Help talk:Citation Style 1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 243: Line 243:


::I see. Thank you.--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] ([[User talk:Father Goose|talk]]) 06:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
::I see. Thank you.--[[User:Father Goose|Father Goose]] ([[User talk:Father Goose|talk]]) 06:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

== Slightly smaller typeface for the "retrieved" date? ==

Citations using ''cite web'' may have a date or an accessdate, or both, specified within each entry. The date may appear near the beginning of the citation if author details are present, or near the end of the citation if no author details are shown. In many cases there may be a mix of date styles such as February 27, 2013 and 27 February 2013 within a list of citations.

When citation lists are presented as two or more columns, and the text of each citation therefore wraps to multiple lines, I don't find it easy to look through the list. I am sometimes looking for an entry with a particular date, or looking for entries before, or after, a particular date. I often find I am looking at the "retrieved" date rather than the article date, or vice versa. The accessdate is dependant on the editor adding the entry, and is not a part of the data created by the author or publisher of the original article.

I notice that several non-English Wikis have already overcome this difficulty in a very simple manner. They present the "retrieved" date (and the preceding word) in a slightly smaller typeface than the rest of the citation text (but still quite a bit larger than the "subscription required" or "registration required" text that appears on some entries).

Could this simple change be considered here in the English Wiki?-- [[Special:Contributions/86.136.109.181|86.136.109.181]] ([[User talk:86.136.109.181|talk]]) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:55, 27 February 2013

WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

For more talk pages, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Help talk:Citation Style 1.

Copyright tag

There is nothing to let you indicate the copyright holder. I'm sure Disney would not be amused, but actually I'm looking at Egyptian Grammar by Alan Gardiner where the Griffith Institute holds the copyright. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might be, but the purpose of a citation is to allow someone to locate a copy of the source, specifically the same edition consulted where necessary. I'm not sure that indicating the copyright holder, or lack of one, would assist someone in locating a book in a library. Imzadi 1979 → 10:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Citations are not intended to include every snippet of information about a source. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is often the same as the author or publisher. In the rare cases that it's not, it isn't relevant. That said, some websites don't name a publisher but do name a copyright holder, so I put that information into |publisher= --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that defeats the object of this tagged citation system! Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aarghdvaark, how does indicating the copyright holder benefit a reader looking to locate a copy of, or evaluate the reliability of, a source used in an article? Imzadi 1979 → 15:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is more information to track it down. For example the Gardiner book (1957) is listed on the Griffith Institute web site (as a 1996 reprint) [1]. Some places in Wikipedia say the Griffith Institute (part of Oxford University) are the publishers. I'm looking at my copy (mine's a 2007 reprint) and it says the Griffith Institute are the (c) holders, but UP, Cambridge are the printers. Confused? So am I. Are printers also publishers? Griffith Institute is on the binding - does that make them the publishers? So regardless of the actual publisher of Gardiner (although it does need clearing up), take it as an example where someone (i.e. me) looked inside at the place where publisher normally goes (although in small print it actually says 'printed by', not 'published by') and saw UP, Cambridge - a reputable publisher. And possibly that is wrong. So the reader then does not have the real publisher to help track down the book - or assess the reputation. Aarghdvaark (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you want a field for "published on behalf of". That is very different from the copyright holder. (For instance, most fiction and poetry has its copyright held by the author despite being published commercially.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Printers are not necessarily publishers; they are contractors engaged by the publisher. Some publishers carry out most of their own printing, but may also engage a contract printer if the demand for a particular title cannot be met in-house. One printer may handle work for more than one publisher; conversely, one publisher might use more than one printer.
If a book is libellous, it is the publisher that you sue, not the printer. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, the publisher of the book is not obvious from looking inside the cover, but the (c) holder is clearly marked. Hence a knowing the (c) holder could help a reader track this book down (although this is a famous book, so it wouldn't actually be hard to find). I could put the (c) holder instead of the publisher, as RedRose64 recommends, but these tags are supposed to be accurate. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decided that where the publisher is not stated, but the printer and the (c) holder are, then the (c) holder should go into the publisher tag and the actual printer should be ignored, as Redrose64 suggested. But yes, as David Eppstein said above, what I was really looking for was a "published on behalf of" tag. Interestingly, I found out later the book I was trying to reference has its own wiki article: Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please change embedded explanation of "Work" in cite web template to match its description in documentation

