Jump to content

Help talk:Citation Style 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.254.222.178 (talk) at 11:42, 22 June 2022 (→‎Proposed change or changes to the link status parameter: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Citation templates
    ... in conception
    ... and in reality

    Request to remove Help talk from Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language

    Resolved

    Could someone please remove the Help talk space from Category:CS1 maint: unrecognized language, so Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 79 isn't part of the category? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    cs1|2 does not categorize the Help talk namespace (see lines 10–12 in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration). Likely the issue is a bare category link somewhere in one or more of the discussions in the archived page. Find that link and fix it.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed with this edit. An editor tried to link to a category but forgot a colon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    False positive on bibcode:2019ISPAr42W19..207

    This says there's an error in the bibcode

    • Fesalbon, R. M. A.; Blanco, A. C. (2019). "Hydropower Dam Site Selection and Visualization Using Gis and Rs Techniques: A Case of Marinduque, Philippines". The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 42W1: 207–214. Bibcode:2019ISPAr42W19..207. doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W19-207-2019. S2CID 210896283. {{cite journal}}: Check |bibcode= value (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

    There isn't, it's a valid one. One of the tests needs to be adjusted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Same for {{bibcode}} = Bibcode:2019ISPAr42W19..207Check bibcode: value (help) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see whats gone wrong here. According to the official rules here, the last character should be The first letter of the last name of the first author, but somehow its a 7. The regex that confirms if this is valid was only expecting for a letter or dot for this reason. Im not sure if this is a misissuing or what, but for now, ill simply change the regex a bit. If someone who works on citations a lot could follow up on this, that'd be nice. Aidan9382 (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: I've fixed it as much as i can, but I can only fix the direct {{bibcode}} one, and not the citation one. I guess just use that for now until someone else comes along and gives hopefully more of an insight. Aidan9382 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hhmmm... If the test that's failed is the final character needing to be a letter... we might be better off having an exception for the article than a change to the rule. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The double (( )) doesn't seem to do anything though.

    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The (( )) markup (Accept as written markup) has to be defined explicitely for values as far as im concerned, and its not just available to supress all errors. Ill see if i can add it to check_bibcode, but actual citations will need more input. Also yeah, maybe adding an exception was a better idea, my mistake! Aidan9382 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: Ok im not gonna implement that. Looking at the solo implementation of elements that use the AAW markup (like ISBN) shows that its actually a feature of Citations/CS1's implementation only. I think you'll just have to let the error sit there until a potential fix comes along. Im not totally opposed to implementing an AAW addition for the solo if really needed, im just worried about going against common practice on something as major as citations. Aidan9382 (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you notified the bibcode people about this? If the rule has changed, they should document the rule change; if the rule has not change and the bibcode is malformed they should assign a proper bibcode to that source (they can keep the malformed bibcode as a redirect).
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ill go ahead and notify them about it. Ill post any eventful updates (E.g. if its changed) here. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Headbomb: Got a response back, it was a misissuing. It's been fixed, but its not gonna update on the database until friday. The new bibcode will end up being 2019ISPAr4219..207F. I'm telling you now since I'll end up forgetting if i don't. Aidan9382 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes)

    moved from Category talk:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes); now a redirect —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This maintenance note seems contrary to the examples listed in Template:Cite AV media notes. This maintenance note states "|others= is provided to record other (secondary) contributors to the cited source.", but per <<Template:Cite AV media notes#General]], [[Cite AV media notes |title=Album Title |first=First |last=Last |others=<<Artist>> |date=2022 |url=h t t p ://www.wikipedia.org |page=1|type=Type |publisher=Publisher |id=Publisher ID |location=Location>>, others is to be used to list Artist. So when citing CD liners, the album title gets listed under title, but there is no other method for listing artist except for others, which complies with AV media notes guidelines. This CS1 maintenance seems to be the one in error. Mburrell (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The obvious solution is to add the author of the notes, or "Anon." if not stated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the obvious solution is to add an additional field to AV Media (notes) for artist. Mburrell (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be obvious to anyone who tries to verify a {{cite av media notes}} citation that it is much harder to find the source by the author of the notes than it is by the related artist. AV sources are rarely classified by notes authors.
    I don't remember why there is a separate template for notes. They are as tightly integrated with the AV work as a foreword to a book. This template can easily be replaced with |contribution=Media notes or |contribution="Media notes title" and |contributor=Authorname, added to template {{cite av media}}. 24.105.140.106 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This maintenance category used to be part of Category:CS1 maint: others but was split out because we don't know the best way to deal with them. See the instituting discussion as well as a more recent discussion as well as this older discussion and this older discussion. Izno (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CS1 errors: dates

