated reference. So no AWB visiting there easily, it is under /documentation, etc. The |format=150 Mb solution does give the result I prefer (it is where I got the idea from). -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The template does not generate the icon. See Help:External link icons. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is added. Still, when (mis)using the parameter format= this way, no other harm is possibly done except what is mentioned here? -DePiep (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The icon is generated by code within MediaWiki:Common.css and is largely dependent on the linked URL containing the characters ".pdf" (upper or lower case). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB genfixes removes |format=HTML as this is unneeded and against {{cite web}} documentation. It also moves {{dead link}} outside the citation per Template:Dead link documentation. Otherwise no other changes. rev 7907 Additional unit test: |format= parameter not changed in citation template if contains (PDF) size information. Rjwilmsi 21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a "blanket decision": A note of this sort, like any other such random note about a source, goes after the closing }} of the {{cite WHATEVER|...}} template and before the closing </ref> of the surrounding <ref name="EXAMPLE">...</ref>. Using any kind of trickery to insert it into some other field, especially the title, is a blatant falsification of that parameter's data. Don't do it. Not even with |format=, since "150 MB" is a size, not a format. There is no reason for every single thing that could ever possibly be said about a cited source somehow being stuffed into this or any other template. The citation templates should only contain data that, across most source citations, is considered useful for the purposes of citing the source. If consensus concludes that we do need to warn people about large files, then we need to add code such that, say, |oversized=150MB will generate such a note, when used in the presence of |url= and/or |archiveurl=, and will do something sane when |format= is present, and so on, consistently across all citation templates. I.e., this has to be discussed at Template talk:Citation/core. I just moved it here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If |format= is used appropriately, with the actual format specified, there's probably nothing wrong with adding the size, though: |format=PDF (150 MB). See elsewhere on this page for why we need to add "PDF" even though MediaWiki auto-generates a PDF icon. PS: Please note that it is 150 MB, per WP:MOSNUM, and that "Mb" means "megabits", not "megabytes". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The |format= field will show in parentheses, so it would be better not to use them in the value. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, so |format=format, size unit or, for obscure formats, |format=[[Format article|format]], size unit — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

ASIN-TLD

{{Citation/identifier}} was updated to allow the ASIN parameter to change the top-level domain for sites outside the US. This now needs to be supported in core. Now in sandbox:

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I will add this to Citation Style 1 templates as asin-tld. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Different LCCN format versus Template:LCCN

{{LCCN|89456}} gives LCCN 89-456, whereas {{citation|lccn=89456}} gives , LCCN 89456 {{citation}}: Check |lccn= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help). Is it possible to change citation (or maybe citation core) to format the LCCN with the appropriate dash? Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We can probably port some of the markup from {{LCCN}} to {{citation/identifier}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Period issues

Et al. displays with two periods

• Surname1; Surname2; Surname3; Surname4; Surname5; Surname6; Surname7; Surname8 et al. "IncludedWorkTitle". In EditorSurname1; EditorSurname2; EditorSurname3 et al. Title 

Fixed in sandbox:

• Surname1; Surname2; Surname3; Surname4; Surname5; Surname6; Surname7; Surname8 et al. "IncludedWorkTitle". In EditorSurname1; EditorSurname2; EditorSurname3 et al. Title 

Ed/eds not followed by period if followed by date.

• EditorSurname1, ed. (Date). "IncludedWorkTitle". Title 

• EditorSurname1; EditorSurname2, eds. (Date). "IncludedWorkTitle". Title 

Fixed in sandbox:

• EditorSurname1, ed. (Date). "IncludedWorkTitle". Title 

• EditorSurname1; EditorSurname2, eds. (Date). "IncludedWorkTitle". Title 

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Language

Is there any way to move the "language" parameter after the title of books citations that do not include chapters?

Current format goes "Linnaeus (1753) (in Latin). Species Plantarum." and that just looks silly. Circéus (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes: make a proposal and gain consensus. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure no cogent argument can be made in favor of the status quo. It's just that the template family has grown in complexity _far_ past my ability to tell whether it is even POSSIBLE to implement that. Circéus (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra separator

Looks like there is an extra separator before |Periodical=

{{citation/core |IncludedWorkTitle=IncludedWorkTitle |Periodical=Periodical}}

IncludedWorkTitle, , Periodical 

Fixed in sandbox:

{{citation/core/sandbox |IncludedWorkTitle=IncludedWorkTitle |Periodical=Periodical}}

IncludedWorkTitle, , Periodical 

Need to do some more testing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... that removes the separator after language:

{{citation/core/sandbox |IncludedWorkTitle=IncludedWorkTitle |Periodical=Periodical |language=language}}

IncludedWorkTitle, (in language), Periodical  ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop sometimes italicizing chapter

The output of |chapter= is sometimes italicized, as it is in {{cite journal}}'s output, which is completely incorrect style according to my entire shelf of style guides, in which I cannot find a single example of chapters or papers in a larger work being italicized, and it is sometimes correctly put into double quotation marks, as in {{cite book}}'s output. The latter style should simply be applied across-the-board. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)