If you use the dropdown to insert a "cite web" template, the vaguely titled "Work" field provides a "?" over which you can hover, which then says "What larger work this is part of?". Every time I see that, I ask myself "What the hell do they mean?". Then, buried in documentation, I see that it means "Title of website". Which explanation is short, sweet, and readily understandable. Can we please make the hint match the documentation? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request that at Wikipedia:RefToolbar. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 06:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks a lot. I've placed a request on the talk page there. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book from an on-line source

Can anyone say if they think I've cited correctly in this edit. My concern is that I accessed the book via the URL and not the physical book, and that perhaps this is not made clear enough from the cite. Either way, I think some wording should be added to the intro of Template:Cite book confirming how on-line book cites should be dealt with. Eldumpo (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the |isbn= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I assume the format was OK and that there's no requirement to note that you haven't viewed the physical book, although I think the template intro should clarify matters. Eldumpo (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is one single answer that is always best. If the book is readily available and there is a fair risk that the website may disappear, it's probably better to do as you did. If the book is rare and the website is by a stable organization that seems prepared to make the website available for a long time, it might be better to treat the organization that runs the website as a republisher, the same way one might cite Dover Publications if one had read one of their paper editions if that is the edition you read. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the existence of the hyperlinked title and retrieval date sufficiently indicate (and imply preference, imo) that the citation is verifiable online, irrespective of the source medium you consulted. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite additional archived pages

I updated {{cite additional archived pages}}. It now supports multiple archives with different dates as well as an archived series of pages with the same archive date. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing newspaper ads and editorials

In a recent edit to Toronto subway and RT, I wanted to cite an advertisement and an editorial in old issues of a newspaper whose title has changed since they were published. I wanted to use {{cite news}}, but this does not allow for citing things in a newspaper that are identified as not being news articles. To produce what I considered to be the correct appearance:

7. The Toronto Subway Referendum" (editorial), Toronto Daily Star, December 1, 1945, p. 6
8. "Rapid Transit for Toronto" (TTC advertisement), Toronto Daily Star, December 12, 1945, p. 26

I had to do it "by hand": 

 <ref name="editorial">"The Toronto Subway Referendum" (editorial), ''[[Toronto Star|Toronto Daily Star]]'', December 1, 1945, p. 6</ref><ref name="referendum-ad">"Rapid Transit for Toronto" (TTC advertisement), Toronto Daily Star, December 12, 1945, p. 26</ref>

I suggest that {{cite news}} should take an additional parameter or parameters to allow these types of items to be properly cited. The minimal change would be a "type=" parameter, consistent with {{cite}}, so that "type=foo" would expand as "(foo)" after the title. Alternatively, something like "type=advertisement|advertiser=TTC" might be preferred.

Or if there is already a way to do this with {{cite news}}, perhaps it needs to be explained somewhere. I tried doing it with {{cite}} but this produced a different format, with the title in italics instead of quotes. --69.158.92.109 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as a[n] (unsatisfactory) stop-gap, use the undocumented parameter |department= in {{cite news}}. it displays after the title item. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To enable type in {{cite news}}, a fix will have to be made to {{citation/core}}, as type is disabled when one of the periodical parameters is defined.
department in {{cite news}} is documented under the periodical parameters. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, it is(/was?) undocumented in {{cite journal}}. the doc is wrong, it does not display after work, but after title, which i think is the correct format. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed: department displays after title. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Who knew that the none of the lists of parameters at the top of the documentation, including the one titled "Full parameter set", actually include all the valid parameters? Thanks for the suggestion, but "department" is documented as being for another purpose and I'm reluctant to use it in this way unless the documentation is changed. --69.158.92.109 (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the doc is non-intuitive because a single doc template is used to document citation templates used for widely different types of sources, media, and purposes. so in any given citation template doc you have a lot of stuff that are irrelevant to the medium/source type/purpose of the citation, while more pertinent stuff, parameters, and parameter explanations are ommitted. personally, i ignore anything that 1. does not help readers understand and verify the citation 2. (distant second) does not clarify the citation, including my treatment of it, for other editors. i am mainly concerned with imparting proper info to readers, and complying with template usage is a non-issue when it conflicts. i use templates, it's not the other way around. but that's just me. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot of work on documentation, but really have not touched those full document sets. You truly can not include each and every parameter in those sets since they are intended to be copied and pasted. For example, you cannot use author and last in the same citation template, as only one can work. The full parameter list for {{cite book}} was updated fairly recently, with parameters like last[n] that will not work if copy/pasted, so it needs to be changed or a note added to explain it.