    Hello, wondered if anyone knows what has happened to category:CS1 errors: dates which has gone up by over 100 entries. New ones in the category do not show an entry in the hidden categories on the page. It could be that some template was changed and the jobqueue is still processing them. Keith D (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    could you link some of the new ones? Aidan9382 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since they all seem to be music-related, I'm guessing that this template change fixed a temporary problem that was causing a bunch of date errors, and now the job queue is removing the affected articles from the category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it looks like it is slowly returning to the previous level. Keith D (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The category seems to be stable at 5,820 pages right now. I am very impressed by the steady progress that editors have made in reducing the number of pages in this category. I know that beyond a certain point of easy fixes, correcting each error requires actual manual work to determine and implement the right change. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    URL access restriction for non-accessible sources

    The instructions don't seem to say what to put for |url-access= for something that is simply not accessible to the public at all – e.g., a document that may exist but is internal to an institution. For example, Utah Tech University has a citation to this, something that appears to only be accessible to employees and/or students of the university. The meaning of the "limited" value seems to be that it is still possible, within some limits, "to freely access this source". But "subscription" is not accurate either, since it is not possible to obtain "a paid subscription with the provider". The limit is more formidable than a "paywall". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @BarrelProof - Per Template:Cite_web#Access_indicators_for_url-holding_parameters, I suggest |url-access=registration. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The url takes the reader to a login page that wants a 'Digital ID@utahtech.edu' identifier. That implies that those who have the requisite IDs are faculty, staff, or students at Utah Tech University. When rendered, |url-access=registration tells cs1|2 templates to emit a tool tip that says: 'Free registration required'. There is no indication at the sign-in page how to get a 'free registration'.
    I have fixed the citation template. I also deleted the archive-url because an archived copy of a sign-in page is more-or-less pointless
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Trappist, but personally would take it further, because as noted, there is no publicly available subscription. Is that school's "Faculty Termination Policy" non-public? If so, citing it in Wikipedia may not be acceptable, and technically may violate CS1 guideline that sources be published (i.e. available to the general public). I would try to find other, public sources to support the wikitext. The restriction should include archives of non-public sources when they actually provide the content. Bad form. 68.173.78.83 (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Translation year

    Hello there! A query. For a source like

    Sallust (1921) [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C. Cambridge: Harvard University Press – via LacusCurtius.

    It isn't really the case that Sallust (who died in 35 BC) wrote the thing in 1921. The year of (this specific Loeb) translation was 1921, but would it be possible to have something like a translation-date parameter which could place closer to the translator rather than perhaps implying that Sallust lived for two thousand years? (And if some parameter already does this, please direct me to it!) Maybe something like:

    Sallust [1st century BC]. "Bellum Catilinae". Sallust. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Rolfe, John C (1921). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Thanks. Ifly6 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not a good idea to read citations as text, or as part of article prose. They utilize shorthand, ideally according to the way works are classified, hopefully presenting the best & easiest way to find the source. Neither prose-related aesthetics or semantics enter into it. As part of the article's end matter, they have their own semantics. Works are often classified and found by author and date of publication as it appears in the cited edition, and/or also by title of publication. There is no classification system that utilizes the translation date as far as I know. Certainly not in the indexing of works. I would not expect that information will help in locating the source. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Classical scholars do not classify by translation date; that is why I am asking as to how we can move the translation date from the front to the middle. In classical scholarship, the primary sources are cited entirely without dates. Not only because the dates are usually unknown (the publication date of Bellum Catilinae is still debated, the TAQ is 35 and TPQ is 44) but also because the primary sources are not organised that way. They are organised by author and title. See https://guides.library.yale.edu/classics/classics-abbreviations ; eg, the Oxford Classical Dictionary abbreviation (commonly used in English-language scholarship), for the cited material is merely Sall. Cat. without reference to any specific translation. There is usually no reference to any specific translation because classical scholarship assumes you do not need any specific translation. Ifly6 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The date provided in the |date= field should be the date of publication, not the date of translation, which (for citation purposes) is not relevant. I would not compare or contrast Wikipedia citations with any scholarly, academic, or expert reference system. They target very dissimilar audiences. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I often see citations to ancient works and wonder just how they manage to slip through the RS dragnets. Consider carefully whether you should even be citing such works.
    The first citation looks fine and exactly like what you need/want. It indicates the modern date of publication and the original date of authorship, which is the purpose of the parameters you've used. Izno (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ancient works are primary sources, they are fine when the text is not based on them and only used as illustration.
    "The first citation looks fine and exactly like what you need/want.", not really. Most ancient sources cannot be dated, and the translation date still appears before the date of writing, which is very confusing. T8612 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'll refer you to IP50's commentary. I don't see a reason to make a change here. Izno (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ifly6 and T8612: The citation is describing a published source, and the citation is structured so that interested readers can locate the cited source and verify its content for themselves. Saying that the source was published in 1921 is what we want, since that will help a reader go to a library or internet archive and find the matching source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The blanket statements of disdain for ancient sources here are Wikipedia:Recentism in its purest form. Some ancient sources such as Euclid's Elements are secondary, not primary, and are very reliable for what they source. Just like with modern sources, one must determine ancient source reliability individually and with care. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking to commercial publishers: Exception?

    The page currently reads: "Do not link to: [...] Commercial sites such as Amazon, unless no alternative exists."

    Would it be alright to add an exception clause for open access books, often which are available on commercial sites?

    See e.g. [here https://global.oup.com/academic/open-access/titles/?cc=jp&lang=en&].

    Even if this is stated or implied elswhere on the page (I didn't see it if it is, sorry), it'd be good to add a short clarification clause where the page talks about linking to commerical sites. Cameron.coombe (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The reasoning behind the commercial link warning is that Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing or sales tool. However open access sources are free, and I would think it obvious they would be allowed irrespective of the platform. I would support such clarification, if one is needed. I don't think there is a problem with citations linking to the site in your example.
    As an aside, I sometimes archive live webpages on sales sites such as online stores, and then cite the archive only, so a sale cannot be done from the link. Make sure that the archive is a true screenshot with all links/scripts disabled. 68.132.154.35 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Generic title

    Hello, could |title=Login be added as a generic title, |title=Login • Instagram appears to produce the "Cite uses generic title (help)" but not just |title=Login. Keith D (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    DOI question

    I've had this problem before and anyone I have asked seems to know of no solution. I posted a query to the help desk to see if more eyes than my circle of editing people could find a solution and they referred me here. We have url and chapter-url, but as far as I can tell, there is no similar way to mark the doi and chapter-doi. And, yes, I know that it isn't required to have a link, but if you are preparing a GA or FA, its good to have them in the article for a review, besides which, as the writer, I may go back and recheck a ref. The case I am working on right now is book and chapter. The url links can't be used as they are proxied. (I am definitely challenged by wikitechnology, so I need step by step instructions that are easy to follow.) Thanks to anyone who might be able to help or offer a solution. SusunW (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand that for citations you only need to provide the DOI numbers. It's up to readers to work out how to access the text. In your case, doi:10.3138/9781487542122-015 works for the chapter, and doi:10.3138/9781487542122 for the book. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: If you're citing the chapter, simply use the chapter DOI and omit the book DOI. The ISBN is enough to identify the book. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    Please don't include urls that have wikipedialibrary subdomains in live articles; no reader can follow that url to its destination and I would suspect that most editors do not have privilege of the wikipedialibrary. I've been seeing more of those urls recently.
    This question is about this?:
    {{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122 |date=2022 |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |location=Toronto |chapter=9 A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |chapter-doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |pages=189-225 |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2}}
    No identifier used in cs1|2 template has separate work/subsection forms. Generally it is not necessary to supply the doi of the work if you are providing the doi of a subsection. For example, it is easy to get to the work from the chapter's doi:10.3138/9781487542122-015 landing page which has multiple links to the States of Liberation landing page.
    If you must, you can add the work's doi this way: |id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}}:
    {{cite book |last1=Huneke |first1=Samuel Clowes |date=2022 |chapter=A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany |doi=10.3138/9781487542122-015 |title=States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany |id={{doi|10.3138/9781487542122}} |isbn=978-1-4875-4212-2 |location=Toronto |publisher=[[University of Toronto Press]] |pages=189–225}}
    Huneke, Samuel Clowes (2022). "A Golden Age in the Grey Republic: Liberation and the Stasi in East Germany". States of Liberation: Gay Men Between Dictatorship and Democracy in Cold War Germany. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 189–225. doi:10.3138/9781487542122-015. ISBN 978-1-4875-4212-2. doi:10.3138/9781487542122.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Trappist the monk! That answers my question. For the life of me, I cannot understand why wikitechnology is not intuitive and requires so many hoops to be jumped through. I truly appreciate your help. And yes, I know not to use the proxied link, but the only way to give the example was to use it. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    wikipedialibrary urls