"the doc is non-intuitive..." Documentation was all over the place, which lead to my creation of {{Citation Style documentation}}. If anything should have the hobgoblin of consistency, it is citation templates and their documentation. I have been considering a mini-doc section where the most-used parameters are explained. I am always open to suggestions, so if there are documentation issues, please start a new discussion with pertinent suggestions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how many times is the obvious going to be pointed out? and what for? to bulk up discussion archives while nothing is done?
i think that this constant talk and all the bureaucratic procedures are there to actually avoid doing something. after all, what is "controversial" or "disputed" or vague about the following:
  1. wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia whose vast majority of readers are nonexperts/nonspecialists
  2. it is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". how can it be taken seriously? that's like the "novel that anyone can write" or the "bridge that anyone can build" or the "medicine that anyone can practice".
  3. the only way for it to be taken seriously is to make obvious that the information is correct + pertinent. this is done by making content easy to verify.
  4. so a citation system to aid verification can be desirable and vital.
  5. the wikipedia citation system: throw out everything you know about previous citation systems, because this is supposed to be a citation system for, and edited by, nonexperts (see point 1). this is the first time (afaik) any such citation system has been attempted. all previous citation systems were targeted to specialists, experts, researchers, or committed students of their fields.
  6. it follows the main design principles should revolve around ease of understanding+verification (for readers) and ease of use+existence of expansive options (for editors). these are not the design principles other citation systems use.
  7. once these design principles are firmly established, you can use any helpful element/procedure from other citation systems to speed implementation
assuming you see the validity of the above, you'll just design the proper system for it. imo, asking for the clarification of minutiae or procedure-talk such as "bring it to the right forum", is proof that the fundamental errors (imo again) of the current system are not obvious to you. i am not taking anything away from the work you've done so far and your willingness to do it, which is to be commended. however "fixing" or "enhancing" a system that is fundamentally wrong, is making it more so.
fine, i'll adjust. but when i point out what i think are flaws to the occasional bewildered user, i'd rather NOT have another "discussion" about it. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing newspapers by contemporary title

In the previous item, note that I cited the paper as the

''[[Toronto Star|Toronto Daily Star]]''

This makes sense to me because I believe it is correct practice to refer to a periodical by its title contemporary with the cited article, with a Wikipedia link provided if possible so people can connect that title to the current newspaper. If there isn't a Wikipedia article, I believe it would be correct to write

''Toronto Daily Star'' (now the ''Toronto Star'')

The {{cite news}} template does not support either of these styles. I think it should, using an added field called something like moderntitle=. For publications no longer in print but better known under a later title, it could be latertitle=, which would expand to "(later the...)".

In the case when there are multiple references in an article to the same former title (again see the previous item), it would be nice if all the cites could be provided by the contributor in the same style and any repetitiousness could be suppressed automatically; but that'd just be an extra bonus feature, not a requirement.

--69.158.92.109 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you can add info about the work (newspaper) in the |postscript= field (displays last). escape the vertical bar in the wikilink by using the {{!}} template:

Markup Renders as 
[[Toronto Star{{!}}''Toronto Daily Star'']]

65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also, postscript does not appear in the mislabeled "full parameter list" (it's not the full list, there are other params not listed). you have to go through the detailed doc. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where there is an article, there should be redirects from older names. For example, Toronto Daily Star redirects to Toronto Star. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to indicate that this is a renamed publication maybe series could be used, if it was available (it's not). as in |work=Toronto Star |series=Toronto Daily Star. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give the name of the publication as it was at the time. If there is potential for confusion, wikilink it to the article on the present name. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Redrose on this point. The citation should list the source with its contemporary information. Imzadi 1979 → 15:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Notes" parameter