    If anyone is looking for something to fix... this search returns about 180 articles that have wikipedialibrary urls.

    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    When the volume of a journal is the correct target for a link

    The following reference from Hurwitz's theorem (number theory) throws an error, because we don't allow links to volumes of journals.

    But in this case, the content of the link really is the volume of the journal, and the individual paper is more difficult to link. Any suggestions for how to format in a way that both makes sense and makes the templates happy? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed document edit

    Currently the Work section contains the following sentence:

    Aliases: journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website.

    However, at least in the case of journal, the citation format can change from the layout for the 'work' option. For example:

    work= : Gontcharov, G. A. (November 2006), "Pulkovo Compilation of Radial Velocities for 35495 Hipparcos stars in a common system", Astronomy Letters, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 759–771, arXiv:1606.08053, Bibcode:2006AstL...32..759G, doi:10.1134/S1063773706110065, S2CID 119231169.
    journal= : Gontcharov, G. A. (November 2006), "Pulkovo Compilation of Radial Velocities for 35495 Hipparcos stars in a common system", Astronomy Letters, 32 (11): 759–771, arXiv:1606.08053, Bibcode:2006AstL...32..759G, doi:10.1134/S1063773706110065, S2CID 119231169.

    I'm proposing the sentence be changed to the following:

    Aliases: journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website. (The alias journal will modify the citation format.)

    Praemonitus (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed change or changes to the link status parameter

    I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Proposal_to_change_citation_templates_which_hurt_articles'_Google_ranking and was told about this page. I'm not sure if this discussion will move here, but if not at least there is a link to the VP discussion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I've seen quite a few such template instances that have an archive link but are still active. Perhaps the bot is checking the links at a time when there is an outage or a certificate issue? Sometimes it can be as simple as the link changing from http to https. Praemonitus (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Among the suggestions at the Village Pump was to change the dead links to plain unlinked text. I haven't seen an example how that might look, but I suspect it would add considerable verbiage to the emitted text. I suggest that would be a bad thing; it would add horrible clutter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are inline googleoff and googleon tags that could be used. Praemonitus (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like nofollow, this should probably be a mainspace-wide issue. Another problem with delinking the "original" url is the case of preemptive archiving. In such cases the original link is not dead, only pre-empted. This is an efficient way of handling possible link rot, as it requires no maintenance, without any degradation of the reader-facing info. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Cite magazine

    This has both page= and pages= as required parameters. Is it possible to make the former unrequired as it is redundant to the latter, similar to the TemplataData of {{cite news}} and {{cite book}}? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's one or the other, and they are different. Compare
    "Foobar". Barfoo Monthly. p. 9.
    "Foobar". Barfoo Monthly. pp. 9–10.
    Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why I brought this was, because the other two cite templates have only "pages=" which can be used even for single pages. So, consistency. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? Not true, both forms (singular & plural) exist as distinct parameters. Afaik there is no input validation to check if it matches the singular or plural form. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Citation_Style_1&oldid=1094401222"