I am not sure if this has been discussed before, but why doesn't this template provide a 'notes=' parameter? For an example: {{cite book |last=Sykes |first=Bryan |year=2001 |title=[[The Seven Daughters of Eve]] |publisher=W. W. Norton |isbn=0-393-02018-5 |pages=291-92 |notes=Sykes discusses the difficulty in genealogically tracing a maternal lineage, due to the lack of matrilineal surnames (or matrinames)}}. Or, is there another way to add notes to a reference? Note that this "note" is not the same as "quotes", where the quotes would be quoting something from within the reference and "notes" would be noting something about the reference. --Thorwald (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever seeing notes in a citation. Why do you need notes to identify the source? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood my question. Look at my example above. It has nothing to do with "identify[ing] the source"; it is about noting something about the reference/source. --Thorwald (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the question, but question your assumption that citations should be annotated. The citation identifies the source material ins such a manner that the source can be located for verification. As best I see it, the note in your example should be in the content with the citation to support it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the note is about the text and the source supports it, then I place the note within the footnote in front of the Citation, if the note is about the edition, then I place it in parentheses within the footnote, after the Citation.
Examples:
  • <ref>2011 Census Village code = 621105, {{Cite web|title=Reports of National Panchayat Directory: List of Census Villages mapped for: Hoskera Gram Panchayat, Shahapur, Yadgir, Karnataka|publisher=Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India|url=http://panchayatdirectory.gov.in/adminreps/viewGPmapcvills.asp?gpcode=221153&rlbtype=V}}</ref>
    yields
    1. 2011 Census Village code = 621105, "Reports of National Panchayat Directory: List of Census Villages mapped for: Hoskera Gram Panchayat, Shahapur, Yadgir, Karnataka". Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India.
  • <ref>{{Cite book|author=Kamath, Suryanath U.|year=1980|title=Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present|location=Bangalore|publisher=Archana Prakashana|page=106|oclc=7796041}} (revised English version of his (1973) ''Karnatakada sankshipta itihasa'')</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Kamath, Suryanath U.|year=1980|title=Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present|location=Bangalore|publisher=Archana Prakashana|page=106|oclc=7796041}} (revised English version of his (1973) ''Karnatakada sankshipta itihasa'')</ref>
    yields
    2. Kamath, Suryanath U. (1980). Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present. Bangalore: Archana Prakashana. p. 106. OCLC 7796041. (revised English version of his (1973) Karnatakada sankshipta itihasa)
--Bejnar (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
for the 2nd example, assuming the 1973 version is the original, and guessing the language to be Hindi, i would do this: Kamath, Suryanath U. (1980) [originally published 1973 in Hindi as Karnatakada sankshipta itihasa]. Concise history of Karnataka from pre-historic times to the present (revised English-language ed.). Bangalore: Archana Prakashana. p. 106. OCLC 7796041. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is chapterurl broken?

Can anyone figure out why this chapterurl isn't linking?

Siwek, Magdalena; Henseler, Christina; Broich, Karl; Papazoglou, Anna; Weiergräber, Marco (2012). "Voltage-Gated Ca2+ Channel Mediated Ca2+ Influx in Epileptogenesis". In Islam, Md. Shahidul (ed.). Calcium Signaling. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Vol. 740. pp. 1219–47. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2888-2_55. ISBN 978-94-007-2887-5. PMID 22453990. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

thanks  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki needs the URI scheme (http:// in this case) to know that this is a link:

See WP:CS1PROBS for this and more issues. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oh!!! doh!. thanks. i should have realized that  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Position of "location" versus "agency" fields

As of this writing, the Cite news template has the location field follow the agency field, rather than the newspaper/work field (see the "No author but sourced to a news agency" example in the documentation), which is confusing, since per the documentation the location field refers to the location of the newspaper ("[g]eographical place of publication"), not that of the news agency.

This has been discussed twice before (Archive 5: Agency, newspaper, and location and Archive 5: "Location" of newspaper vs. "Location" of byline), but no conclusion/consensus was reached. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this?—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this has needed fixing for a long time. The present situation is obviously illogical and wrong. (One of a number of such things often mentioned but never fixed.) -- Alarics (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide examples of current format and how you think it should be. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Singapore, footnote 62, which says "AsiaOne. Agence France-Presse (Singapore)." when it obviously should be "AsiaOne (Singapore). Agence France-Presse." -- Alarics (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another: The No author but sourced to a news agency example I referenced above, taken from the template's documentation:
—DocWatson42 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punting to Module talk:Citation/CS1#Position of "location" versus "agency" fields.

Lua coming for more testing

On 18 February 2013 (Monday), the Scribunto interface for Lua script modules is planned to be installed on English Wikipedia (announced in wp:PUMPTECH). No cite templates will be affected during the first week. This first week is only for installation testing, and editors have been asked not to change any live templates, in case Lua must be removed for adjustments. However, next month, we need to consider changing some minor cite templates (not yet {cite web} or {cite book} ) to use Module:Citation (coming soon), which supports almost all current parameters, to format just a few cites, for initial use. As confidence grows, then other cite templates can be changed to use Lua script. Meanwhile, it appears, with the planned Lua design, that a future change to any Lua-based cite will require reformatting of all 1.7 million articles which have been using Template:Citation/core. Hence, we need to think about splitting the Lua-based templates, into test groups, such as:

As Lua-based templates are installed, the current template names will be reused: the original Template:Cite_encyclopedia would be rewritten to simply #invoke the Lua Module:Citation, and an old Template:Cite_encyclopedia/markup could contain the prior markup-based template, to compare if new Lua features failed to support the same parameters. Another issue: the Lua-based cite templates have been implemented to again include the COinS metadata, but the overall size and speed of the Lua-based templates will be much smaller and faster than when COinS data was added by markup-based templates. As format differences are fixed, then more cite templates can be switched to use the Lua-based variations. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:03, 16 February, 11:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Working on Lua to show same cite format: There have been some differences in the format of the Lua-based cite templates. Currently, {Cite_web/Lua} shows the equivalent for {Cite_web}:
  • Cite: {{cite web | title=My Page | last1=Doe | first=John | publisher=Acme |location=London | url=http://www.google.com |date=5 May 2009 |volume=II | issue=3 |page=6 |accessdate=8 Febrary 2013}}
  • Cite_journal: Doe, John (5 May 2009). "My Page". II (3). London: Acme: 6. Retrieved 8 Febrary 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Cite_web now: Doe, John (5 May 2009). "My Page". London: Acme. p. 6. Retrieved 8 Febrary 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • Cite_web/lua : Doe, John (5 May 2009). "My Page". London: Acme. p. 6. Retrieved 8 Febrary 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
To get parameters to match the same format, then lines of Lua script must be moved around into the same order. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar issue with handling of the "origyear" parameter as shown by:
  • Cite_web now: Cookridge, E. H. (1972) [©1967]. "The Baron of Arizona". New York: Ballantine Books. OCLC 32333347. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  • Cite_web/lua : Cookridge, E. H. (1972) [©1967]. "The Baron of Arizona". New York: Ballantine Books. OCLC 32333347. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
--Allen3 talk 11:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I have switched us to Lua Module:Citation/CS1 to adjust for CS1 format, because other editors perhaps want the initial Module:Citation to show another style for origyear and such. Formerly, page numbers listed near the end, so I have shifted them back near the end, to match CS1. Values for volume=II and issue=3 are shown now, although {cite_web} had ignored those parameters. The results in Lua are very close now. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54/17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of accessdate when a page is archived or dead

What is the appropriate use of accessdate when a page is archived or dead? My initial feeling was that the accessdate applies to the archival page (if it exists) and otherwise to the "main" page which has been archived or is dead. Is there guidance somewhere? --Izno (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Access date is simply the date the link was accessed, usually the date it was added. There is no requirement to include it, and it can be hidden by registered users. It is mainly useful for a web page that changes frequently, or when there is no discernible publication date. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is dead, and there is an access date, the latter apparently can serve to locate an archive version that most closely matches the date the citation was placed, but such utility is IMHO debatable. If there is an online archive of the article, I think it makes little sense to leave an access date that serves a purpose no longer. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I'm the one who argued that, in fact, and applied just that logic today in cleaning up some citations. :) I might agree with the latter sentence, but I'd like thoughts on the below question before I do so. --Izno (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for which link? The archive link or the archived link? I suppose it seems a little incredulous to expect the archive link to go down... --Izno (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
however, it does happen (at least temporarily). i always archive online sources (when allowed), preferably at WebCite, and have encountered service disruptions several times. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion: when the original link is dead, then there is no need for an access date, as the archive has an archive date that will normally not change. Where the original link is still live then the access date is useful if there is no publication date, regardless of whether it is preemptively archive. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are adding an |accessdate=, it pertains to the original |url=. The |archivedate= (although being the date that the archiving service grabbed the page and not the date when you viewed it) does a similar job for |archiveurl= - we know that the archived page isn't going to change further. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but our ability to access the archived page might [change]. That's the only Pandora's box I'm opening here. :) If the lesser consensus here disagrees with me, that's fine, and I'll remove (or at least, not add) accessdates when the cited pages are archived. To that end, I'm not sure the below proposal captures the point I'm making. --Izno (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

This has come up before, so we should tweak the documentation. Current:

accessdate: Full date when URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations; do not wikilink. Can be hidden by registered editors.

Proposed:

accessdate: Full date when original URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations;[1] do not wikilink. Not required for web pages that do not change; mainly of use for web pages that change frequently or have no publication date. Can be hidden by registered editors.

--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the reflink [1] doesn't link to a ref here, do you mean the note at the template page? other than that i agree. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to leave that out for this. It links to an explanatory note on date formats. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a journal article has two years of publication, one electronical and one print year

It is very common these days that articles are published online before the printed version, often in the year before the printed version is published. In such cases, an article may be cited using only the year and the digital object identifier, e.g.

Doe J (2010). "Article title". Journal name. DOI: 00000000000

Then the printed version may be published in the following year (2011), and Vol., No. and pp. become available to be used in citations. Also after the printed version has been published, it's common to continue citing the article using the original (first) year of publication.

How can this problem be solved when using this template? In such cases, the citation should ideally include both original year of publication (ahead of print) and the citation of the printed article. Bjerrebæk (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

origyear: Original publication year; displays after the date or year. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should give information pertaining to the edition which you actually consulted. There may be differences between the editions. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lua

Lua versions of CS1 templates are available for {{Cite web/lua}}, {{Cite news/lua}}, {{Cite journal/lua}} and {{Cite encyclopedia/lua}}. Please test but do not use in live articles. Report issues at Module talk:Citation/CS1. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bug/typo in all cite templates

Hi, I noticed that seemingly all the "cite" templates have two instances of {{{seperator}}} when {{{separator}}} is clearly intended. I haven't tested what effect fixing the typo would have, so I won't implement it – I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the templates.

Seperately Separately, it might be nice to wrap all the templates in <includeonly>; right now it looks like the documentation on most template pages is preceded by a stray period (except template:cite web, which does have an includeonly wrapper: [2]).--Father Goose (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are seeing is {{{separator|{{{seperator}}}, which means if there is a parameter named separator, then use it else if there is a parameter named seperator, then use it. The latter is a common mispelling; it was added before I got into these templates, but I am sure there was a reason, and it doesn't really hurt anything. These duplicated parameters are known as aliases, and are heavily used in the citation templates for a variety of reasons. Most are documented, but this one is for a spelling error and I did not see any reason to tell editors they can use it.
I hate wrapping a template in <noinclude> when there isn't a real reason. If someone makes a mistake, it is not at all obvious when the template doesn't show. {{Cite web}} has it because there is a check for title and it shows a red error message. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you.--Father Goose (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly smaller typeface for the "retrieved" date?

Citations using cite web may have a date or an accessdate, or both, specified within each entry. The date may appear near the beginning of the citation if author details are present, or near the end of the citation if no author details are shown. In many cases there may be a mix of date styles such as February 27, 2013 and 27 February 2013 within a list of citations.

When citation lists are presented as two or more columns, and the text of each citation therefore wraps to multiple lines, I don't find it easy to look through the list. I am sometimes looking for an entry with a particular date, or looking for entries before, or after, a particular date. I often find I am looking at the "retrieved" date rather than the article date, or vice versa. The accessdate is dependant on the editor adding the entry, and is not a part of the data created by the author or publisher of the original article.

I notice that several non-English Wikis have already overcome this difficulty in a very simple manner. They present the "retrieved" date (and the preceding word) in a slightly smaller typeface than the rest of the citation text (but still quite a bit larger than the "subscription required" or "registration required" text that appears on some entries).

Could this simple change be considered here in the English Wiki?-- 86.136.109.181 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference date was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&oldid=541041276"